Assad and the Vanished Peace!

The Madrid peace conference of November 1991 resulted in bilateral negotiations between Israel and Arab countries. The conference was held at the initiative of former U.S. President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, and co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union, shortly prior to its dissolution.

Some Arab states, including Syria, agreed to attend in the light of diplomatic assurances that the conference would be held based on the “Land for Peace” principle and U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 425. These resolutions provided for the entire withdrawal by Israel from “the occupied Arab territories” rather than from “occupied Arab territories” as was set forth in the translation of Resolution 242. The deletion of the definite article “the” gave rise to doubts on identifying the features of the withdrawal map, created a pretext for the non-implementation of the Resolution, and caused the peace process to go into a long-term coma.

The Madrid Peace Conference led to the inception of bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab states. Whilst the Jordanians and the Palestinians tended to sign separate agreements with Israel, both Syria and Lebanon retained mutual track of negotiations. However, due to the fact that Israel constantly rejected the entire withdrawal from the Golan Heights, occupied in 1967, the negotiations between Syria and Israel yielded no result.

Subsequent to the formation of his government in the summer of 1992, one of Yitzhak Rabin’s priorities was to end the state of belligerency with Syria. Prime Minister Rabin notified U.S. President Bill Clinton that Israel is ready to withdraw from the Golan Heights in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and that “full withdrawal by Israel should be dependent upon full normalization of relations by Syria.” “Full normalization” stands for how far Syria is prepared to go in normalizing and strengthening its relations with Israel.
U.S. officials have conveyed Yitzhak Rabin’s message to the late Syrian President Hafiz Assad who suggested the following: “Full peace for full withdrawal by Israel from the Golan Heights.” Syria’s new position encouraged Rabin to inform U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher that he would assume a “formal commitment” on the Golan Heights, and to request Christopher to reserve such commitment as a “deposit.” Moreover, Prime Minister Rabin requested Christopher to orally notify Assad of the “deposit” rather than to notarize it (the deposit) as an official engagement. Rabin also informed the United States that he had committed himself to full withdrawal from the Occupied Golan Heights on the following five conditions:

1. Full normalization of diplomatic relations between Syria and Israel and the exchange of ambassadors following the achievement of the first phase of pullout by Israel from the Golan Heights.
2. Withdrawal from the Golan Heights shall be implemented within five years.
3. Full normalization of relations by Syria that includes trade exchange and tourism cooperation.
4. Syria must accept new security arrangements which would provide, among other things, for American-installed early alarm systems on the Golan Heights, to be made operational after Israel has started to withdraw its forces.
5. Syria has to ensure that Israel’s needs for water from the Sea of Galilee are to be met.

Rabin’s so-called “deposit” was duly recorded in the minutes of the U.S.-Israeli meeting. Hence, the deposit had become an official American tool for further negotiation.

President Hafiz Assad hailed the “deposit” as a “landmark commitment” for it was the first time Israel had ever committed itself to full withdrawal form the Golan Heights. However, Assad’s reply (let’s say Assad’s “deposit”) to the five points put forwarded by Rabin was outlined by five points of his own version:

1. Syria is in favor of establishing “natural relations,” rather than to normalize relations, with Israel once peace has been attained.
2. Israeli withdrawal form the Golan Heights may well be implemented within several months rather than five years.
3. Syria is not committed to establish commercial or tourism relations with Israel as soon as peace is achieved.
4. The security recommendations should be equally balanced and consistent with the interests of both countries.
5. Both Syria’s and Israel’s needs of water from the Sea of Galilee must be met, not only Israel’s needs.

The two “deposits” were widely echoed by media outlets as well as American and Arab diplomats, many of whom I met during events organized by the Syrian community in Washington in honor of the Syrian peace negotiators delegation, that was headed by Moafaq Allaf, and comprising of several legal and military experts, media personnel, and a couple of Syrian security officers, shortly before the negotiations were terminated in January 2000.

Today, Rabin and Assad are no longer among us. While Rabin was assassinated by the bullets of the extreme Israeli right wing that rejects abandoning the land which they believe to be a parcel of the “Promised Land,” Hafiz Assad left behind the state of “no war, no peace” that blatantly militarized the life of the Syrian people.

During his inaugural speech for another seven-year term, Syrian President Bashar Assad emphasized that any negotiations with Israel must be preceded by guarantees for the withdrawal from the Golan Heights as those pledged in Rabin’s “deposit.”

Nevertheless, what about the “deposit” of Assad, the father? How would Assad, the son, deal with the Israeli right wing of Benjamin Netanyahu s government? How would he react to U.S. officials seeking to open a dialogue with Syria? Are the two anticipated peace making parties “equivalent” enough, so that they may provide a balance between both “deposits”, and the interests of both peoples? would the Syrian government considers launching a poll to test the mood of its own people about potential peace between both countries?

The questions above are waiting for answers! The people on both sides have conceded a great deal of their freedom, rights, security and standard of living under the pretext of “state of war"; which urges viable solutions to materialize into peace.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 2