It's time for good news...but if this is true, it's more than good. From AP via Ha'aretz:
Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq, a former senior State Department official said Wednesday."Something is going on in Syria and it is time for us to pay attention," said Martin Indyk, assistant secretary of state for the Near East and U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Clinton administration.
In a three-hour meeting with the Syrian president last month in Damascus, Indyk said he detected a "clear change" in Assad's views on a number of fronts.
On peacemaking, Assad offered to hold talks with Israel without preconditions, Indyk said, and had made several overtures to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the latter rebuffed.but wait, there's more...
On the domestic side, Indyk said, Assad spoke "about the need to reform the government.""It's worth watching and it is worth testing," Indyk said at a seminar at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, of which Indyk is the director.
Indyk said Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa was not at his meeting with Assad, evidence the former American diplomat said that change was under way and that al-Sharaa "and others in the old guard are being systematically silenced."
but wait, there's still more...
On Iraq, Assad "figured out he was on the wrong side" and has switched to cooperation with the U.S. occupation forces in the country, Indyk said.On support for terrorism, Assad was responding to U.S. demands by moving some leaders of militant Palestinian groups out of Damascus, Indyk said.
Last month, Syria was praised publicly by Secretary of State Colin Powell for dismantling military camps in the hills near Beirut, Lebanon.
Libya, and now possibly Syria. Two mainstays of state support for terrorism, both possibly moving toward civilization.
Skeptical, but hopeful. If it's true it's a huge development.
There cannot be anymore land for promises of peace deals though. The Golan must remain with Israel. The reason Syria should accept unconditional peace with Israel is because they recognize they have no barganing position, not because they expect to get the Golan back.
If true, this would be a very good thing. I am especially hopeful about the willingness to negotiate with Israel without preconditions.
On the other hand, Syria wanting to "help" with Iraq sets off warning bells. Any assistance there shouldn't be rejected outright, but should be watched closely.
Hope for the best, but expect the worst. Especially when dealing with a country like Syria.
When things are too good to be true, its because they arent.
What would Syria gain from this? Nothing. They would receive rebuke from their Arab brothers.
These are empty promises given on a U.S. election year - at a time when it appears Kerry will win. Any promises to the Bush Administration will come to nothing. I'd be more hopeful, if the polls showed a 10% Bush lead.
- Daniel
On second thought, maybe the Syrians are betting Kerry will win. Hence, they hope that rhetorical overtures will soften US stance on Syria.
Or maybe they don't trust the noise on a Kerry victory and are hedging their bets against regime change with Bush.
It strikes me that our friends over at http://www.freelebanon.org/
may make the connection between Boy Assad's reported new realization that "he was on the wrong side" and recent US publicity around US Military contingency plans re Syria, the existence of local insurgents, and a whole bunch of other self-imposed bad things coming down. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, IMO. OTOH though, their most recent posting (at this time of writing) suggests BA is reverting to form with the mullahcracy, plotting and scheming all the way, and trying to sit firmly on both sides of the fence.
Daniel:
"What would Syria gain from this? Nothing. They would receive rebuke from their Arab brothers."
Not from their Arab brothers in Iraq, they won't. Besides, they weathered that rebuke when they supported GW1.
Assuming sincerity on Assad's part, the question is whether he can in fact force reforms. His father had command of the bureaucracy and ministries, but it's not clear the son does.
What looks like fence-sitting may be relative political weakness on Assad's part (inability to command obedience to unpopular policies) and the inability of the senior ministers, on their part, to openly impose policies he does not at least theoretically back.
As with the Saudis, the trick for the US is to pressure for changes without bringing down those who are most likely to be able to lead a reformed country. It's a difficult balancing act and often there are no great options, just shades of less-desireable.
""There cannot be anymore land for promises of peace deals though. The Golan must remain with Israel.""
Why cant there be any more land for peace deals?
And why must the Golan remain with Israel?
Yes, it’s hardly a secret that Assad wants the Golan back. I think if we proclaim that the Golan is Israeli (which has never been the American position before), whatever cordiality Assad is showing is over.
Of course, once the draft resumes, we’ll soon have the manpower necessary for colonialist occupation of Iraq and Syria both. Then we can put in leaders who do what we say.
On peacemaking, Assad offered to hold talks with Israel without preconditions, Indyk said, and had made several overtures to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the latter rebuffed.
What's wrong with talking?
I can't (and don't want to) speak for Sharon, but as I recall the timing of Assad's new-found enthusiasm for discussions was less than convincing, at least to the Israeli leadership. It came IIRC when the Israelis were taking action against Palestinian camps in Lebanon after having warned multiple times they would do so if more bombings occurred within Israel.
Many think Assad's desire to talk, like the hudnas, were more a delay tactic than a sign that he was willing and ready to enter into serious peace negotiations.
Is that perception true? Hard for me to say. But at some point words have to be backed up with actions for them to have any credibility whatsoever.
Greetings,
Thank you. Good News indeed! Just watch out for the nail in the wall!!(Someone with the ability, should forward this to Mr. Arafat).
Best regards,
Tom
Bashar Assad is untrustworthy, and probably too weak to deliver, whatever he promisses (not that he promises anything). If he really were serious he would not trumpet his "intentions" publicly, via Martin Indyk.
Martin Indyk isn't that trustworthy either. He is firmly in the Israeli "peacenik" camp, pushing naively for unrealistic, harmful and failed policies like Oslo.
The whole story has no legs.
Interessting related article on Jamestown Foundation:
"When U.S. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns arrived in Damascus on September 11 to discuss the continuing infiltration of terrorist operatives from Syria into Iraq with President Bashar Assad, he found the country's obstinate young ruler to be almost exuberantly cooperative. Assad's sudden change of heart was inspired by the UN Security Council's approval early this month of a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. The American message – surrender Iraq or surrender Lebanon – was clear and persuasive. The Syrian regime's interests in Iraq pale in comparison to the benefits it derives from occupying its smaller neighbor (e.g. remittances from over one million Syrian workers living in Lebanon, highly favorable asymmetric trade relations, and kickbacks from institutionalized corruption)."
I think this places the "conversation" on a far better context for us all.
Martin frickin' Indyk?
There isn't a less credible U.S. diplomat in the 'Middle East peace process'. At least James Baker is intelligent enough to know what he's doing when he screws Israel.
One should keep today's headline in mind.
President of Syria Defends His Nation's Role in Lebanon.
This stinks.
I think Assad must be up to some kind of trick; to stall for time over Lebanon or cut a deal to allow him to stay there in exchange for cooperation in Iraq. He must have achieved his goals there (bloodying the US) and is now afraid of a Sunni Islamist blowback in his own country. I suspect that the US is backing Kurdish rebels in Syria as well, and he wants that to stop.
No way in hell Sharon is going to give him what he wants, the Golan, while he's trying to mollify the hard right over the Gaza pullout, and especially not after the Taba bombing.
This is a feint.