Syria sets basis for Israel talks

[MicroBalrog]

 Syria sets basis for Israel talks

Syria has sent a list of proposals to Israel aimed at laying the groundwork for direct peace talks between the two foes, President Bashar al-Assad says.

"We are awaiting Israel's response to six points submitted through Turkey," Mr Assad said, promising Syria would respond positively to Israel's answer.

Direct talks could happen once a new US administration "which believes in the peace process" takes office, he said.

Syria has remained in a state of war with Israel since its 1948 foundation.

Mr Assad was speaking at a four-way summit with the leaders of France and key Middle East mediators Qatar and Turkey.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country holds the revolving EU presidency, said he hoped France and the EU could rank alongside the US as a Middle East peacemaker.

Mr Assad cautioned that the success of future of negotiations depended on who became the next prime minister in Israel as well as who succeeded US President George W Bush.

'Happy with results'

Mr Assad said Syria had outlined six points about the "withdrawal line", a reference to the extent of Israel's possible withdrawal from the Golan Heights which it occupied in 1967.

   It is very important that the time for Syria and Israel to talk directly comes soon
French President Nicolas Sarkozy
"We want the support of all states... to be assured the next [Israeli] prime minister will follow the same direction as [the incumbent Ehud] Olmert through his readiness for complete withdrawal from the occupied territories for peace to be achieved," he said.

Aides of the outgoing Mr Olmert - who is resigning over a number of corruption scandals which he denies involvement in - declined to comment on Mr Assad's disclosure.

"We are very happy with the results we have achieved," said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose government has mediated four rounds of indirect Israeli-Syrian talks since May.

Turkey has close ties with Israel and the Arab world and is uniquely positioned to mediate, correspondents say.

"It is very important that the time for Syria and Israel to talk directly comes soon, to build the peace everyone needs," Mr Sarkozy said on the first day of his two-day visit to Damascus.

The US and other Western powers have shunned Syria, citing its support of Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Mr Assad said Syria had been expecting "a fifth crucial round of talks... to determine the evolution of these negotiations" to begin on Sunday, but the process had been put on hold because of political changes in Israel.

Mr Erdogan was quoted by Anatolian state news agency as saying they had been rescheduled to 18-19 September.

Rehabilitating Syria

The BBC's Bethany Bell in Damascus says the summit brings together several key regional players, but progress is likely to be tentative at best.

President Sarkozy is the first Western leader to visit the Syrian capital since Syria's critics blamed it for the murder of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri in February 2005.

The Hariri bombing - which Syria firmly denied involvement in - caused relations between Paris and Damascus to plummet.

But Mr Sarkozy hosted Mr Assad in July and correspondents say he appears determined to bring Syria, a long-time foe of the US and Israel, back into the international fold.

Former colonial power France's mediation has already brought an easing of tensions between Syria and Lebanon.

Sitting at the fourth corner of the summit table was the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and his Prime Minister, Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, who helped broker an internal peace deal in Lebanon.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7597956.stm

Published: 2008/09/04 12:36:59 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

[HankB]

And Syria's six points are ? ? ?

[French G.]

Probably 6 points about Syria regaining all of Shebaa Farms, some stuff about limited forces in the area which Syria will then violate by claiming it doesn't control Hezbollah. I can see Israel agreeing to a withdraw because they seem to have acted in pretty good faith regarding Gaza withdrawals/West Bank autonomy considering how many times they have been screwed over. I think I'd rather Israel not agree and keep all of Golan because when a rocket gets lobbed into Nazareth from there the response is going to be costly on a scale larger than Israel. I think that would be the good pretext for Iran to do something colossally stupid to Israel.

I've been to Tiberias on the west of the Sea of Galilee, you look up into the heights on the opposite shore and knowing all of the population and agricultural centers behind you, decide that only a fool would give up those heights to an enemy. 

[BrokenPaw]

Direct talks could happen once a new US administration "which believes in the peace process" takes office, he said.

Tinfoil hat hypothesis:  Syria has no intention of actually stopping being, well, Syria, but is willing to float a proposal like this in order to foster support for Obama (that's how I read the bit about a new US administration -- if they were talking about McCain, then they'd have no problem with Bush, either).  Perhaps Syria figures that enough Americans want peace in the middle east that they'll support Obama who, in turn, Syria believes will be soft on terrorism.  Once Obama is in office, Syria can renege on the proposal, and the terrorists it supports will be able to breathe easier knowing Obama won't do anything about it.

So.  Election-year politics, played on an international stage? 

Or did I eat too much paste again?

-BP

[French G.]

I don't think anyone rational, especially Israel, thinks Syria will do anything but be Syria and go back on their word. I'm sure Syria would be ecstatic if this helped Obama. Talking to dictators and rogue states works so well, that's why we've made so much progress with North Korean nuke dismantlement and Iranian enriching halts/inspection. 

  Of course direct action was one of the things that prompted Libya to give up its WMD quest, that and I think Khaddafi actually wants to see his country improve join the real world. Rice is over there now meeting with him, I think that is a good thing.

[De Selby]

I don't think anyone rational, especially Israel, thinks Syria will do anything but be Syria and go back on their word. I'm sure Syria would be ecstatic if this helped Obama. Talking to dictators and rogue states works so well, that's why we've made so much progress with North Korean nuke dismantlement and Iranian enriching halts/inspection. 

  Of course direct action was one of the things that prompted Libya to give up its WMD quest, that and I think Khaddafi actually wants to see his country improve join the real world. Rice is over there now meeting with him, I think that is a good thing.

Uh, when has Syria gone back on its word against someone other than its own population?

You folks have the fears all wrong-the biggest possible threat to Israel at this juncture is a Syria that goes democratic and keeps its promises, not one that is dictatorial and that makes deals irrespective of the consent of its own people.

[MechAg94]

Israel would be foolish to give up the Golan Heights IMO.

[MicroBalrog]

Israel would be foolish to give up the Golan Heights IMO.

I remind you that the very PURPOSE of conquering the Heights was to use them in later bargaining in exchange for peace.

That's been made clear in the policy of every administration since, and that, IMO, is the main reasons while the Golan Heights, despite having the best climate and soil of all of Israel, has not been as heavily invested in by previous administrations.

[MechAg94]

I was thinking the purpose was to stop shelling of Israeli territory, or at least that might have been the justification. 

[Manedwolf]

I was thinking the purpose was to stop shelling of Israeli territory, or at least that might have been the justification. 

Yes, it was.

And won't the naive sorts be surprised when they start shelling again.

First rule of war. Hold the high ground.

[De Selby]

I was thinking the purpose was to stop shelling of Israeli territory, or at least that might have been the justification. 

Pretty clearly not the purpose, considering all that's gone on with that land and how it was seized in the first place.

"Holding the high ground" sure worked out spectactularly in 73 and 78 and 82 and 2000 and 2006, didn't it?

I think the constant American pressure for a super speed, IDF/Mossad response to every threat is one of the more grave disservices done to Israel by another country.

Betting on the military solution for Israel's future is folly given the record of the military over the past 30 years, and given the incompetence and corruption of the people who manage it in Israel.

*Then there's also the impact on millions of Arabs of constant warfare, but those lives just aren't relevant in American discourse, so I usually don't waste my breath pointing out that actions which will predictably kill thousands of innocent people for no realistic benefit to anyone other than a bloated defense establishment might be immoral.

[Manedwolf]

I think you're not understanding that Israel simply has admirable restraint.

They COULD do a Guernica on Gaza at any time. But they would not. Because they're better than their enemies who have no qualms about deliberately targeting civilian centers.

[De Selby]

I think you're not understanding that Israel simply has admirable restraint.

They COULD do a Guernica on Gaza at any time. But they would not. Because they're better than their enemies who have no qualms about deliberately targeting civilian centers.

Yeah right-and it would turn out about as well as the Guernica on South Lebanon. 

I'm sorry, but the army that got beaten so badly by Hizbullah's non-state forces is not going to conclusively end anything with any assault.

Maybe if they built gas chambers and steadily ran the people of Gaza through them over time, you could achieve the same result, but that's not going to happen.

An all out military assault by Israel has uniformly failed to achieve the goals of the state in every single attempt post 1967.  When I read about Israel's "restraint" and about the fantastic military capabilities of the folks who recently got beaten by a third world, rural force, I think some folks have seen "Munich" one too many times.

[Manedwolf]

Yeah right-and it would turn out about as well as the Guernica on South Lebanon. 

I'm sorry, but the army that got beaten so badly by Hizbullah's non-state forces is not going to conclusively end anything with any assault.

Um. Well, I can tell you don't know your history at all.

Guernica was a town completely destroyed by saturation bombing from aircraft during the Spanish Civil War. Wave after wave, until the entire town was flattened, and a large percentage of population was killed.

Israel COULD do that to Gaza. Anytime. Would solve the problem. But it would be inherently wrong and evil, so they won't and would not do it.

Israel's operations have been limited so as to avoid civilian casualties. Hezbollah and Hamas operations have been conducted to maximize them.

[De Selby]

Maned,

Yeah, the comparison you missed was to Lebanon-entire cities were levelled in South Lebanon during the 2006 war.  Literally, by saturation bombing, and they were also mined by cluster bombs for the post war period.

The result?

Hizbullah killed one of Israel's top special forces commanders post war, and then got everything it demanded in the first place in exchange for the bodies of its hostages.

So yeah-Israel's operations have not always been limited, and the full out war on Hizbullah was a failure, any way you slice it, despite the use of saturation bombing, mining, and all manner of "special forces" type bravado to try and beat the organization.

I will give the Israeli military establishment this: it has the best public relations of any army.  They've somehow managed to convince the world that a 30 year string of puzzling failures is a model of efficiency and strength.

[Manedwolf]

That was NOT saturation bombing.

A series of B-52s unloading in parallel lines across an entire city would be saturation bombing. They don't have those.

In their case, a series of thermobaric weapons, FAEs, one after the other to avoid cancellation of effect due to the fireballs stealing each other's oxygen, laid down in a grid. It would exterminate a city.

They have those. Would they ever use them like that?

No. It would be evil.

Would Hamas, if they had the ability? Without hesitation.

That's the difference.

[De Selby]

That was NOT saturation bombing.

A series of B-52s unloading in parallel lines across an entire city would be saturation bombing. They don't have those.

In their case, a series of thermobaric weapons, FAEs, one after the other to avoid cancellation of effect due to the fireballs stealing each other's oxygen, laid down in a grid. It would exterminate a city.

They have those. Would they ever use them like that?

No. It would be evil.

Would Hamas, if they had the ability? Without hesitation.

That's the difference.

It's a false dilemma, because no side has this option-there are people in Israel who advocate it, and there are people in the Palestinian community who advocate it, but neither group has power, and it is not an option for either...it's the same as the gas chamber solution.

It's a curious definition of "restraint" when you apply it to mean "we're restrained because we aren't committing genocide."  By that definition, the Sudanese are restrained because they haven't yet resorted to an industrial program of execution (they prefer slaves, it seems), and Russia was "highly restrained" in Georgia because it could've just wiped Georgia out completely.

[MicroBalrog]

I was thinking the purpose was to stop shelling of Israeli territory, or at least that might have been the justification. 

That, AND future peace talks.

[Manedwolf]

It's a false dilemma, because no side has this option-there are people in Israel who advocate it, and there are people in the Palestinian community who advocate it, but neither group has power, and it is not an option for either...it's the same as the gas chamber solution.

Because the people in the Palestinian communities so vehmently oppose the Quassams being fired from their neighborhoods. Why, they run out and stop the launchers all the time, and chase the people out. Right?

Oh, no, that's right. They dance in the streets when one hits a mall in Israel.

Argument invalid.

[MicroBalrog]

It's a false dilemma, because no side has this option-there are people in Israel who advocate it, and there are people in the Palestinian community who advocate it, but neither group has power, and it is not an option for either...it's the same as the gas chamber solution.

Because the people in the Palestinian communities so vehmently oppose the Quassams being fired from their neighborhoods. Why, they run out and stop the launchers all the time, and chase the people out. Right?

Oh, no, that's right. They dance in the streets when one hits a mall in Israel.

Argument invalid.

For one, most of the time, the launchers are fired from uninhabited area.

Second, there HAVE been repeated incidents of people shooting the Quassam guys. There's been an entire Palestinian family/clan that established a 'no launchers on our land' rule, and enforced it by disappearing Hamas operatives.

Third, the fact that SOME Palestinians dance in the streets when Israel gets hit means nothing.

Fourth, and key, the launches have in fact become increasingly rare since the last 'ceasefire' has been signed. Hamas is apparently not launching.

Fifth, there is no long-term future for Israel outside f the context of continued peace talks.

[roo_ster]

In the long term, we're ALL dead, anyway.

Israel will need to be on top of its game to survive another 20 years.

[MicroBalrog]

In the long term, we're ALL dead, anyway.

Israel will need to be on top of its game to survive another 20 years.

Now you sound like a Taggart Trains board member.

Seriously though, peace talks. They're your friend.

[Manedwolf]

In the long term, we're ALL dead, anyway.

Israel will need to be on top of its game to survive another 20 years.

Now you sound like a Taggart Trains board member.

Seriously though, peace talks. They're your friend.

They're a chance for the bad guys to reload and build more rockets. That's all they see them as.

Someday, Israel might understand that. Or maybe not.

[De Selby]

In the long term, we're ALL dead, anyway.

Israel will need to be on top of its game to survive another 20 years.

Now you sound like a Taggart Trains board member.

Seriously though, peace talks. They're your friend.

They're a chance for the bad guys to reload and build more rockets. That's all they see them as.

Someday, Israel might understand that. Or maybe not.

I guess the Shin Bet and the Mossad just don't have the same intelligence tools that you do. 

The fact is, claiming that you have some special insight into the mindset of a people who are right next door to Micro does not appear to be a valid means of refuting his claims about what is happening in Israel.

[MicroBalrog]

In the long term, we're ALL dead, anyway.

Israel will need to be on top of its game to survive another 20 years.

Now you sound like a Taggart Trains board member.

Seriously though, peace talks. They're your friend.

They're a chance for the bad guys to reload and build more rockets. That's all they see them as.

Someday, Israel might understand that. Or maybe not.

The guys we're negotiating with (FATAH) are not firing any rockets at all.

More importantly, this very same thing was claimed about peace with Egypt. Peace with Egypt worked.

This very same thing was claimed about peace with Jordan. The peace with Jordan worked.