|
I would like to make a few comments on Robert Ripperger's recent article on the Golan Heights ("Thinking About the Golan," Commentary, Jan. 31, 2000). Regarding the need for compromise, I would hold that it is impossible for Assad to negotiate on any other principle than total return of the Golan. Israel, and this issue in particular, is key to his continued legitimacy within Syria. If he is perceived as backing down in the face of Israeli/U.S. pressure, his power base—and that of his son Bashar—will be undermined, leaving the potential for serious rifts in Syrian ruling circles and making it increasingly likely that, in a post-Assad period, Syria will be wracked with internal divisions, coups, and bloodletting in a contest for power. While Western, in particular U.S., rationality assumes compromise is the answer, there are other issues—survival/power—at stake. Assad plays by his rules, not ours. While Israel's need for security is legitimate, the Golan is not essential to achieving this goal. Israeli military superiority, in both the conventional and unconventional realms, is indisputable—it already took the Golan once. Syria, while maintaining likely NBC capabilities, would face quick defeat on any battlefield beyond guerrilla/terrorist activity; it has an internally-oriented army with limited ability to project power. With respect to intelligence collection/observation, the Israelis do not need to depend on line-of-sight (LOS) facilities given current technologies (RPVs, satellites, remote sensing). The real issue is water, and sharing rights—which don't necessarily mean occupation rights—need to be negotiated. As far as Barak's "magnanimous" gesture, I have my doubts. Undoubtedly Barak understands Syria's/Assad's realities more than we. Thus, his coming to the table cost him nothing as he offers only the standard line "security first," a point that plays to Israel's needs solely. In addition, Barak gains further U.S. largesse. I would be curious to see what the bottom-line costs were—in terms of Clinton promising taxpayer dollars and U.S. technology—to get Barak to sit down. With a presidential administration unable to deal decisively on this issue in favor of U.S. national interests, it is a win-win for Israel. Finally, comments emphasizing solely "Syria's intransigence" and Assad's disregard for "human life" are condescending and inflammatory unless a balanced view is presented—which includes Israeli transgressions in this area (assassinations in Jordan/West Bank, treatment of prisoners). It is not to validate Assad's past and present, just to present a total picture.
The real bottom line is that the U.S. needs to pursue its own national interests. Neither side in this issue has our interests in mind. After all, why should they? We need peace to promote stability and to encourage economic growth while relieving the U.S. of having to face possible military expenditures in the region. So let Washington put the heat on both sides from a substantive perspective in order to attain our national interest: peace. We have wasted much time, treasure and blood on this and related Arab-Israeli issues; time to finish what we started—America first. John D. Moore Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com |
