The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > Opinion > Editorials

EDITORIAL: An Israel-Syria 'deal'?

By | Friday, August 29, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

The government of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad wants to sell the West on the notion that it may be ready to hold peace talks with Israel. Damascus tells visiting Western journalists that Syria has received private assurances from Turkish mediators that Israel will return the Golan Heights to Syria (the same region from which Syrian soldiers used for close to 19 years to shell Israeli farmers in the valley below) as part of an overall peace agreement. The Syrians and the French have yet to provide real substance on two very critical questions that could destroy any deal:

1) How will Israel protect its civilian population if such harassment resumes after the territory is returned to Syria?; and 2) How will Israel be protected from a Syrian attempt to carry out a surprise attack like one that began the 1973 Yom Kippur War - this time from locations much closer to Israeli population centers?

According to David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post who thinks the idea has merit, Syria is not interested in ending its ties with Iran. Instead, it seeks to "broaden" its foreign relationships and become less dependent on Tehran. Syrian officials tell him that Mr. Assad has an important card to play in negotiations: putting pressure on Hamas to "restrain" attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which would address a major U.S. concern. That concern, of course, is Syrian support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. The Syrians haven't explained what they mean by "restraint." Does it mean that they should try to keep terrorist attacks below some particular threshold? Does that mean limiting the number of rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israel in some quantifiable way? The Syrians provide little useful information on these questions.

What exactly will Syria do to "restrain" Hezbollah? This matter has become very important - particularly in view of the warning that the Israeli government just issued: Hezbollah wants to kidnap Israeli tourists. Damascus has been silent on this issue as well. But it has been open about its insistence that the United States not worry about Mr. Assad's trip to Moscow last week to discuss arms sales and military cooperation. The visit was supposedly necessary, Damascus says, because Mr. Assad feels that Syria needs Russian "protection" in the event of a war between Iran and Israel.

Maybe there is a geopolitical sea change taking place in Damascus. If so, the Assad government has thus far hidden it very skillfully. In March 2000, President Clinton put the prestige of his office on the line in the hope that Mr. Assad's father was ready to make a peace agreement with Israel. Hafez Assad showed by his actions that he was not, and then proceeded to sabotage Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's efforts to withdraw from southern Lebanon. We shouldn't be deluded again.

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

  • Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (R) stands by as his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad (L), departs following a visit to Tehran on August 3, 2008. Ahmadinejad told visiting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad Aug. 3 that Tehran is serious about finding a practical solution to the nuclear crisis

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  3. CIA chief urged to 'correct' record
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate

Most Shared

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  2. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  3. PRUDEN: Ministry of Apology would cure all ills
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. YON: Girl with no future
  6. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  7. EDITORIAL: Killing Cap & Trade
  8. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate
  9. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files
  10. Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.