Israel, Syria held secret talks

[Severian]

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the Israeli and Syrian governments held secret talks from 2004 through July 2006 - the last meeting during the Israeli war in Lebanon - and even reached a tentative, partial agreement on Israeli withdrawal in exchange for an end to Syrian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Ha'aretz prints the text of the understanding.

Both governments deny the report. Don't want to admit how much they have in common? Anyway:

Ha'aretz article With links at the bottom to the text, a background article, and other info.

One example of the denials.

The report's detailed enough that it's likely true. Among the interesting questions, I think, is whether the negotiations are dead and why this information has been leaked now.

The Ha'aretz background article concludes:

The final document was formulated in August 2005, and has since been changed slightly. The final meeting took place a year later, in the midst of the second Lebanon war, on a day in which eight Israelis were killed by Hezbollah-fired Katyusha rockets in the Galilee. Suleiman announced that the Syrians had done all they could with the covert channel and were suggesting a meeting between a Syrian representative at the rank of deputy minister and an Israeli official at the rank of director general. They asked that C. David Welch, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, also participate in the meeting.

That was the end of the story.

It also suggests that one reason Israel hasn't opened official negotiations is that the U.S. government opposes them. Other sources indicate the same; even Sheik Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has made this assertion.

Which incidentally contradicts all the claims that Israel controls the U.S. government somehow (presumably through American Jews or the Elders of Zion.)

[Omri Evron]

The agreement is actually pretty good and benefitial to both sides. But most importently, it shows there are no real disagreements between them on the issue of the Golan and the terms for peace. Therefore it exposes the already known fact that the only reason there isn't peace between the two countries is the opposition of the US government. Some leading Israeli politicians even openly said that the Israeli government can't talk with Syria because it will upset the US! Israel most make the brave steps to freeing itself from being an American colony to an independant state that will try to peacefully integrate in the area by respecting the rights of the neigboring peoples- but ofcourse that won't happen.

[Severian]

Yeah. And more specifically, no Sadat-like separate peace with Syria is likely unless Washington becomes ready to reach its own broader accomodation with Syria. And drops "regime change" in Syria as a goal.

[Jamal]

Its not that simple, the Syrian people would rise against these kinds of talks or peace treaties. Their arabic patriotic feelings have lead them to hate Israel for what it has done and is doing to the Palestinians and for what it has done to Syria and to Lebanon... They won't just allow it to happen just like that!

[Phalanx]

Surely though the Syrian people are equally upset at what its own government has done to them. The Syrian government encourages hatred towards Israel because it directs flak away from them. After what they did in Lebanon and the city of Hamah, the only way to get rid of that anger is to redirect it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Jamal@January 18, 2007 07:47 am
Its not that simple, the Syrian people would rise against these kinds of talks or peace treaties.

You mean like the Egyptian people rose against the Camp David accords? It might be that many people in Syria would regard this kind of separate peace as a betrayal of the Palestinians among other problems, but there's really no movement or organization in Syria to effectively mobilize that kind of sentiment.

The Syrian government encourages hatred towards Israel because it directs flak away from them.

Yeah, I gotta tell you there'd be plenty of hatred of Israel without that. Also, the populations of Third World countries are usually more anti-imperialist than the bourgeois governments; that's a normal product of how capitalism and imperialism are interrelated. It's true in the Arab countries too.

Most of the Arab regimes have actually suppressed the Palestinian struggle, not to mention attempts by other Arabs to organize in solidarity with them. Syria's no exception, including its attacks on Palestinian refugee camps and PLO fighters in Lebanon.

Anti-imperialist sentiment is more of a problem for them than something they'd want to encourage. Rather, they try to deal with that sentiment, by appearing to be the biggest anti-imperialist fighters - but that's false. These secret negotiations definitely show that it's false in Syria's case.

[Phalanx]

The extreme anti-Semitism throughout Pakistan is because the media directs attention away from what Musharraf is doing to Baluchistan. Same goes for Libya. Both places are pretty much unaffected by Israel's existence, and have much more pressing matters than the existence of Israel, yet many express extreme hatred for Israel.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank@January 21, 2007 05:48 am
The extreme anti-Semitism throughout Pakistan is because the media directs attention away from what Musharraf is doing to Baluchistan. Same goes for Libya. Both places are pretty much unaffected by Israel's existence, and have much more pressing matters than the existence of Israel, yet many express extreme hatred for Israel.

I think you are confusing the Hatred that European had against Jews with the hatred the Muslims have against Israel. Both of them are not same.Just take in to consideration what Zionists had done to them and you will find the reason for that hatred.

As for the original post I tend to agree with Severian we cannot expect any thing that will be progressive from both rulers of Syria and Israel.They certainly don't want peace in the middle east any time soon.

[Phalanx]

Israel hasn't done anything to Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, etc. Workers in those countries have much more to worry about than the state of Israel.

[Omri Evron]

All oppressive regimes are hypocratic- they will always try to direct the oppressed people in their own country against other countries (that are also oppressive), and point out the military strength of other countries to increase it's own military and keep the people afraid.
Israel's atrocities are used cynically to distract the working class of many countries from their own problems (many of these countries themselfs have commited crimes against the Palestinian People), while the Israeli government uses every word Ahmedinajad or some other guy says to sow fear within the Israeli population and shut criticizm of the Occupation. Many reactionary leaders use anti-Semetism to throw dust in the eyes of the Arab proletarion, whereas the Israeli government uses these expressions of anti-Semetism to inforce a racist world view of the Arabs and to justify the Zionist crimes, or to view all criticizm of Zionism as anti-Semetic. One propaganda feeds another.

[Jamal]

Its not that simple, the Syrian people would rise against these kinds of talks or peace treaties.

You mean like the Egyptian people rose against the Camp David accords? It might be that many people in Syria would regard this kind of separate peace as a betrayal of the Palestinians among other problems, but there's really no movement or organization in Syria to effectively mobilize that kind of sentiment.

After Camp David, Saddat got assasinated; remember?!?!

[Severian]

Originally posted by Omri Evron+January 21, 2007 03:50 pm--> (Omri Evron @ January 21, 2007 03:50 pm) Many reactionary leaders use anti-Semetism to throw dust in the eyes of the Arab proletarion, whereas the Israeli government uses these expressions of anti-Semetism to inforce a racist world view of the Arabs and to justify the Zionist crimes, or to view all criticizm of Zionism as anti-Semetic. One propaganda feeds another. [/b]

Well, yeah. I'll admit there's some truth to the standard view of this: partly these governments - which are essentially neocolonial - are trying to divert popular anger off of themselves. Partly also these governments - and Islamist parties - are using anti-Semitism to divert the anti-imperialist struggle off of its course.

It's just...there's also an element where popular struggle tends naturally to be directed most easily at the direct agents of imperialism, the most open enemies of the oppressed. The neocolonial capitalist regimes - like the Arab regimes - are also its enemies, but are sometimes not directly targeted at the beginning of a mass movement.
That's also something to keep in mind.

Jamal

After Camp David, Saddat got assasinated; remember?!?!

Sure. I also remember that didn't reverse Egyptian policy. And an assassination squad isn't a mass movement.

[Jamal]

Sure. I also remember that didn't reverse Egyptian policy. And an assassination squad isn't a mass movement

What I'm trying to say here is that if Bashar Asad is going to make peace with Israel, he is going to take into account that he might be assasinated and therefor he'll back off