Syrian and Israeli willingness to negotiate peace on the basis of United Nations Resolution 242 – trading territory for peace – represents a major breakthrough in the long and intractable Syrian-Israeli conflict. Both sides, however, will have to meet each other's national-security and territorial requirements to make peace real.
Following Israel and Syria's rejection of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a regional peace conference, a reassessment of the U.S. Middle East strategy and role is critical at this juncture. To break the impasse, the U.S. must develop not only a new stategy but advance a dramatic and comprehensive peace plan of its own that meets the minimum national requirements of the conflicting parties.
When the Middle East peace conference finally convenes, there may not be a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representative at the negotiating table. It is not the finest hour in the PLO's long and turbulent history, but it is not a defeat either.
In announcing his acceptance of President Bush's compromise proposal to convene a Middle East conference, President Hafez Assad of Syria reaffirmed his country's position that notwithstanding the limited role of the United Nations, the peace negotiation will have to be based on UN Resolution 242. That is, the principle of trading peace for territory remains the centerpiece for any future settlement of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. The question is how Israel's security needs can be reconciled with Syria's claims of sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
A shortsighted and a premature cease-fire that preserved a brutal despot – Saddam Hussein – in power is behind the Kurdish tragedy today. Unfortunately, America stood idly watching with cruel indifference the destruction of the Kurdish people.
ALTHOUGH the Iraqi military defeat has reversed Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait, it has left the Middle East in a state of flux – ripe for either a diplomatic breakthrough for peace or renewed hostilities and violence. For this reason, the United States should immediately pursue a postwar strategy together with its Arab coalition partners and Israel to build a new equilibrium of power and thus pave the way for peace.
The apparent readiness of President Hafez Assad of Syria to trade peace for territory was recently echoed by two Israeli leaders, Lieut. -Gen. Dan Shomron, who has just retired as the IDF's chief of the general staff, and Health Minister Ehud Olmert. The question is: How can Israel's security and Syria's sovereignty over the Golan Heights be reconciled to satisfy the skeptics in both camps?
There are two words for peace in Arabic, "Salam," meaning a state of non-belligerency is currently preferred by Arabs over "Sulh", which suggests reconciliation – the kind of peace sought by Israelis. The difference between the two words is not mere semantics, it reflects the nature of the different objectives brought to the peace conference by Arabs and Israelis.
By focusing primarily on Israel and the Palestinians in its strategy for peace in the Middle East, the Bush administration is ignoring a third essential player – Syria. Secretary of State James Baker's call on Israel to "lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of greater Israel and forswear annexation," and his equally blunt call to the Palestinians "to speak in one voice … and amend the Palestinian Liberation Organization covenant and resort to a dialogue of politics and diplomacy" was certainly courageous, balanced, and overdue. Peace will not be achieved, however, without Syria's ultimate cooperation. Syrian President Hafez Assad's self-imposed mission to shape the Arab agenda on the Palestinian and Lebanese issues has often strained his relationships with his fellow Arab leaders and further complicated the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.