Jane’s Defence Weekly: Israel Warns Against Syria Obtaining New Weapons

By

-

February 1, 2000

Israel’s military chiefs are urging their government to prevent Syria from obtaining US or Western aid that would allow Damascus to purchase strategic defence systems.

Israeli commanders are concerned that Syria, in the wake of any peace treaty with Israel, would obtain billions of dollars in US and Western aid that would allow Damascus to buy weapons systems that could significantly alter the military balance in the region.

“We are not threatening the Syrians,” Israel air force commander Maj Gen Eitan Ben-Eliahu told Jane’s Defence Weekly. “So, we don’t see them needing anything more than they already have – particularly regarding weapons that can leave their borders.” Gen Ben-Eliahu was referring to Syrian efforts to purchase the Almaz S-300 (NATO codename: SA-10 ‘Grumble’) air defence system from Moscow. Negotiations have proceeded for two years, hampered by Syria’s $11 billion debt to Russia and the insistence by Damascus on a long-term repayment plan.

Israeli commanders said the procurement of the S-300 would mark a major improvement in Syrian air defence and jeopardise Israeli deterrence. It would also mark the most important step in Syria’s two-year effort in bolstering its military.

Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said Israel would not oppose US military aid to Syria. They said Syrian dependence on the USA could help ensure any peace treaty between Damascus and Jerusalem.

Military sources said they could agree to US or Western deliveries of weapons that do not represent a significant improvement over what is currently in Syria’s arsenal.

Israel’s military intelligence chief Maj Gen Amos Malka said Syria under President Hafez Assad has in some cases caught up or even exceeded Israel in some areas of military prowess. “If Assad asks his chief of staff tomorrow morning what is the army’s combat-readiness level, he will get an answer that the army is much more prepared than it was when he received it from the previous chief of staff two years ago,” Gen Malka told a seminar at Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies on 17 January.

The reference, Israeli military sources said, was to Syria’s anti-armour capability and electronic countermeasures. Gen Malka disputed a report by the Jaffee Centre’s annual military balance that dismissed a Syrian military threat.

“The Syrian Army is not in the best shape,” Gen Malka said. “Army-to-army the Israel Defence Force [IDF] stands out qualitatively over the Syrian Army and if war broke out between them the IDF would be victorious. But to jump to the extreme conclusion with significant ramifications that Syria doesn’t have any military option and that its army is collapsing is too far-reaching and dangerous.”

IDF chiefs are also urging Barak to ensure that Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, will also be denied certain US weapons. The IDF wants Washington to pledge that it will continue to ban any sale of the Boeing F-15 Eagle fighter to Egypt.

Egypt already has more than 200 F-16s. It is regarded as having the best navy and second-best air force in the Middle East – largely because of 20 years of US arms sales and training.

IDF commanders have pointed to a US pledge to maintain Israel’s qualitative edge over its neighbours. “To maintain this edge, we should not have the F-15s sent to any other country except Israel,” said Gen Ben-Eliahu.

Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

February 1, 2000

Washington, Jan. 31 — Satellite photographs and American intelligence reports have shown that Iraq has in the last year rebuilt military and industrial sites damaged by American and British air strikes in late 1998, officials say.

The recent intelligence findings have raised concerns among Defense Department and other officials in the Clinton administration that in the prolonged absence of international weapons inspectors, whose job would be to search those structures, President Saddam Hussein’s government has continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons.

Despite those concerns, the administration’s policy has been allowed to drift, leaving the United States unable to force Iraq to accept a resumption of inspections even after resolving an impasse at the United Nations Security Council.

Iraq’s refusal has now left the administration in a quandary over how to respond at a time when international support for its policy and for sanctions against Mr. Hussein is waning.

“There is concern in intelligence circles that he has begun to rebuild buildings that could enable him” to produce chemical or biological weapons, a senior administration official said. “He has had a lot of time to operate without inspections.”

Although the intelligence reports have not provided concrete evidence that Iraq is producing chemical or biological weapons, the officials said, the reports have raised the possibility of renewed military confrontation, because the administration has repeatedly warned that any effort by Iraq to produce the weapons would prompt new American air strikes.

The concern has given urgency to the new inspection program created last month by the Security Council. But for the administration, the latest Iraqi defiance has been met with frustration, uncertainty over how to proceed and even fatigue.

In his State of the Union address on Thursday, Mr. Clinton devoted exactly six words to Iraq. The American representative to the United Nations, Richard C. Holbrooke, a diplomat noted for his tenacity, barely involved himself in the Security Council’s negotiations over inspections, leaving them to his deputy, James B. Cunningham, who arrived in New York just last month.

Despite a policy of “containment,” punctuated by American-led strikes in 1993, 1996 and 1998, Mr. Hussein remains as much a thorn as he was when Mr. Clinton took office. And Iraq’s defiance comes in a year when any action by the administration would have political ramifications in the presidential campaign.

Nearly a year and a half after Iraq blocked the last team of United Nations inspectors, administration officials said that getting inspectors back into the country remained the best way to determine if Baghdad’s weapons programs were continuing.

Last week, after months of diplomatic wrangling, the Security Council agreed to nominate Hans Blix of Sweden to lead a new inspection team in Iraq, having rejected a candidate supported by the United States, Rolf Ekeus, also of Sweden.

Russia and France vetoed Mr. Ekeus’s nomination after consultations with Mr. Hussein’s government, diplomatic officials said.

But while Iraq has been less hostile toward Mr. Blix, Iraqi officials have said they will not accept any resumption of international weapons inspections under the terms of the latest Security Council resolution.

Even if Mr. Hussein eventually relents and allows Mr. Blix’s team to enter the country, it will take at least three or four months before inspectors can resume work inside Iraq. Administration officials expressed their concerns when asked to assess the state of Washington’s policy toward Iraq. Some officials defended the administration’s approach, but others, including Pentagon officials, criticized the policy out of concern that it has left the United States few viable options.

Thirteen months ago, the United States and Britain launched four nights of air and missile strikes to punish Mr. Hussein after he expelled the last team of weapons inspectors. At the time, senior commanders estimated that the operation had set back Iraq’s ability to produce chemical or biological weapons — and the missiles needed to launch them — by one to two years.

“We’re marching toward that point” now, a senior military officer said.

Pentagon and other officials declined to discuss the recent intelligence findings in detail, but they said Iraq had rebuilt many of the 100 installations damaged or destroyed in the American and British raids in December 1998.

Of those targets, 12 were missile factories or industrial sites that commanders said were involved in Iraq’s efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction. The officials said significant reconstruction had been seen at those sites, including Al Taji missile complex north of Baghdad.

In the wake of the diplomatic wrangling, administration officials defended their policy toward Iraq. They said they remained determined to contain Mr. Hussein militarily while maintaining the economic sanctions first imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and while supporting Iraqi opposition groups.

Officials emphasized that a new American attack did not appear imminent. They said they wanted to see if the new inspection program would eventually get off the ground before taking any action that could further erode international support for the American stance toward Iraq.

But the officials said there remained three “red lines” that the United States would not let the Iraqis cross: a threat against a neighboring country like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, an attack on the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq or a reconstitution of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs.

Critics of Washington’s handling of Iraq said the administration appeared to have no clear plan on how to force an end to Iraq’s defiance. “There is no adult supervision of our policy,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

And despite American efforts to unify Iraqi opposition groups, factions remain. The administration has provided only a small part of the $97 million that Congress authorized to support those bent on overthrowing Mr. Hussein’s government.

Also, international sanctions are fraying. To win Russian and French support for the new weapons inspection program, the United States and Britain agreed to offer Iraq an opportunity to end the sanctions. Under the new Security Council resolution, the United Nations will suspend sanctions if Iraq cooperates with the new inspectors.

But one reason for the continued Iraqi defiance may be that the sanctions are already leaking. Iraq is allowed to export $10 billion a year to buy food and other essential goods, and while the proceeds are closely monitored by the United Nations, the Iraqis have been able to divert some of the money, administration officials said.

Mr. Hussein’s government has also been able to earn millions of dollars in smuggling. Since August, Iraq has steadily increased illicit shipments of oil from the Shatt al Arab waterway, much of it flowing through an installation near the port of Basra that American warplanes attacked and damaged in 1998, the officials said.

Last month, Iraq’s illicit trade reached the highest level since the Gulf war. More than 130 ships, some of them Russian, left the port and skirted the Iranian coast, staying in Iran’s territorial waters to evade American ships trying to intercept them. “The Iranians are at least tacitly involved in this,” a senior administration official said.

In the same month, Navy warships boarded only 36 ships and seized only 4. According to American intelligence estimates, Iraq was able to smuggle out a record amount of 317,000 metric tons of oil, or more than 2.3 million barrels, in December alone. At today’s price of about $27 a barrel, the shipments were worth more than $62 million.

A recent intelligence report concluded that the smuggling was undermining the sanctions. Pentagon and other administration officials say they increasingly worry that the proceeds may be intended to finance weapons programs.

But another senior Administration official said the amounts of illicit profit were not enough to allow Mr. Hussein to produce nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. “What’s inside the buildings is much more expensive to put up than any walls and roofs,” the official said.

Transcript: Indyk Sees “Real Opportunity” For Separate Peace Accords

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

February 1, 2000

January 27, 2000

Martin Indyk, recently returned to Israel for his second tour as U.S. ambassador, told an Israeli television interviewer January 25 that he believes “that there is a real opportunity now on the Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian tracks to achieve, not one agreement, but three agreements this year.

The U.S. goal “is to work with the Government of Israel to try to achieve what is an ambitious agenda, but one which, President Clinton agrees with Prime Minister Barak, is achievable this year.”

[begin transcript]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin S. Indyk’s Interview with Israel TV Channel One Senior Correspondent Ehud Yaari January 25, 2000

Mr Yaari: Welcome to Israel, Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Indyk (In Hebrew): Thank you very much.

Question: It’s quite unusual for an ambassador to return to the place he was serving in for a second round.

Ambassador Indyk: It feels quite unusual. It’s like Rip Van Winkle waking up out of the dream and coming back to the place that’s the same. Of course, it’s changed, but I am delighted to be back; my family is also excited to be back, and we are looking forward to working with Prime Minister Barak and the government and people of Israel in an intensive effort to try to achieve a real peace — a comprehensive peace and a secure peace for Israel — this year.

Question: One of the previous Prime Minister’s confidantes, Mr. David Bar-Ilan, is already attacking you publicly. I am asking you, was there any bad taste left last time when you left the job here to take up your position in Washington when Mr. Netanyahu was prime minister?

Ambassador Indyk: You know it’s in the nature of Israeli society that people can’t rest for long without attacking somebody, and I am a big target. I think that’s unimportant. I am the ambassador of the United States to Israel — that means to all of Israel. I certainly expect to have close working relations not only with the government but also with the opposition.

Question: Can Mr. Netanyahu expect an invitation to a dinner some time at the Ambassador’s residence?

Ambassador Indyk: Of course. I would expect to pay a courtesy call on him as I would on Prime Minister Shamir.

Question: If I may, Mr. Ambassador, I would like to switch to something that Syrian official sources were leaking recently. They were saying, through their mouth-peace, a Lebanese newspaper by the name of “Al-Safir” that the peace team of which you were a prominent member…

Ambassador Indyk: I am a prominent member.

Question: I stand corrected… that the peace team: you, Dennis Ross and the rest of them are pro-Likud. That you were unofficial members quote unquote of the Israeli delegation to Sheperdstown. Why would they attack you?

Ambassador Indyk: Well, I don’t think that’s serious. It’s in the nature of this business that I am or we are accused of being either pro-Likud or anti-Likud. In your two questions you have the two opposite positions. I think we have to do what we have to do, and that is to try to be honest brokers in a situation in which, of course, we have a close and strong relationship with Israel — of which the present Secretary and the peace team are proud — because we believe that that is the cornerstone for a comprehensive peace. It is impossible to achieve a real peace in which Israel has to take risks for peace and has to take painful decisions — it is impossible for Israel to do those kinds of things unless it has the solid, secure, strong backing of the United States. Some people see that as somehow that has an impact on our ability to play the role of honest broker. I say the exact opposite. Because we have a relationship, a close relationship, a strong relationship of trust with the Government and the people of Israel, it gives us the ability to play an effective role in the peace process.

Question: Were you surprised by the size of the Israeli request for a military package?

Ambassador Indyk: No. We have known for some time that when it comes to a deal involving the Golan, that Israel’s security requirements are going to be substantial. We are working hard on that request to refine it, to see how we can be responsive. But there is a basic underlying commitment that, if you remember, President Clinton made to Prime Minister Rabin in April of 1993. When then Prime Minister Rabin made his first visit to meet with the new President, President Clinton said: “Prime Minister Rabin, you have told me that you have a mandate to take calculated risks for peace, and I will tell you that my role is to minimize those risks.”

Question: Tomahawk missiles — is it a possibility? Tomahawk cruise missiles?

Ambassador Indyk: I am not going to get into details of the package we are looking at, at Israel’s request. We obviously owe an answer to the Government of Israel and we will be talking to them about all of these things before we talk about them in public. Of course, we have a responsibility to work with the Congress to make sure that the Congress will be supportive of this also. So, there are a lot of steps that have to be taken before we can answer questions like that.

Question: Are you concerned because the Syrian technical team did not show up in Washington as expected?

Ambassador Indyk: No. I think that this is a timing or a scheduling issue and, as we understand it, we want the Israeli team to come first and the Syrian team will follow.

Question: Finally, Mr. Ambassador, do you think it’s “doable?” That is: getting a framework with the Palestinians, getting out of Lebanon in an agreement and clinching a deal with Syria in the span of the few next months?

Ambassador Indyk: Well, as I said at the outset, our intention is to achieve a comprehensive peace in the coming year by working with the Government of Israel to do that. Whether it’s achievable in the exact timetable as laid out now is not clear. But I certainly believe that there is a real opportunity now on the Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian tracks to achieve not one agreement, but three agreements this year. That is the intention of Prime Minister Barak, and our intention — President Clinton, Secretary Albright and myself as their representative here in Israel — is to work with the Government of Israel to try to achieve what is an ambitious agenda but one which, President Clinton agrees with Prime Minister Barak, is achievable this year.

Question: Competitive simultaneity between the tracks — is it helpful or is it damaging?

Ambassador Indyk: We have a word in English “symbiosis,” which means that there is an interaction between the two, which produces a positive outcome. I have always felt that if it’s possible to have all the tracks moving simultaneously, what develops out of that is that movement on one track helps to produce movement on another track. So, it has always been our objective to have all the tracks moving. That’s why the Secretary of State is going to Moscow next week to re-launch the multilaterals at a ministerial level, because that track also can help to grease the skids on the other two tracks. So, we really would like to see all the tracks moving. It’s my understanding that that’s Prime Minister’s Barak’s intention as well.

Mr Yaari: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

[end transcript]

An Insider’s Report From the Shepherdstown Talks

By

David Bedein

-

January 18, 2000

Shepherdstown, W. Va — It is only a few hundred meters from the improvised press center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, where this writer spent the better part of a week, to the conference center where US officials have been trying to help Syria and Israel to broker a “peace” between the warring nations. There is a wide gap between what “peace” means to the parties. That includes the gap between what “peace” means to Israel and to the US.

At first glance, it would seem that the US and Israel express common concerns about the “peace process”. They even use the same terms and definitions on the elements of an accord: “cessation of hostilities”, “concern for human rights”, and “facilitating an atmosphere for peace and mutual recognition”. Yet what these platitudes mean to Israelis and to Americans is another and more complex matter.

For example, there are 35,000 Syrian troops in Southern Lebanon who provide protection for Lebanese Hizbollah terrorists, from their strongholds which regularly shell civilian targets in Israel.

Israel has long demanded that Syria close down this organization whose openly avowed purpose is the “liberation” of Jerusalem and all of Palestine – that is, the destruction of Israel. Israel also demands that Syria disarm and disband ten renegade PLO groups that operate in Damascus, that even the US state department places on the list of terror organizations.

At Shepherdstown, when the writer asked US state department spokesman, James Rubin if the US would support these demands, Rubin replied that the Syrians should merely “restrain” these terrorist bands. When the writer presented Rubin with the fact that the ten PLO terror factions aver that they will continue their activities, the state department spokesman responded with a prediction that the terrorists would transform themselves into non-violent political organizations and abandon the path of terror. Rubin could offer no evidence to support this optimism.

Another issue of passionate concern to Israelis is the cruel fate of three Israeli soldiers, one of whom is an American citizen, who were taken into captivity in Syria in 1982. Since that time, Syria has refused any information about them, to their families or to the Red Cross. At Shepherdstown, I asked the US state department spokesman whether the US would support Israel’s demand for the immediate release of these three men. His response was limited to expressing hope that the Syrians would be “helpful” about the matter.

For many years, international human rights organizations have been insisting that Syria should be held accountable for the crimes against humanity committed by its despotic regime. Even during a week of peace talks, President Assad ordered the arrest of hundreds of people whom he identified as his opposition, and ordered at least one opposition leader to be executed.

At Shepherdstown, I raised this subject with the US state department spokesman, asking whether the American government would insist on including the matter of human rights and civil liberties reform on the agenda of the current peace talks. He would say no more than to respond that the US supports human rights and civil liberties everywhere, including in Syria. He ignored my specific question which was whether human rights and civil liberties would be brought up for discussion in one of the working groups that have been established to implement the accords.

That same state department spokesman, James Rubin, was also asked about the negative attitudes toward the peace process in the Syrian news media, which remains under the total control of the Syrian government. I asked if the US would request the Syrian government to issue a call for peace in the Arabic language to the Syrian people.

Rubin professed he was not aware of any problem in the Syrian media. At a later press conference that same spokesman suggested that there were some expressions of peaceful intent in the Syrian Arabic media.

Since our news agency monitors the Syrian media and since we have not encountered any such conveyance of peace in the Syrian Arabic media, I asked the spokesman at the next press conference if he could provide any specific examples of calls for peace and reconciliation in the Syrian Arabic media. He could not think of any, nor provide any examples.

It thus appears that while officials of the US and Israel use the same phrases to define their positions, they do not necessarily use them with the same meanings. Nor can it be assumed that policy statements or even commitments can be taken at face-value.

For example, following the Wye Accords in October, 1998, the US government adopted an official policy that it demands that Arafat’s Palestinian Authority cease and desist from its incitement to terrorism and war against Israel along with assorted expressions of anti-semitism in Arafat’s controlled media and schools. The US has not, however, shown more than lip service to the fact that the PA fails to meet any such demand.

It goes without saying that the US has yet to make any such demands on Syria.

Hovering over the discussions in Shepherdstown was talk of ironclad security guarantees that the US would provide to Israel to assure it of its security, if Israel would indeed withdraw its army bases and civilian communities from the Golan Heights which tower over Israel’s Upper Galilee region. Yet questions about these American guarantees were viewed as premature by the state department spokesman.

In the past, the US offered iron-clad security guarantees to Israel following US-brokered Israeli withdrawals that were simply ignored.

In 1957, the US policy to force Israel out of the Sinai was accompanied by promises of the right of free passage for Israel through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran, just south of Elat.

Yet in 1967, when Egyptian President Nasser blockaded the straits of Tiran, US President Johnson was hard pressed to even locate the guarantees from President Eisenhower, let alone honor them.

In 1970, when the US president Nixon brokered the Rogers plan that mandated Israeli withdrawal from the Suez Canal, the Egyptian army immediately moved its troops and missiles to an attack position, in violation of the Rogers plan. Nixon did nothing.

Three years later, the Egyptian army attacked Israel from convenient forward positions in what became known as the Yom Kippur War.

Then in 1975, the US forced Israel to cede land and oil fields to a still belligerent Egypt. President Ford signed a letter of guarantee with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin which assured Israel that the American government would never ask Israel to relinquish the Golan Heights, since the US defined the Golan Heights as vital to Israeli security. With that letter, Rabin and his successor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, were able to persuade the Israeli public that any territorial concessions to Egypt would not be a precedent to cede the Golan to Syria.

The interests of a great power may not always coincide with the interests of a smaller nation.

Marvin and Bernard Kalb, in their seminal book, “Kissinger”, written in 1976, report that in 1968 the new Israeli ambassador and recently retired Israeli commander in chief, Yitzhak Rabin, accompanied US presidential candidate Richard Nixon to view the Golan Heights, recently captured from the Syrians.

Peering down from Syrian gun positions that were trained on the farmers in Israel’s Hula Valley, Nixon observed that, “If I were an Israeli, I would never give up the Golan”. Rabin smiled from ear to ear. “Mr. Rabin, what I said was that ‘if I was an Israeli’. I am not an Israeli”.

It would be reckless indeed to expect that the US and Israel would ever maintain the same foreign policy.

That became clear this week at Shepherdstown.

Eye on Syria: Timely Report on Developments

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 4, 2000

Welcome to Eye on Syria, a timely report on developments in Syria as well as a review of pertinent articles in the Syrian official press as well as what is written about Syria. The service is meant to illuminate Westerners to one of the most closed societies in the world. The report is based on facts and analysis culled from numerous Syrian and Arab newspapers as well as diplomatic sources by correspondents in Jerusalem, London and Cairo.

First, a quick look at the Syrian media. Syrian newspapers, radio and television are all owned and controlled by the regime. Nothing appears in the media without the approval of authorities. Broadcasters are given text to read and have no room to improvise.

Syria has one radio station, television station and news service. They are leaden and dull but they faithfully reflect propaganda from Damascus. Slogans are repeated ad nauseum in a reflection of the highly ideological regime. We will spare subscribers of the rhetoric and, instead, give the main points of the media.

There are four Syrian dailies and they are remarkably similar. Al Baath is the newspaper of the ruling Baath Party. It focuses on so-called popular issues, largely the activities of the party around the country. Al Thawra is the ideological organ of the Syrian regime. Tishrin is the government daily. The Syrian Times is the English-language daily.

Quote of the week:

“Our concern for the Golan shouldn’t make us oblivious of the fact that Palestine is the center of the Arab Israeli conflict. Our rights as Muslims and Arabs in Palestine are sacred and inalienable which no body can compromise.”

— Muslim Brotherhood in Syria announces its opposition to any peace agreement with Israel.

Today in Syria

Assad said expected to last no more than year
Syria launches crackdown on islamic militants
U.S. urges lebanese not to ask for syrian withdrawal
U.S., Syrian contacts to begin next month
Assad, Barak plan to meet in Geneva
Israel doesn’t expect framework accord next month
Israel, Syria to discuss early warning stations
Syria rejects Barak proposal on accord
Israeli spiritual leader wants to visit Syria
Iraq, Syria plan to renew diplomatic relations

Assad Said Expected to Last No More Than Year

The health of Syrian President Hafez Assad is said to be increasingly deteriorating and he is not expected to function for more than another year, sources close to the regime said.

The sources, who have excellent contacts with leading members of the Syrian government, said Assad is suffering from a range of diseases that has increasingly limited his ability to function. This includes heart ailment and diabetes.

As a result, the 69-year-old president works no more than two hours a day. Often, the sources said, Assad does not do any work and decisions and discussions are delayed.

The sources said Assad’s energies are directed toward ensuring that his son, Bashar, becomes the next president of Syria. It is this goal, they said, that drives him on. But the sources said the senior Assad continues to have difficulties in completing the process.

Bashar has not been approved for a leadership post in the Baath Party, the sources said, and family infighting has prolonged delays. The sources said should the president die soon, a fight over succession will erupt.

The 34-year-old Bashar has been delayed in plans to travel to Teheran to discuss the Israeli-Syrian peace talks, the sources said. They said Bashar was to have explained to leaders in Teheran the reason for the negotiations and the prospect of a peace treaty.

One source of delay, the sources said, is that the president took time to draft a letter for Iranian leaders regarding the talks between Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The letter is to be delivered before the next round of negotiations on Jan. 3.

A-Shaara on Dec. 30 left for Cairo to brief Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the forthcoming talks. Arab diplomatic sources said Egypt will press Syria to coordinate with the Palestinians.

Sources said Iran is angry over the resumption of Israeli-Syrian talks and has quietly threatened to sever relations with Damascus if a peace treaty is signed. The sources said Iran has stressed to Syria that it does not object to an agreement for the return of the Golan Heights but opposes normalization of ties with Israel.

Iran has also warned Syria not to harm the Lebanese Shi’ite Hizbullah militia. The sources said Iran has stressed that Hizbullah has a huge constituency and is the leader of the resistance against Israel’s troop presence in south Lebanon.

Syria Launches Crackdown on Islamic Militants

Syria has launched a crackdown on Islamic militants in the wake of its criticism of President Hafez Assad’s decision to resume negotiations with Israel.

Diplomatic sources said Syrian authorities have arrested scores of members of the Moslem Brotherhood over the last week. They said the Brotherhood issued a leaflet that criticized the talks meant to lead to a peace treaty.

The Brotherhood called the prospect of a peace treaty a “capitulation a sell-out of Arab and Muslim rights in Palestine.”

“It must be remembered that the Palestinian question with all its histor ical, geographic, political, and human dimensions, is the essence of the conflict in the Middle East,” the communique, faxed to news agencies, said. “Our concern for the Golan shouldn’t make us oblivious of the fact that Palestine is the center of the Arab Israeli conflict. Our rights as Muslims and Arabs in Palestine are sacred and inalienable which no body can compromise.”

The statement was faxed by Syrian Islamic representatives based in London in what was regarded as the first unauthorized criticism of Syrian-Israeli negotiations. Earlier, the head of the Syrian Writers Association criticized the resumption of talks in what was regarded as a move authorized by Assad.

The Brotherhood said any agreement concluded between Syria and Israel would be “illegitimate since it would go against the collective will of the Syrian people.”

The communique said the Golan Heights was “no more than a step towards the liberation of Palestine.”

The leaflet came in the wake of the killing of a leading Brotherhood member. Sheik Mohammed Amin Yakan, 62, was assassinated on Dec. 16 as he was driven to Tarhin village near Aleppo. Syrian sources said the sheik was killed by gunmen who worked for a family that sought to release land allocated for construction of a government center.

The Brotherhood placed doubts on Syrian claims that Yakan was killed in a criminal dispute. Yakan was involved in a mediation effort between Syria and the Brotherhood in 1997.

U.S. Urges Lebanese Not to Ask for Syrian Withdrawal

The United States is said to have appealed to prominent Lebanese politicians and opinion-makers to allow Syrian troops to remain in Lebanon.

Lebanese sources said U.S. diplomats have urged the Lebanese not to urge a Syrian withdrawal from their country after Israel pulls its troops out from the south. The sources said a similar message was voiced by U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, David Satterfield.

“Several Christian personalities have received clear messages from U.S. diplomats ‘warning’ them not to ask for the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon after the withdrawal of the Israeli army from south Lebanon,” the Beirut-based Al Mustaqbal daily reported on Dec. 22. “U.S. ambassador David Satterfield diplomatically ‘warned’ these personalities not to count on an Israeli request for a Syrian withdrawal.”

Syrian President Hafez Assad phoned Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and discussed the next round of Syrian negotiations with Israel on Jan. 3. The telephone call came amid Lebanese concerns that Beirut would end up with the short end of the stick in any negotiations with Israel.

Arab diplomatic sources said the United States has quietly assured Syria that it would not press for a withdrawal of its 35,000 troops from Lebanon after an Israeli pullback. The sources said the Clinton administration and Israel have concluded that Syrian troops are required to maintain stability in both Damascus and Beirut.

About one million Syrians work in Lebanon, a work force that the sources said maintains the Syrian economy. All Lebanese government contracts must ensure Syrian participation, the sources said.

The sources said that U.S. diplomats believe that the Muslims and Shi’ites in Lebanon — who make up the majority — will not resist continued Syrian occupation of their country. The Christians, however, might voice protest and urge the U.S. Congress to link Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon to any future U.S. aid.

U.S., Syrian Contacts to Begin Next Month

Efforts to improve relations between Syria and the United States are expected to begin next month, Arab diplomatic sources said.

The sources said the effort will focus on ways to remove Syria from the State Department list of terrorist nations. The status prevents Syria from obtaining most types of civilian and all military aid.

The Clinton administration, the sources said, would seek to change the image of Syria in the eyes of Congress and U.S. public opinion. The efforts, the diplomatic sources said, would begin during the next round of talks, scheduled in Virginia on Jan. 3. They said U.S. and Syrian officials, headed by Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara, would hold talks between negotiations with Israel.

The negotiations would begin with another public ceremony, the sources said. This time, they said, U.S. officials will press A-Shaara to shake hands with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in front of television cameras.

After the negotiations, the sources said, the first of three U.S. congressional delegations would arrive in Syria. The delegations would explore the prospect of approving any White House proposal for economic aid to Damascus after an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty.

Senior U.S. officials have stressed that Damascus will require billions of dollars in Western aid after a peace treaty. But they envision a U.S. effort to focus on obtaining Arab and European aid rather than having Washington shoulder the commitment alone.

On Dec. 29, EU envoy Miguel Moratinos told Syrian leaders in Damascus that Brussels would be active in Middle East peace negotiations. He said the EU would also offer help to achieve a peace treaty and ensure its implementation.

Assad, Barak Plan to Meet in Geneva

The United States is trying to arrange a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian President Hafez Assad at the end of January.

Arab diplomatic sources and newspapers said U.S. President Clinton has sent messages to Assad and Barak and has obtained what they termed a promising response from Assad. Barak has often expressed his wish to meet Assad.

The U.S. plan, the sources said, is for Clinton to meet the two Middle East leaders in Geneva in mid- or late-January after the next round of Israeli-Syrian negotiations scheduled on Jan. 3 in Virginia. The sources said Assad has linked any meeting with Assad to the success of the talks.

On Dec. 31, the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi daily reported that Assad has agreed in principle to meet Barak if progress is reported in the forthcoming negotiations in Virginia.

The sources said Syria will demand an Israeli commitment for a withdrawal from the entire Golan Heights. Damascus has rejected an Israeli proposal for a “core agreement” that would contain a vague formula for Israeli withdrawal. The sources said Syria is insisting that the first issue on the agenda is an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

Israeli sources acknowledged that Assad has been approached by the United States and the European Union regarding a meeting with Barak. Assad has told foreign guests that such a meeting could take place when an agreement is reached between Israel and Syria.

The negotiations will be led by Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara and Israel’s Barak. On Dec. 30, A-Shaara held talks with Egyptian leaders on Israeli-Syrian peace talks as well as coordination with the Palestinians. The foreign minister relayed a message from Assad to Mubarak.

“[Barak’s] seriousness must be put to the test so we can be assured that the Israelis desire peace as we do,” A-Shaara said after talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. “In the new round, we will put Barak’s seriousness to the test, because he showed seriousness in the first round. This seriousness must be put to the test so we can be assured that the Israelis desire peace as we do. The settlements are illegal, whether they are built on the Golan, in the West Bank or any other area of the occupied Arab territories.

Meanwhile, Assad’s son might be invited by Clinton, Arab diplomatic source said.

Israel Doesn’t Expect Framework Accord Next Month

Israel has reduced expectations stemming from next week’s negotiations with Syria.

Israeli officials said they do not expect both countries to agree on a “core agreement” that would guide negotiations toward a peace settlement. They cited Syrian opposition to such an accord.

The talks will begin on Jan. 3 in a secluded site in Virginia and continue for at least 12 days, the officials said. They said the negotiations will continue through the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, when Arab diplomacy comes to a halt.

The officials said Israel will be pressed to issue a commitment for withdrawal from the entire Golan Heights to the June 4, 1967 border. They said Israel would seek to delay such a commitment.

For its part, Israel will demand Syrian goodwill gestures. The gestures, the officials said, do not include a cessation of violence in south Lebanon, which has little chance of being obtained in formal negotiations.

Instead, the officials said, Israel will ask for the return of the remains of executed Israeli spy Eli Cohen and information on the whereabouts of Israeli soldiers missing in Lebanon.

Israel, Syria to Discuss Early Warning Stations

In negotiations next month, Israel and Syria have agreed to discuss three demilitarized zones, early-warning stations and the deployment of U.S. troops as part of an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

The establishment of early-warning stations is slated to be part of a draft of a declaration of principles to be negotiated between the two countries in the next round of talks, scheduled for Jan. 3 in Virginia. The draft will include all the elements of a peace treaty, including Golan withdrawal, normalization, counterterrorism and security arrangements.

The Jordanian daily Al Aswaq said the document was initiated by European Union envoy Miguel Moratinos. The draft was then modified by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and assistant secretary Martin Indyk to become a basis for resuming the negotiations.

“Early warning stations should be erected to prevent surprise attacks,” the newspaper quoted the elements of the draft document as saying. “The two sides discuss the idea of having United Nations forces with an American nucleus to supervise the agreement and ensure its implementation.”

Syrian newspapers have called on Israel to be “serious” in the forthcoming round of talks. The call came as the ruling Baath Party has launched meetings around the country to discuss the prospects of a peace treaty with Israel.

The aim, Syrian sources, is to convene the first national convention of the Baath Party since 1985. At that meeting, Syrian President Hafez Assad is expected to push for his son Bashar to be given a leading role in the party and leadership.

The draft, the Jordanian newspaper said on Dec. 21, does not specifically call for full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Instead, it calls for Israel to withdraw from the area “according to the Madrid conference’s terms of references as an implementation of United Nations resolutions 242 and 338.

Those two UN resolutions as well as UN resolution 425 should be implemented regarding the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. No timetable is mentioned.

The draft stipulated that security arrangements are to be made on the grounds of reciprocated equality with the objective of strengthening stability and ensuring security interests for the two sides. “The security arrangements are in compliance with the principles of sovereignty and regional unity,” the newspaper said, “but under the condition that the Lebanese dimension will be taken into account. These security arrangements are also to take into consideration the nature of the region, the two sides’ positions in the military and political arenas, and the consequences of redeployment on military capabilities.”

Israel has demanded a demilitarization of the entire Golan as well as an area that extends close to Damascus. Syria has six divisions from the area of Golan to Damascus, a distance of 60 kilometers.

In contrast, Syria has demanded that any arrangements be symmetrical and not infringe on that country’s sovereignty.

The draft document calls for three zones in an effort to minimize a surprise military attack. The zone closest to the Israeli border would be free of all weapons. The second zone would have restrictions on weapons and troops. The third zone would have allow the deployment of unspecified defensive weapons.

The draft is vague on the issue of water. Israel has refused to cede rights to the Sea of Galilee, the northeastern portion of which is claimed by Syria. The two countries are asked to deal with the issues in accordance

with international law “taking into account Syria’s rights and Israel’s requirements of waters.”

Regarding future relations between Israel and Syria, the draft calls “peaceful relations between the two sides includes diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with the objective of opening the way for promoting peace. Practical measures will be taken to build confidence in the political, economic and social areas, and the two sides will back and participate in the framework of regional cooperation and the multilateral tracks.”

The two countries are also being asked to pledge not to harbor groups that threaten the other side.

Syria Rejects Barak Proposal on Accord

Syria has rejected an Israeli proposal to reach a core agreement during the next round of negotiations, an Arab newspaper has reported.

The London-based Al Hayat daily on Dec. 27 quoted Syrian sources as saying that the proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for a framework accord that would include all elements of a peace treaty between Israel and Syria would be a substitute for the “substantive bases” of issues concluded by both countries in previous negotiations.

The sources did not explain. But the reference appeared to be that of Syrian insistence that Israel had agreed to a withdrawal from the entire Golan Heights.

Barak has urged Syria and the United States to conclude a “core agreement” with Damascus that would be more specific than a declaration of principles and serve as a guide for a peace treaty. But the prime minister has stressed that he wants to first discuss security arrangements and water before he commits to any withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

Syrian newspapers, meanwhile, renewed their call for an Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines. The call referred to the the line that existed before the Six-Day Arab-Israeli war in which Israel captured the Golan Heights.

Earlier, Israeli sources said Barak would propose a withdrawal to the 1923 line agreed by France and Britain. That line is farther east than that of the 1967 boundary demanded by Syria.

Israeli Spiritual Leader Wants to Visit Syria

A leading Israeli rabbi and patron of the third largest party in the country wants to visit Damascus and meet with Syrian officials before he issues a ruling of whether to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

Diplomatic sources said contacts have been held through Arab and European officials to arrange the visit of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef to Damascus. The rabbi is the spiritual leader of the Shas Party, with 17 seats in the Knesset.

The sources said the rabbi’s support for a Golan withdrawal has been sought by the European Union. EU peace envoy Miguel Moratinos has met with the rabbi and his aides in attempt to win support for a Golan Heights withdrawal in any referendum held in Israel.

The London-based Al Hayat daily said Syrian leaders are considering extending an invitation to the rabbi. The newspaper quoted sources in Damascus as saying the the invitation could come from Syria’s mufti, Sheik Ahmed Kiftaro or from the the chairman of Syria’s tiny Jewish community.

The newspaper said Knesset Abdul Wahab Darhoushe has relayed the rabbi’s desire to visit Syria to leaders in Damascus. The rabbi is regarded as spiritual leader to Jews of North African descent, which make up the majority of Jews in Israel.

So far, Damascus has refused to welcome any Israeli Jewish figure. Several Arab parliamentarians have become regular visitors to Syria.

Iraq, Syria Plan to Renew Diplomatic Relations

After 19 years of tension, Iraq and Syria plan to resume diplomatic relations.

Iraqi newspapers and officials said both countries have reached agreement on the resumption of full ties. They said the first step would be to open interest sections.

Syrian officials acknowledged that both countries are interested in resuming ties but said little progress has been reported in bilateral negotiations.

In 1980, Iraq severed ties with Syria after Damascus sided with Iran during its war with Baghdad. A decade later, Syria joined the U.S.-led coalition against Baghdad that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

“An agreement has been recently reached to open two interest sections in each others’ country,” Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahaf said.

So far, Algeria represents the interests of both Iraq and Syria.

Neither Sahaf nor other Iraqi officials would offer a timetable for the resumption of full diplomatic relations. So far, the two countries have quietly renewed trade. Since 1996, Syria sold $150 million of food and medicine to Iraq and Syrian companies have opened branches in Baghdad.

In 1998, Sahaf visited Syria and met Syrian President Hafez Assad.

A Daughter’s Plea

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 4, 2000

Sara’s mother was murdered with 3 other women who were slain at a bus stop in Jerusalem in March, 1991.

A few months ago, I opened the daily Yediot Aharonot Israeli newspaper and I was stunned to read a headline article written by Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, both of whom are known as credible journalists, in which they wrote that in any permanent agreement with the Palestinian Authority, killers with blood on their hands will be freed by Barak. Next to their article were pictures of six Palestinian killers that the Palestinian Authority demands their release.

One of the pictures that appears there is our killer, the killer of my mother, Mustafa Abu Jallala.

At the moment that I saw that picture I relived the murder.

My mother, a small and simple woman stood at the bus stop waiting for a bus that would take her home from another day of work and suddenly, a monstrous man of six foot appeared out of nowhere flailing a long knife. He killed her and all of our family. A full life was taken in one moment, the life of a simple family was changed from one extreme to another and will never be the same from what it was before the murder. Whenever I feel the pain of the murder, and the sorrow for the loss of my mother, I imagine him, the murderer. Getting off a bus with the other freed murderers, with great satisfaction and with victory on his face, holding up the V sign with his hand, saying, I’m victorious, I murdered, I was freed and now I can even do it again and become a leader of my people.

And I ask you, I ask my people, and I ask our Prime Minister, how are we supposed to feel when the value of justice slips from our hands? How are we as a family to feel when our minimal human rights were taken by a murderer, who instead of rotting in prison to his last day, might in fact be freed very soon. We hear every day about human rights that we all agree are a very important principle in a just society, but I ask where exactly is the right of a murder victim, of the victim of a person who was precious to us who is now buried deep in the ground. Where are the victim’s rights when the murderer is allowed to go free?

Where are the rights of us as a bereaved family, whose life after the murder has anyway become difficult? Where are our rights when the murderer of our mother is freed?

Ever since the article in Yediot appeared, we have witnessed 150 prisoners freed, amongst them people with the blood of the wounded on their hands, (as if they did not intend to kill) and also amongst them, those who murdered Arabs who cooperated with Israel. (As if there is any difference between human blood).

Last week we were witness to the freeing of another 26 prisoners, amongst them was the murderer of a taxi driver, Yehezkel Mizrachi. My heart and the heart of all my family go out to his grieving family. We are slowly coming to the realization that this is about to happen to us, and this must never happen.

I feel a moral obligation in memory of my mother to carry out this fight, My mother did not have the opportunity to defend herself. As I think of my mother, I cannot sit idly and not fight this basic injustice.

Eye on Syria: Timely Report on Developments

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

December 21, 1999

Welcome to Eye on Syria, a timely report on developments in Syria as well as a review of pertinent articles in the Syrian official press as well as what is written about Syria. The service is meant to illuminate Westerners to one of the most closed societies in the world. The report is based on facts and analysis culled from numerous Syrian and Arab newspapers as well as diplomatic sources by correspondents in Jerusalem, London and Cairo.

First, a quick look at the Syrian media. Syrian newspapers, radio and television are all owned and controlled by the regime. Nothing appears in the media without the approval of authorities. Broadcasters are given text to read and have no room to improvise.

Syria has one radio station, television station and news service. They are leaden and dull but they faithfully reflect propaganda from Damascus. Slogans are repeated ad nauseum in a reflection of the highly ideological regime. We will spare subscribers of the rhetoric and, instead, give the main points of the media.

There are four Syrian dailies and they are remarkably similar. Al Baath is the newspaper of the ruling Baath Party. It focuses on so-called popular issues, largely the activities of the party around the country. Al Thawra is the ideological organ of the Syrian regime. Tishrin is the government daily. The Syrian Times is the English-language daily.

Quote of the day:

“The issue of the Lebanese resistance is a matter for Lebanon to discuss.” –Syrian Foreign Minister A-Shaara rejects calls for Syria to crack down on Hizbullah military campaign against Israel.

Today in Syria

Assad Losing Control of Family Feud

Bashar Assad Expected to be Given High Post

Syria Links Lebanese Talks to Israeli Withdrawal

Syria Admits Killing of Major Islamic Leader

Iraq, Syria Agree to Reopen Pipeline

Iran: We Support return of Golan

Syria Allows Criticism of Peace Talks

Assad Losing Control of Family Feud

Syrian President Hafez Assad, growing increasingly weak, is spending much of his time as peacemaker to quell the feud within his family over the grooming of his elder son Bashar as heir.

Intelligence sources in Washington, Tel Aviv and Paris said the difficulties faced by Assad in grooming his son as successor is pushing the president to win the Golan Heights in a treaty with Israel. They said this is the main reason Assad decided to resume talks with Israel last week.

“Until now,” an authoritative U.S. defense source said, “Assad felt that even if Syria wouldn’t get the Golan back, he could still ensure that Bashar takes over. Now, he’s no longer sure.”

Sources said the most intense opposition to Bashar, a congenial British-trained opthamologist, appears to be within the family and leading members of Assad’s Alawite sect.

“Clearly, something is wrong in the family, particularly among the children,” a source with excellent ties to the Syrian leadership said. “Assad has no choice but to intervene and make peace.”

The sources said Assad has failed to win his son a seat in the Baath Party inner leadership, a prerequisite for any president. They said a party congress to consider the issue is scheduled for spring of 2000.

“Why the delay?” a source asked. “Assad can easily move up the date. What appears to be the case is that there is too much division in the family and this has affected the other Alawites.”

The sources said the effects of the shooting of Assad’s son-in-law Assaf Chawkat, head of military intelligence, in November by Assad’s son, Maher, another military commander, continues to ripple through the ruling family. They said the tension is being compounded by Chawkat’s wife and Assad’s daughter, Bushra.

“We are dealing with a very vocal and dynamic woman, which is extremely rare among the Alawaites,” a source said. “She has very strong views about the succession issue.”

Chawkat is said to support the 34-year-old Bashar as successor to the president. The younger Maher is said to oppose the choice.

Lebanese sources following the succession issue said Bashar lacks determination and is “at best half-hearted” in his drive to become president. They said he made a poor impression during his visit to Paris last month during which he met French President Jacques Chirac.

The sources said Assad’s health is increasingly deteriorating. The president works at most 2-3 hours a day and his mind often wanders at meetings.

They said Assad no longer travels and contributes little in meetings. They said in meetings with U.S. and other Western officials, Assad will say several words and his translator will go on for several minutes.

“It is obvious that the translator is told what to say in advance,” a source said.

The problem is compounded, the sources said, by Assad’s lack of capable aides. They said Assad returned the ailing Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara to his post because he couldn’t find anybody else trustworthy to deal with Israeli and U.S. officials.

A-Shaara, a member of the Sunni Muslim majority, rather than Bashar, the sources said, is being employed to lobby the ruling Baath Party to support negotiations with Israel. European Union peace envoy Miguel Moratinos told Israeli officials last week that A-Shaara spent five hours trying to persuade the Baath Party’s central committee to support the negotiations.

A-Shaara was said to have been slated for retirement. But Arab diplomatic sources on Dec. 21 said Assad plans to name A-Shaara as Syria’s new prime minister. The London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat said the move could be announced on Monday and is meant to raise his title to that of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak by the time the two men meet near Washington on Jan. 3.

Sources said Assad hopes to obtain billions of dollars in Western and Arab aid in the wake of a peace treaty. They said a formula is being discussed in which the European Union will contribute $3 for each $1 in U.S. aid.

Eliahu Kanovsky, a professor at Bar Ilan University and regarded as one of the most prominent economists in the Middle East, said Syria wants a quick infusion of billions of dollars in Western aid similar to that Egypt received when it signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

“I believe that the economic situation, which has deteriorated in recent years, is behind the expressed willingness of Syria to seek a peace agreement with Israel, hoping that this will save the situation,” Kanovsky said in a study.

Bashar Assad Expected to be Given High Post

The son and heir-apparent of Syrian President Hafez Assad is expected to be appointed to a senior post, diplomatic sources said.

The sources, who monitor developments in Syria, said the president appears ready to embark on a new effort to advance the career of his son, Bashar, in a bid to ensure his succession. They said the 34-year-old Bashar is being considered to a senior government post.

That move, the sources said, will probably involve appointing Bashar to a leadership position in the ruling Baath Party. A session of the Baath Party Central Committee is not scheduled until the spring but Assad could call for an early convention.

The sources said the appointment of Bashar will probably be announced as part of a new Cabinet. Assad is expected to appointed Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara as prime minister. The London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat daily said on Dec. 21 that A-Shaara will keep his post at the Foreign Ministry.

The newspaper said the new government is expected to be announced before the start of the next round of Israeli-Syrian negotiations on Jan. 3. Syria has pledged that it will maintain an equal level of representation at the negotiations, the Israeli team of which is led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

During A-Shaara’s illness in October and November, Bashar served as de facto foreign minister and was sent to Paris to hold talks with French President Jacques Chirac as well as visits to the Gulf states. Bashar is believed to have also been placed in charge of Syrian-Iranian relations, regarded as the most sensitive element in Syria’s foreign policy.

The diplomatic sources said Bashar’s key role has been trying to drum up Gulf financial support for Syria. The efforts appear to have led to results.

On Monday, Kuwait agreed to grant a loan to Syria to develop infrastructure projects. Syrian Minister of State for Planning Abdul Rahim Sbei and the director general of the Kuwaiti Fund for Arab Economic Development, Bader Hameidi, signed an accord whereby the fund will provide a loan of 6 million Kuwaiti dinars help finance a provincial highway in the north.

The Kuwaiti fund has provided Syria with 25 loans. Diplomats said Kuwait has agreed to consider financing other projects in Syria in the fields of communications, electricity and sewage.

Syria Links Lebanese Talks to Israeli Withdrawal

Syria has delayed a green light for Lebanon to join negotiations with Israel until the Jewish state issues a commitment to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights.

The London-based Al Hayat daily said on Dec. 21 Syrian leaders have told their Lebanese counterparts that they are waiting for an Israeli commitment to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, the eve of the Six-Day war in which Israel captured the Golan Heights and other territory. So far, Israel has objected.

The newspaper said this will be the major demand by Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk A-Shaara in the next round of negotiations with Israel, scheduled for Jan. 3 at a secluded location in Virginia. Earlier, President Hafez Assad told U.S. President Bill Clinton that neither Lebanon nor Syria would sign a separate peace treaty with the Jewish state.

On Dec. 20, A-Sharaa briefed President Emile Lahoud, parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Salim Hoss, and Interior Minister Michel Murr at Baabda Palace. He said the decision whether to allow Lebanon to begin talks would be made after the next round of Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

A-Shaara grew testy when he was asked by a reporter when Syria would withdraw its 40,000 troops from Lebanon. “Nobody has the right to ask this because we have not heard of this [demand],” the foreign minister said.

The Syrian foreign minister said the priority in the current negotiations is the return of Israel to its June 4, 1967 borders, the eve of the Six-Day war. That is to be followed by an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, relations with Israel and water issues.

“The elements of peace are known,” A-Shaara said.

A-Shaara would not say whether Syria has fulfilled a U.S. demand to press the Hizbullah and Amal militias to end their attacks on Israel.

“The issue of the Lebanese resistance is a matter for Lebanon to discuss,” he said, adding that Syria “understands the role of the resistance in Lebanon and the important role Lebanon has played in defending its rights against the Israeli occupation.”

Syria Admits Killing of Major Islamic Leader

Syria, seeking to head off concern of increasing unrest, has acknowledged that a leading Islamic cleric was assassinated in what the regime asserts was a criminal attack.

Syrian sources said Sheik Mohammed Amin Yakan, 62, was assassinated on Dec. 16 as he was driven to Tarhin village near Aleppo. They said four suspects were arrested and two remain at large.

Yakan was a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood and served as a mediator for President Hafez Assad in his attempts in 1997 to reconcile with the underground Islamic opposition. Assad drove the Brotherhood underground in 1984 in a campaign that was said to have killed 20,000 opponents of the regime.

On Dec. 21, the London-based Al Hayat daily quoted official Syrian sources as saying that Yakin was killed in a hail of gunfire by opponents trying to reverse a government decision on land use. They said the sheik was responsible for a piece of land being sought by an Aleppo-area family and designated for the construction of a research center.

The suspects were quoted by Syrian sources as saying that they meant to shoot toward Yakin’s car to intimidate him. They said they did not mean to kill him.

The sources said Syrian authorities are continuing their investigation. Diplomatic sources said the killing has raised tension around Aleppo and the surrounding area and could point to a loosening of President Hafez Assad’s grip on power as his health deteriorates and his family is divided.

Syria, the sources said, is undergoing a creeping process of Islamization, with Islamic fervor increasing both in Damascus and particularly in provincial cities. They cited an increase in mosque attendance, beards and public observance of the fast month of Ramadan.

The Islamization has a militant side, the sources said. They report that Christians and non-Sunnis are expressing rising concern over pressure to observe Muslim tenets in towns with large non-Sunni minorities.

Iraq, Syria Agree to Reopen Pipeline

Iraq and Syria have agreed to reopen an oil pipeline shut down since 1980.

The reopening of the oil pipeline would allow Iraq to export oil through Syria to Western Europe at reduced cost. The pipeline will also bring revenue to Syria.

Officials said the pipeline has a capacity of 300,000 barrels a day. It was closed by Syria after Iraq invaded Iran, Syria’s leading ally.

For years, Iraq has been exporting oil the Iraqi harbor of El-Bakr on the Gulf and through a pipeline that passes through Turkey to Jihan harbor on the Mediterranean Sea.

Oil analysts said the reopening of the pipeline through Syria could lead to an increase in Iraqi exports. They said it would also reactivate the Gulf harbor at Khour El-Amia.

They said Iraqi oil exports could be increased from nearly 600,000 barrels daily to nearly 2.9 million barrels daily for the coming year.

In another development, the U.S.-based Largo Vista Group Ltd., said it reached an agreement for 49 percent of a joint venture to establish operations in the United Arab Emirates for distribution of petrochemical products worldwide. Majority share would be held by the UAE’s Silver Falcon.

Iran: We Support return of Golan

Iran has provided a qualified endorsement of Syrian negotiations with Israel.

In its first official response, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said Teheran supports Syria’s efforts to obtain the Golan Heights. The spokesman said Iran understood that this would mean negotiations with Israel.

Hamid Asefi, the spokesman, said Teheran did not regard Syrian negotiations with Israel as part of the Middle East peace process opposed by Iran.

“The Syrians have also proved that they move in line with their rights,” Asefi said on Dec. 21.

But the spokesman said Iran, Syria’s leading ally, will continue to oppose reconciliation with and recognition of Israel. He said the Palestinians are making concessions to Israel on their basic rights.

“No progress has been made regarding the restoration of Palestinians rights” Asefi said.

The break in nearly two weeks of silence by Iranian officials come as Bashar Assad, the son and heir-apparent of President Hafez Assad, is expected to arrive in Iran over the next 48 hours to meet leaders of the Islamic regime. The focus of the talks will be the Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

On Dec. 19, the Kayhan International daily, which is aligned with the ruling Islamic clergy, raised the specter that Israel and Syria might reach a peace agreement. The newspaper said Iran would not stand in the way of such a development but would not join any reconciliation effort.

“Although there has been some sort of a mixed reaction in the Islamic republic over the resumption of Syrian-Israeli talks, political observers believe that at the end, Iran cannot be more Syrian than Assad but at the same time maintain its position that Israel is an illegitimate entity,” the newspaper said.

The mild tone constrasted with assessments reported in Israel. Israeli government sources said on Dec. 20 that European Union Miguel Moratinos brought a message from Syrian leaders to their Israeli counterparts that expressed Assad’s fear that Iran and Hizbullah would torpedo any agreement.

The message urged Israel to quickly agree to a peace treaty before Iran and Hizbullah could organize opposition.

Kayhan said it expected tough negotiations between Israel and Syria in a land-for-peace deal. The newspaper said the Golan Heights is of “crucial strategic importance” for both Israel and Syria.

Iran, the daily said in an editorial, has been cautious in its response to Syria’s efforts. Kayhan said that since Syria first agreed to negotiate with Israel, Iran has done little more than express implicit criticism.

Earlier, the Iran News said Teheran is divided over Syrian talks with Israel. The argument pits those who urge Iran to prepare for joining the process of reconciliation with Israel against those who pledge never to make peace with the Jewish state.

Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri urged the Islamic world not to reconcile with Israel and instead bolster its militaries. In a speech at Teheran University, Nateq-Nouri said, “Palestine is for Palestinians. The thieves have to leave so we can go back home.”

Syria Allows Criticism of Peace Talks

In an unusual move apparently designed to increase support for any peace treaty and forshadow official policy, the regime of President Hafez Assad has allowed criticism of Syria’s decision to resume negotiations with Israel.

A Syrian writer has warned that Israel stands to gain more from a peace accord than Syria and warned against normalization of relations with the Jewish state. This could harm Syria’s relations with the Palestinians and Arab regimes in the Middle East.

Ali Orsan, chairman of the Syrian Arab Writers Association, said Damascus has signalled that it will make significant concessions to Israel in return for the Golan Heights and allow full Israeli control of the Sea of Galilee and an Israeli presence in an early-warning station on Mount Hermon.

“The success of these negotiations will facilitate many dangerous Arab changes regarding the Arab-Zionist conflict,” Orsan wrote in the Al-Usbu al-Adabi magazine. “The Zionist occupier will have recognized borders, water, normalization and a reputation for striving for peace. We, on the other hand, will remain with thorns stuck in our throats.”

Orsan is regarded as heading an organization subservient to the Syrian regime and excerpts of his article were also published in the London-based Al Hayat daily.

Western diplomats said the criticism voiced in Syria was meant to prepare Syrians and other Arabs for normalization of relations with Israel that would include full diplomatic ties, open borders, tourism and trade. Another aim, they said, was to signal Syria’s pledge to help the Palestinians after a peace treaty is signed by Damascus and the Jewish state.

Arab diplomatic sources and report asserted that Syria has rejected the opening of embassies until the “last Israeli soldier” leaves the Golan Heights. The Al Hayat daily said Syria has also rejected an Israeli proposal for an exchange of territory to ensure that Israel maintains the Hamet Gader outpost, which oversees the Yarmouk River.

Orsan said Syria won a “political victory” when Israel agreed to resume negotiations at the point they were suspended in 1996, an implicit recognition that the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin pledged a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But this does not mean that Israel will honor such a commitment.

“This omission does not mean Syria failed to learn the lessons of the past, when Zionist deception was revealed on several occasions,” Orsan wrote. “It is sufficient to mention the American attempts to evade Rabin’s deposit in order to force Syria to resume the negotiations without mentioning the progress that was achieved at the Wye Plantation. It is possible that Syria received a written American guarantee for a withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 border, but the question remains whether this issue has become inevitable from the Israeli perspective? I seriously doubt it.”

“It seems that this issue will become one of the obstacles the negotiators will face, but will not lead to the breakdown of the new negotiations, nor will it prevent the forging of some mutual understanding,” he added.

Orsan appeared to confirm reports that Syria has agreed to an Israeli presence in the establishment of an early warning station on Mount Hermon, the highest point in the region. He said security arrangements and water-sharing, particularly Israel’s insistence of full rights to the Sea of Galilee, have been obstacles to a peace treaty.

“It is plausible that security, emphasized by the Zionist entity, achieved the understanding of the Syrians regarding the early warning station in the Hermon,” Orsan said. “The Syrian side will also consider the Zionist entity’s need for water. We may not be able to legally drink from the water of Tiberias [Sea of Galilee] but we would be able to fish in it, using long arms. There may be some merely cosmetic modifications to the border that would connect the principle of the June 4, borderline with the so-called international border, drawn by Britain and France in 1923.”

But Orsan, in what could forshadow the intentions of Damascus, said after a peace treaty, he will focus on ending Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

“The Arab-national aspect of the Palestinian problem is stronger within me than all the marginal [interests] of [one Arab] country,” Orsan wrote. “The problem of Palestine will remain an existential conflict with the Zionist occupiers, until victory, the removal [of the Zionists], and the liberation, even if it takes a hundred years.”

The Man Who Convinced Eshkol

By

David Bedein

-

December 21, 1999

The course of history can be changed by the determination of one man who stands up for what he believes in when he is listened to by people who are in a position of power.

The initiative to demand that Israel take the Golan Heights came from not from real estate-seeking settlers who wanted to move to the Golan, but rather from the residents of the Upper Galilee, or, to put it better, directly from the regional Mayor of the Upper Galilee, Yaakov (Yankela) Eshkoli, the man who led the delegation of Upper Galilee residents to lobby Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and the Israeli government on the fourth night of the Six Day War.

Eshkoli’s mission: to convince Eshkol to issue an order to the Israel Defence Forces Northern regional command to take the Golan Heights and to remove the Syrian threat, once and for all, from over the heads of the Galilee settlements.

Eshkoli, now 88, was elected four times to be the regional mayor of the Galilee, and served in his position from 1955-1971

Speaking with remarkable resilience and a clear memory after 20 years of severe heart disease, the aging Eshkoli, with his ninety year old wife Yaffa at his side, cannot keep repeating how pleased he is that he has lived to tell his story, while talks with Syria get under way and while the future of the Golan is indeed on the agenda.

“13 years ago I had a heart attack and the doctors declared me to be clinically dead. I guess I recovered so that I could tell my story today”, Eshkoli says, with a wink and a twinkle in his eye, when I met him on his porch, on Kibbutz Cfar Giladi.

Cfar Giladi is one of the oldest Galilee settlements, located just north of Kiryat Shmoneh and sandwiched in between Lebanon and the Golan Heights, where he and Yaffa, now 90 years old, have been kibbutz members since 1932.

Eshkoli says that he is always eager to relate the role that he played in convincing the Israeli government to take the Golan in the midst of the 1967 war.

As Eshkoli tells it, by the fourth day of the 1967 war, it was clear that Israel had delivered a solid defeat to Jordan and Egypt.

That left Syria, which had been raining a steady stream of rockets into the Hula Valley below, leaving the residents of 31 settlements in the Upper Galilee region in Eshkoli’s jurisdiction to spend those glorious days of 1967 in deep underground bunkers, glued to their transistor radios.

Eshkoli recalls how he placed constant calls into Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon from his underground bunker on the Kibbutz to ask to see Levi Eshkol, then Israel’s prime minister, to demand action on the Syrian front.

Allon, the 1948 war hero who with liberated the Galilee, promised to get Eshkoli called him on the fourth day of the war with the good news that Eshkoli could meet Eshkol and the Israeli cabinet that evening, warning him that at least one senior Israeli cabinet minister opposed any move towards the Golan Heights….

Leaving his kibbutz in an army jeep, picking up Kibbutz leaders from other settlements in the region, while every kibbutz member was ordered into the shelters because of the continuing Syrian artillery bombardment, Eshkoli remembers that he had the feeling that his Hula valley was burning while the rest of the country was dancing in the streets

Eshkoli speaks of his descending the steps into the underground headquarters of the Israeli government in Tel Aviv as if it happened last night. Eshkoli gets tears in his eyes when he describes the hug that Levi Eshkol gave him when he showed up. Eshkoli that his full delegation of four be allowed to enter the cabinet meeting, and he recalls the Bible that he was asked to swear on that any matter of security that he would hear would be kept in strictest confidence.

Eshkoli was given five minutes to speak. “The longest five minutes in my life”, Eshkoli remembers. His appeal was simple and clear, when he reminded Eshkol that he and every Israeli leader who had ever come to visit him in the Galilee after Syrian rocket attacks had promised them that if there would ever be another war, that they would use that opportunity to remove the Syrian threat, once and for all.

Eshkoli reports that the one Israeli minister to oppose the idea: Moshe Dayan, the former Israeli commander in chief who had just been appointed to be Defence minister. Dayan had given the veto to his northern regional commander, “Dado” Elazar, whom he forbid to attack Syria on the Golan, “lest this cost us 30,000 dead and risk a war with the Soviet Union”, which had just pushed through a cease-fire in the UN Security Council. Dayan the war hero from the 1956 war with tremendous popular following, also made a great impression on the cabinet.

Eshkoli recalls that he then thought to himself: “Will I be responsible for world war”, and then said that ” I could only think of my wife and the children of the kibbutz who at that moment were in the shelters”. It was then that Eshkoli made a threat, which he says to this day that he meant with all his heart, which was that if the IDF does not remove the Syrians from the Golan then he would recommend that all Kibbutzim pack their bags and leave, and that the people of Kiryat Shmoneh would follow. Silence followed Eshkoli’s emotional appeal to the Israeli cabinet.

As Eshkoli turned and began to leave the meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol grabbed his hand and proclaimed that “The words of Eshkoli have entered the heart of Levi Eshkol, and they will play a crucial role in what we decide to do on the Golan Heights”.

Eshkoli could not know when he left the government meeting, heading back north, whether he had succeeded in his mission. Would his words hold greater weight than Moshe Dayan?

Heading back to Kfar Giladi, Eshkoli stopped off at the bunker of the IDF Northern regional command. By then it was 5AM. “Dado” was slumped over his desk, next to a bottle of half-empty scotch.

Eshkoli reported to “Dado” what had happened at the government meeting. And while they were talking, “Dado” received a call from the Israel Defence Ministry. Moshe Dayan’s resonant voice was on the line with an order – “Ascend the Golan and Succeed” were Dayan’s words, and they were repeated on the 6AM Voice of Israel radio newsreel.

“Dado” loudly said to Eshkoli that he had succeeded with Dayan where he, the IDF northern regional commander had not.

Indeed, Dayan’s vote in the government was the lone voice in the government to vote against the Golan attack….

Dayan never forgave Eshkoli for besting him at the government meeting. Eshkoli shows me a yellowing news interview from 1976 with Moshe Dayan with the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot, where Moshe Dayan could only recall Eshkoli and his delegation with anger and resentment, characterizing them as “Dado”‘s agents, claiming that, anyway, “the provocation’s of the Galilee farmers and fishermen in no-man’s land were the cause of the Syrian shellings”.

Eshkoli looks at the picture of Moshe Dayan and starts to yell at him “Right – All of my 31 communities provoked the Syrians from their shelters. Our provocation against the Syrians is that we live and prosper here in the Galilee, which the Syrians see as a province of their country”.

Asked about the current negotiations that might bring the Syrians back to the Golan Heights that face down on his kibbutz, Eshkoli could only raise a trembling hand and point to the hills and say that to “bring back the Syrians would be suicide for us”.

Eshkoli’s successor as regional mayor of the Upper Galilee region, fellow Kfar Giladi member Aharon Valenci, is much more sanguine in his attitude to the possibility of territorial compromise on the Golan, saying that he trusts Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and that if the Syrians are serious about peace, then the issue of the Golan would not be as important as it once was, noting that “99%” of his kibbutz were supportive of the peace process with Syria. Valanci said, however, that he will wait to see what the Syrians convey to their own people in their own media.

However, another prominent Galilee kibbutz leader, Muki Tzur, from Ein Gev, on the shores of the Sea of the Galilee and meters away from the Golan Heights and what might again be Syria, writes an interview with KIBBUTZ, the magazine of the Kibbutz movement, that it was premature to take a position on the peace process.

Tzur, the 1967 author of the best selling book known as the Seventh Day: Conversations with Fighters from the Six Day War, writes in his article that Jewish and Israeli history has taught us that any peace process with Israel’s adversaries will be long, hard and complex, and that no decision can be made under the pressure of an immediate desire for peace. The price of a mistake in the peace process in the North would be guns in place once again on the Golan, trained on the 31 settlements of the Hula Valley in Israel’s lush Upper Galilee region.

Yankela Eshkoli stood up to Moshe Dayan.

That is why the guns in the Golan were removed, and that is why 33 Israeli settlements replaced 15 Syrian army camps on the Golan Heights.

Can Tyrants Make Peace? A Perspective on the Syrian/Israel Talks in Washington

By

David Bedein

-

December 21, 1999

One of the lessons of the twentieth century that is that a tyrant does not make peace with a democratically elected leader.

A dictator views an agreement with a democracy as one of expediency, designed to strengthen and bolster his regime of military supremacy, press censorship, government corruption and suppression of human rights and civil liberties.

A leader of a democracy believes that the spirit of freedom in his nation will preserve any such peace agreement for generations to come.

A dictator who gains tangible assets at the negotiating table thinks that he has won a battle by his sheer show of force, as he readies himself for the next round of conquest, which can be by either military or diplomatic means in the future.

A democratic leader promises “peace in our time” to his people, while the residents of his nation envision of a life of peace, for themselves and for their children.

As Israeli Prime Minister and Syrian Foreign Minister arrive for crucial talks in Washington, the media in Israel is rampant with the word “peace”. Yet the government-controlled media in Syria is rampant with the word “liberation of Palestine” as these talks begin.

Meanwhile, pundits in Israel debate the pros and cons of ceding vital security assets of the Golan Heights to Syria as the price of a peace treaty with Damascus. Yet Syrian government TV conveys a daily message to their people, promising that the Golan Heights is the first step of the Syrian nation liberating all of Palestine. “The Galilee is next, and then on to Jerusalem”, proclaim Syrian spokesman on official Damascus radio.

Tell that to most Israelis and they are incredulous.

The Jews of Israel, tired of continuous war that has plagued the Holy Land since 1936, would like to live in a nation that is not under military threat in the next century. Who wouldn’t?

Many Israeli entrepreneurs have developed recent business contacts with people in the Arab world, and they are delighted to hear a desire for peace from Arabs whom they meet with, in every walk of life.

That most certainly includes Syrians whom Israelis have been meeting with in discrete joint business ventures over the past few years.

However, what people who live in a democratic country cannot conceptualize is that a popular desire for peace may not be reflected in a totalitarian regime.

The late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, asserted in his last appearance on October 31, 1995 at the Israeli Knesset parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Security Committee that the missile capacity and military resolve of Syria, aligned with Iran and with Libya, represented a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state. After Rabin’s assassination four days later, official Syrian media praised Rabin’s killing, describing it a as a “confidence building measure”.

And after a series of bombings in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv in February and in March of 1996, official Syrian media endorsed these “acts of liberation”. That is when talks broke down, while Shimon Peres was Israel’s Prime Minister and while Ehud Barak was Israel’s Foreign Minister.

Now peace talks resume, with Ehud Barak firmly at the helm of the Jewish state.

Has anything changed? Hardly.

Except that Barak, working closely with the outgoing Clinton administration, would like to push for a definitive peace treaty with Syria and wave that piece of paper to the people of Israel when he descends AIR FORCE ONE in Israel, arm in arm with the US president.

Yet on a more sanguine note, long time peace activist and newly elected Israeli Knesset speaker Avrum Burg said on Israeli Channel One Television two days before Burg’s departure for the US that at the only way that Syrian President Assad will be able to “sell” any peace agreement with Israel will be for Assad to make that appeal for peace directly to the people of Israel, from the rostrum of Israel’s Knesset in Jerusalem, just as President Sadat did in 1977, when he addressed the Israeli Knesset and declared – “no more war, no more bloodshed”.

Towards an Arab Comprehensive Strategy For Peace

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

December 21, 1999

If one reviews the peace process since its launching after the U.S. aggression against Iraq in which the Syrian regime participated, s/he will realize why the Syrians looked for a peace settlement with the U.S. rather than Israel.

President Assad believes that the U.S. can impose such a settlement on Israel. In addition, he made Israel pay a heavy price in South Lebanon. And regardless of the political changes that took place in both Israel and the US, President Assad adhered to his own negotiating strategy.

Barak, the prime minister of Israel, therefore, tailored a special strategy for his negotiations with Syria which is different from the one Israel adapted on the Israeli Palestinian track. For example, while the word security features quite often in all peace agreements with the Palestinians, the word peace dominates the dialogue between Israel and Syria. Barak claims that the security of Israel dictates the conditions of peace with the Palestinians. On the other hand, he says that peace with Syria brings security to Israel. This explains why Israel would not accept the implementation of the same negotiating strategy with all Arab countries.

Apart from how Israel differently perceives the Palestinian and the Syrian peace tracks, there are certain differences and similarities between the two tracks from our points of view as Palestinians and Syrians. Syria, like Egypt and Jordan, is seeking a permanent solution that leads to a peace accord with Israel. This helps the Syrians in adhering to their position which is derived from their interpretation of U.N. Resolution 242 and the principle of land for peace. Withdrawal from Syrian territories occupied in 1967 and not to international borders as Israel demands, will achieve peace and security to Israel. This requires certain arrangements that will be implemented following Israel s complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

To the Israelis, the Golan Heights is in a similar position that of Jerusalem. Both are Arab territories occupied in 1967 and were annexed by Israel in violation of international law and Geneva Fourth Convention. Unlike earlier precedents, Israel’s full withdrawal from the Golan Heights is of particular importance to the issue of Jerusalem.

It is difficult to predict what the Israeli Syrian negotiations will lead to, under the sponsorship of President Clinton. But one thing is clear. Barak, in the political arena, has a military mentality; he wants to achieve victory against more than one enemy. Although it seems that Barak has given in to the Syrian negotiating strategy, he has taken a calculated risk realizing that the U.S. role will diminish sooner than the Syrians expect. President Clinton, after all, will at a certain point be unable to impose on Barak a peace settlement on both the Palestinian and Syrian tracks. We should not forget that the U.S. presidential elections have somehow started. Barak, also, understands that he can make an achievement if he connects the Lebanese track to the Syrian one. This will enable him to withdraw his troops form south Lebanon in return for a complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Such a deal, selling the camel and the cat together, would guarantee the success of the referendum he promised his people.

These days, the number of observers who think that there is no war without Egypt and no peace without Syria, is on the increase. However, history shows that there is no war or peace without Palestine. Mistaken are those who believe that Israel can achieve peace with Mauritania while it continues to deny the rights of the Palestinian people. Peace with Jordan and Egypt and, in the future, with Syria and Lebanon, will remain frozen as long as Jerusalem is not the capital city of the independent state of Palestine. However, the Israelis continue to assume that peace with Syria can be achieved due to certain internal considerations that concern Syria. They also assume that stability in the area can be brought about without considering the Palestinian role. But this is not true. Comprehensive peace can not be made without solving all the permanent status issues. This requires an Arab and, in certain cases, Islamic consensus. Palestinians, for example, can not by themselves decide the future of Jerusalem without obtaining the consent of the Arab and Muslim nation. As to the issue of refugees living in the Arab world, no solution can be made without being coordinated with the countries concerned. Borders of the independent Palestine are also of great concern to all Arab countries bordering on Palestine. Will Israel able allowed to create buffer zones with these countries as it is now doing inside Palestine? The answer is surely no.

The Palestinian position towards the Syrian demands stems from the same understanding. Syria s call for the liberation of all Arab occupied territories received the full blessing of the Palestinian leadership. This also applies to the liberation of Al-Hima and Ka wash triangles, an area which was under Syrian control and was occupied in 1967. Differences of opinion with the Syrians will not make us negotiate their liberation with Israel.

A future outlook requires that Syrians and Palestinians coordinate their positions to achieve a comprehensive peace. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are asked to play an effective role to bring about an Arab unified position on all permanent status issues; i.e. borders, Jerusalem, refugees and Israeli settlements. For this reason, an Arab summit is necessary to block Israel s attempts to impose their hegemony on the region. It is also necessary for the Arab world to renew its hopes for unity at the outset of the third millennium.

Coordinating our position with the Arab world may require a confrontation with the Israelis over the construction of settlements. The tenth round of final status talks has ended without any positive results. The U.S. and Israeli positions on settlements do not meet our demand to halt any further construction of settlements. The currect situation is in the interest of the Israeli government which assumes that settlements and peace can go together.

Starting the Israeli Syrian negotiations was not an easy task to Barak. Jewish settlers in the Golan have warned that they will wage a fierce battle against any future dismantling of their settlements. Obtaining the Knesset s approval was also difficulty. Only forty seven members voted in favor of starting negotiations with Syria. Arab members played a crucial role in the voting.

Relying on the support of the opposition will undermine any serious efforts on the part of the Israeli government and will also make Barak play one track against another. Palestinians will then have to reassess their own situation. Internal social and economic conditions ought to be given our utmost concern. The claim that we are in the middle of the peace process and those internal condition are of secondary importance, is not true. Strengthening our home form is a prerequisite for peace negotiations.

Nobody should despair. The international legality, Arabs and all peace loving nations support the Palestinian position. And we will continue to be in a very strong position as long as we believe in the inevitability of victory.

Revolution Until Victory

Israel Behind the News

Jane’s Defence Weekly: Israel Warns Against Syria Obtaining New Weapons

Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration

Transcript: Indyk Sees “Real Opportunity” For Separate Peace Accords

An Insider’s Report From the Shepherdstown Talks

Eye on Syria: Timely Report on Developments

A Daughter’s Plea

Eye on Syria: Timely Report on Developments

The Man Who Convinced Eshkol

Can Tyrants Make Peace? A Perspective on the Syrian/Israel Talks in Washington

Towards an Arab Comprehensive Strategy For Peace

Column from the Director