Israel & Syria: Different Political Calculations, Different Conclusions

On Monday, Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak tried to underline the significance of an immediate peace with Syria:

In the absence of a deal with Syria we could reach an armed conflict that could develop into a full-fledged war. As is in the Middle East, immediately after the war we will sit down and negotiate exactly what we have been talking about for the past 15 years.

On Tuesday night, Barak continued his warnings, but this time he emphasized the importance of peace on the West Bank, since failure to reach an agreement with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an apartheid regime:

As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.

However, the response from Damascus was not what Tel Aviv wanted to hear.


Late Tuesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem accused Tel Aviv of  "planting the seeds of war in the region" and warned Israeli officials to "stop playing the role of thugs in the Middle East". He continued:

One day you threaten Gaza, next day you threaten Lebanon, later Iran and now Syria.

Don't test, you Israelis, the determination of Syria. You know that war this time would move to your cities. Come to your senses and choose the road of peace. This path is clear.

Then, Moallem emphasized the possibility of a war in the "south of Lebanon". He said, "No doubt, if we assume that this war would erupt --- and we should not exclude this possibility from an entity established on expansion --- I would say it is going to be a comprehensive war, whether it starts in the south of Lebanon or from Syria."

The response from Damascus comes as Washington appoints diplomat Robert Ford as the first US Ambassador to Syria since 2005. With this favourable wind, Syria has played the more confident party whose demand/pre-condition is the withdrawal of the Israeli presence from the Golan Heights. At a time of stalled indirect talks, it appears that the Syrian Government has decided to ratchet up criticism of Israel. Syrian President Bashar Assad said on Wednesday that Israel is not serious about its intentions to make peace with Damascus as evidenced by "its conduct which is leading the region to war".

In return, the Foreign Ministry of Israel kicked back with a far different tone from that of Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman jumped in:

Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power.

Our message should be that if Assad's father lost a war but remained in power, the son should know that an attack would cost him his regime. This is the message that must be conveyed to the Syrian leader by Israel.

At the end of the day, Assad's and Moallem's aggressive statements found their double in the Israeli Government. It was not difficult for Lieberman to embed Damascus's recent statements into a security approach that rests on the existence of an "evil". He said:

Whoever thinks territorial concessions will disconnect Syria from the axis of evil is mistaken. Syria must be made to understand that it has to relinquish its demand for the Golan Heights.

Comments

[jehad]

For the past few months Israel have been threatening all its neihbours either directly (lebanon) or indirectly (jordan). Now that Syria's FM has responded, the whole thing becomes an issue. This is expected from many news outlets but I find it disapointing when it comes from the economist.