See, it is possible - Israel and Syria have been talking

Yesterday news broke that Israel and Syria have had unofficial contacts to discuss the future of their relationship - not least in relation to the Golan Heights and Hamas.

It got derailed by the Lebanon fiasco, but may well be on track again soon.

Of course Prime Minister Olmert has denied it (or at least any official sanction, but official deniability is crucial to these kind of negotiations) but the Foreign Ministry has accepted that it knew. Today it appears the US was kept in the loop.

Why everyone feels such shame in making sensible steps towards peace with their enemies, I'll never know, but it shows that there is hope for the region. Until I suppose, the ultra-nationalists on both sides go flip.

If I had a euro for every time I've heard "No surrender" from the mouth of someone who was at the same time having tea and cakes with his hated foe, I'd... ~:rolleyes:

Anyway, good news, methinks - and some very interesting solutions. Here's a fun game - speculate on the European country that facilitated all this - somewhere warm this time? :beam:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Israeli, Syrian representatives reach secret understandings

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

In a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006, Syrians and Israelis formulated understandings for a peace agreement between Israel and Syria.

The main points of the understandings are as follows:

An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed.

As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years.

At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval.

Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret.

The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor.

According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran.

The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing - its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe.

The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon.

Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings.

The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general."

The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request.

The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria.

For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime.

According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party.

He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital.

Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem.

Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret.

"This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said.

It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime - the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority - asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran.

Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade.

"We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings."

Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation - following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level - and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords.

There was no initial formal response from the Prime Minister's Office after the story broke early on Tuesday. But the Israel Radio quoted unnamed senior Israeli officials as stating that Israel is not holding contacts with Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If I had a euro for every time I've heard "No surrender" from the mouth of someone who was at the same time having tea and cakes with his hated foe, I'd... ~:rolleyes:

---

You could retire a very wealthy Irishman. Going to sleep every night on top of a large pile of money with many beautiful ladies. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If I had a euro for every time I've heard "No surrender" from the mouth of someone who was at the same time having tea and cakes with his hated foe, I'd... ~:rolleyes:

Anyway, good news, methinks - and some very interesting solutions. Here's a fun game - speculate on the European country that facilitated all this - somewhere warm this time? :beam:

---

Well, if you got a £ you'd be even richer. I suspect that either France or Turkey had something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Yesterday news broke that Israel and Syria have had unofficial contacts to discuss the future of their relationship - not least in relation to the Golan Heights and Hamas.

It got derailed by the Lebanon fiasco, but may well be on track again soon.

Of course Prime Minister Olmert has denied it (or at least any official sanction, but official deniability is crucial to these kind of negotiations) but the Foreign Ministry has accepted that it knew. Today it appears the US was kept in the loop.

Why everyone feels such shame in making sensible steps towards peace with their enemies, I'll never know, but it shows that there is hope for the region. Until I suppose, the ultra-nationalists on both sides go flip.

If I had a euro for every time I've heard "No surrender" from the mouth of someone who was at the same time having tea and cakes with his hated foe, I'd... ~:rolleyes:

---

There was a report a while back that the CIA had worked out a deal with their Syrian counterparts, whereby they get full access to Syrian intelligence in return for US non-interference in Syrian-Israeli affairs. The CIA thought this was a ruddy good deal, as it meant they were getting something substantial, and didn't have to pay a dime. When he heard of it, Bush quickly put a stop to the deal, presumably because he felt non-interference would mean a betrayal of his Israeli friends.

As it turns out, Syria would come to an accommodation with Israel anyway, and the Americans have lost a chance to get something for nothing. The neocons really do have a knack of paying the highest possible price for the least possible benefit.

First, Pannonian, any actual published reports, or is this a story you heard at a cocktail party? I'm no fan of the present administration, but baseless accusations shouldn't be entertained until there's some facts to back them up.

BG, good post. I think everyone is looking at the wrong player. Israel is always only too happy to talk to its neighbors. Hell, there were still open hostilities in the Sinai in the late 70s when Begin and Sadat hammered it all out. It's always a question of when the neighbors want to talk to Israel. So why would Syria all of a sudden want to become peaceable with Israel?

My guess, they know better than anyone what Iran's plans for the future are. As Assad and his Baathist regime are Sunni, they must be getting nervous about Iran getting the bomb. That they are so desparate that they would enter talks with Israel indicates to me they know something about the current state of Iran's nuclear capabilities we don't. :skull:

Nope. :no:

Olmert: No government officials involved in secret Syria talks

By Haaretz Staff

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that no government officials were involved in secret contacts with Syria, responding to a Haaretz report that understandings on a peace agreement between Jerusalem and Damascus were formulated in a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006.

Quote:

---

First, Pannonian, any actual published reports, or is this a story you heard at a cocktail party? I'm no fan of the present administration, but baseless accusations shouldn't be entertained until there's some facts to back them up.

---

Well Don , these reports are old news and the change in status of Syria from bloody handy ally in the WOT to evil terrorist nation were discussed several times here on this forum , particularly concerning rendition .

Anyhow to the topic , good news , but will it go all the way .
What is it now , 3 or 4 resolutions calling for settlement of the issue , plus the last one on Lebanon also called for it .
The stumbling block has always come down to water , which essentialy is what the war was fought for in the first place .

Edit to add

Quote:

---

Nope.

Olmert: No government officials involved in secret Syria talks

---

Vlad , in case you didn't get the reference from Banquos post , that is normal .
Right up until the proposed deal is formally publicly issued by governments they will deny unequivocally that they are , have been or would ever talk to those people .
And after the pressure on Olmert domesticly and the threat his party is under there is no way they would say anything different , just as they recently continually denied that they were in negotiation with either Hamas or hezballah over prisoner exchanges until they thought they had something they could sell to the public .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

First, Pannonian, any actual published reports, or is this a story you heard at a cocktail party? I'm no fan of the present administration, but baseless accusations shouldn't be entertained until there's some facts to back them up.

---

Hersh in the New Yorker, who AFAIK has a reputation for being "lax" on the details, but who has a pretty good record for bringing stories to light so they can be further investigated.

could this be somehow linked to the now disparate administration in the US trying to get things moving in the middle-east before the elections?

also their are a lot of non-government players in Israel that are trying to solove problems with out the government at all. just a thought. but the above poster is right, the sticking point will be and always has been water and access to it, and more so control of it.

Never believe anything until it has been ofiicially denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

could this be somehow linked to the now disparate administration in the US trying to get things moving in the middle-east before the elections?

also their are a lot of non-government players in Israel that are trying to solove problems with out the government at all. just a thought. but the above poster is right, the sticking point will be and always has been water and access to it, and more so control of it.

---

Sorry, we already had our elections. The '08 ones are a ways off.

Part of the preconditions for peace with Syria has been a return of the Heights. They're just so valuable that Israel isn't willing to let them go, that and the amazing heroic efforts of the Israeli defenders. Syria will do whatever Iran tells them to do in less it looks like (central) Iraq will pull itself out of chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Sorry, we already had our elections. The '08 ones are a ways off.

---

A ways off?:dizzy2:
The fact that the short-term policies propagated by politicians is also finding a foothold in the general population is a bad sign, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

A ways off?:dizzy2:
The fact that the short-term policies propagated by politicians is also finding a foothold in the general population is a bad sign, in my opinion.

---

Tell me about it. Too much of our foreign policy revolves around election cycles :shame: . Someone had a thread here about a uniform foreign policy but I don't think it will happen. Israel has tended to have one but most of the founding generation is dying off and they're changing their stance. For the most part though, they really seem to believe in "never again" even if causes them to make short term mistakes.

Quote:

---

They're just so valuable that Israel isn't willing to let them go, that and the amazing heroic efforts of the Israeli defenders.

---

Isn't occupiers the correct word there Vlad ?
It is after all not Israeli land , and they were the ones who attacked , plus they had been shelling the heights for 3 years previously , initially targetting construction workers if my memory serves me correctly .

Anyhow Israel is willing to let them go , if there is a viable deal over the water , though in truth Syria will try to tie a water deal with Israel into getting its own water deal from Turkey which Turkey is unlikely to agree to .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Sorry, we already had our elections. The '08 ones are a ways off.

Part of the preconditions for peace with Syria has been a return of the Heights. They're just so valuable that Israel isn't willing to let them go, that and the amazing heroic efforts of the Israeli defenders. Syria will do whatever Iran tells them to do in less it looks like (central) Iraq will pull itself out of chaos.

---

I am not even from your country and i understand the cycle of your politics better then you...how sad is that? ~:mecry:

If the elections are so far away, why if everyone talking about who is getting ready to run>? also if the pres. w. is now lame duck president, then all he can do is try to clean up some of the national image problems with said party to try and retain power in the next elections for his party... this means anything that is a major problem, they need to start working on now, so that things happen before the election to make the US public think better of them... the US public is notorious for having very short political memories.

Quote:

---

that and the amazing heroic efforts of the Israeli defenders

---

are you serious? i guess your an American Jew i take it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

are you serious? i guess your an American Jew i take it....

---

And I guess you must be rather presumptious. If you want to start a thread on the American political process or why Jews are liars, go ahead. I don't see how your post is relevant to this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi

are you serious? i guess your an American Jew i take it....

---

Let's not go there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't occupiers the correct word there Vlad ?
It is after all not Israeli land , and they were the ones who attacked , plus they had been shelling the heights for 3 years previously , initially targetting construction workers if my memory serves me correctly .

---

Yeah sure, construction workers...

If memory serves correctly, the Golan was used by Syria years before the Six-Day War (1967) to shell Israeli farms and villages. On the Syrian side of the so-called Demilitarized Zone there were no civilians, only military personnel.

Israel occupied the Golan in 1967 and re-took it after a horrendous battle in 1973. Israeli youth still sing songs about the boys who died on the road to Damascus.

Israel will not likely give it up, unless as part of an enduring overall settlement for the region. And rightly so. You don't give the dictator in Damascus a foothold on the Golan, because he and his Iranian friends will start using it as a platform for missile attacks the next day.

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

Sorry there Adrian , are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme ?

Quote:

---

Israel will not likely give it up, unless as part of an enduring overall settlement for the region. And rightly so.

---

Yep and part of that enduring settlement will be over the 3 long planned water schemes involving Egypt , Israel , Jordan , Lebanon ,Syria , Turkey + whatever the eventual Palestinian state calls itself .

Quote:

---

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

---

Hey hey , I always think of overall settlements involving all parties .
The reason why I write so often specifically about Israel is purely because of the number of posters who take the Israel can do no wrong approach .
If people were to take the Syria or Egypt can do no wrong approach they would get the same treatment , but that doesn't seem to happen does it .:shrug:

Anyhow , slightly off topic Adrian , but any thoughts on the religeous ruling today about killing the IDF general because he is a traitor ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry there Adrian, are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme?

---

I objected to the suggested sequence, that is all. The Syrian shelling started right in 1948 and never really stopped. The reason was that the Syrians tried to stimy the quick development of the Hula Valley on the Israeli side of the border. Instead of developing their own country, they spent millions to turn the Golan into an artillery platform. The 1964 Israeli attack was an answer to the Syrian attempt to divert the local headwaters for the same purpose: to block Israeli agricultural development.

And yes, you are right that the regional waterways and waterbasins will either be part of an overall settlement of the cause of the next war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

---

A wise sentiment that we all should consider.:bow:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-P-6et5SuBQ

Hehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry there Adrian , are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme ?

---

The 'water scheme' was designed to stop the Israelis setting up irrigation on their side of the demilitarised zone by diverting the river, nothing more. Adrian is correct. The Syrians would fire at farmers, their homes and farms on a daily basis. There were violations, and sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone, but the Syrians are not the puppy-kissing blameless virgins you try to make them out to be.

Check out "Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East" by Jeremy Bowen, it's pretty good.

Concerening my thoughts on the problems in the middle east

Quote:

---

the Syrians are not the puppy-kissing blameless virgins you try to make them out to be.

---

Where do you get that from Fox ?
Have I ever said that any of the many parties involved in the conflicts are blameless ?

However .....

Quote:

---

The 'water scheme' was designed to stop the Israelis setting up irrigation on their side of the demilitarised zone by diverting the river, nothing more.

---

what did Moshe Dayan say were the primary reasons for setting up the agricultural projects? You do sort of touch on it here ......sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone...... is it in the book you recomend ? Furthermore under the armistice agreement what was the actual status of the workings of the clause over cultivation in the zone ?

Quote:

---

what did Moshe Dayan say were the primary reasons for setting up the agricultural projects? You do sort of touch on it here ......sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone...... is it in the book you recomend?

---

Yup, it's in the book.

Of course the Syrians would shoot at the Israelis any time they felt like it, when the Israelis wanted to do some damage to the Syrians they would create those 'incidents' I mentioned. Here's an excerpt from the book I mentioned:

Quote:

---

...They (Israeli soldiers) were there because of water. Since 1959 Israel had been building it's national water carrier, a system that sent water from the Sea of Galilee ub the north through pipes and canals to irrigate the Negev desert in the south. In 1964 it was ready. The Arabs' belated response was to sabotage it by diverting two of the three sources of the river Jordan that fed the Sea of Galilee. The men from 'S' Brigade of Israel's Armoured Corps were going to attack the Syrian earth moving machines and the tanks protecting them.

---

It then gives a small account of the two resulting fights. The Syrian response was to shell Israeli farming settlements and the Israelis then bombed Syrian positions.

Quote:

---

Furthermore under the armistice agreement what was the actual status of the workings of the clause over cultivation in the zone ?

---

I believe it was not meant to be done (farming that is) but don't quote me on it.

Thing is, the Syrians loved to provoke the Israelis as much as the Israelis did to them. How else would the Israelis would only need to send a single tractor into the area before the Syrians would start shooting?

Quote:

---

Vladimir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi
are you serious? i guess your an American Jew i take it....

And I guess you must be rather presumptuous. If you want to start a thread on the American political process or why Jews are liars, go ahead. I don't see how your post is relevant to this discussion.

---

the point was, that most of the settlers in disputed parts of Israel are American Jews, from the language you used it seemed a little over zealous, from which i took it as your a strong supporter of the settlements and of Israel taking and hold parts as a result of the 67 war. This would mean that regardless of what was on offer, you would be of the pretty much fixed position that Israel's needs and rights trump all others, against all reason too boot. ( i wasn't trying to offend you or others for the matter, i was trying to work out if thats where you came to that position)

On to the topic, the more the talking is done the more can be done, and with that made the cycle of teaching children to mistrust and hate each other can be broken so that fair and equal settlements can be reached by the next generations. Each generation of Palestinians are growning more and more tired of war, death and hardship, and i believe are becoming increasingly more open to a peaceful long lasting solution. surely the middle east has paid enough blood for sane minds to prevail.

Syria has been making a lot of gestures lately that it is starting to see a opportunity to to move to better more worthwhile relations with some of its more hostile neighbors. with the help it has been offering in Iraq now this. It seems it is trying to join the fold.

Is it trying to move away from Iran or towards better relations with the US??