From: hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky)
Subject: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:13:13 GMT

In today's (9/11/92) New York Times (NYT) there is a front page article entitled
"Israelis Disclose Talks with Syria on Steps to Peace." The article states that
the Rabin government is very seriously considering giving back at least parts
of the Golan in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Syrians.

Of course, I feel (as hopefully we all do) that every peace treaty which Israel
signs with its Arab neighbors is a tremendous and highly commendable
accomplishment. Peace is ultimately the desire of every Jew and Arab (and any
rational person for that matter).

However, I am not fully convinved that land concession is a correct course of
action in this situation. I know that the Syrians are most adamant on the
issue of land return for peace. Then again so are the Palestinians and the
Jordanians.Israel, though, does not seem to be in a position in which it could
realistically make land concessions. The Golan Heights are of vast strategic
imprtance to Israel. Besides the fact that the Golan is a very mountaneous
region, it also happens to lie in very close proximity to Israel's sole source
of fresh water.

After decades of unprovoked hostility on the part of the Syrians, how can
Israel ever be fully certain of Syria's sincerity to abide by a peace
agreement. What is Syria just wants the highlands back so as to be able to
more easily attack and shell Jewish settlements close to the Syrian border.
This would mean that Israel would once again have to rely on military
operations to liberate the already-once-liberated Golan. And certainly, Jewish
lives are not taken very lightly by the Israeli government.

I believe, in fact I might add I hope, that Rabin is planning to offer only a
token land exchange for peace. Certainly, in such a scenario, Israeli security
would not be threatened. Furthermore, after years of publically declaring that
it will never even talk peace without an Israeli concession to give back
liberated land, Syria would benefit from a token concession in that it, and
the Assad government, would be able to save whatever face they have left with
the international community.

Furthermore, without the support of the once mighty Soviet Union as a backprod,
Syria no longer poses the military threat it once did to Israel. Nor can Syria
count on the Soviet influence to act as a deterrent to the world's
disenchanment with Syrian political views. Of course, Syria still does have
its oil rich Arab buddies. But then again, some of those are also realizing
that peace with Israel is an inevitability, now that all hopes of driving
those darned Israelis into the Mediterranean have long ago been lost.

Indeed, then, it would seem that a token gesture on Israel's part would be the
proper (necessary ?) thing to do. For one, this would allow Syria to save
face. Secondly, it would show the world Israel's sincerity towards a
comprehensive peace agreement. Thirdly, this would appease George's ever more
prying political policy in the Middle East. Finally, Syria, too, should feel a
certain sense of urgency now that George may soon be leaving office; and rumor
has it that Clinton will not be quite as lenient with the Syrians as the Bush
administratino has been.

Of course, I mean to make no light of the current situation. It is of grave
concern that peace be established in the Middle East between Israel and ALL of
its Arab neighbors.

What do the rest of you think on this issue?

Harry.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast