FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: Tuesday, July 7th, 2008
CONTACT: Ryan Simon
BAY AREA ACTIVISTS PUSH FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE ON CAPITOL HILL
Oakland— Several San Francisco Bay Area activists traveled to Capitol Hill the last week in June to advocate for vigorous U.S. involvement in facilitating a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The delegation included the national Co-Chair of the Rabbinical Cabinet for Brit Tzedek v’Shalom as well as several young Jewish students and activists. Brit Tzedek activists also heard from Israeli Member of Knesset and key Geneva Initiative participant Yossi Beilin on the prospects for the peace process given the current situation in the region.
In meetings with Senator Feinstein and key aides from the offices of Senator Boxer, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Congressman Mike Honda, the Bay Area delegation urged lawmakers to embrace tangible foreign policy measures to seize on the political space created by the Israel-Hamas ceasefire brokered only days before to facilitate a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The delegation advocated for U.S. insistence that both Israelis and Palestinians be held accountable for their Roadmap commitments and for comprehensive U.S. engagement in promoting negotiations between Israel and Syria.
Reflected one member of the delegation, “On Sunday we heard Yossi Beilin ask us as American Jews to implore our leadership in Washington to engage themselves in the peace process. The ceasefire is a wonderful development but he hoped that it does not sow complacency among those in Israel and the international community, if anything, the next step needs to be taken. With the window opening with Syria, I feel that that given Ehud Barak’s comments that a deal will never happen without the US, it is essential that the infrastructure for peace be further developed, and the United States play a key role especially into the beginning of the next Presidents administration."
The Capitol Hill meetings were part of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom’s annual National Advocacy Days programs, which brought more than 140 American Jewish activists from across the country to meet with representatives from 115 Congressional offices, as well as a number of other political and opinion leaders. In the days leading up to National Advocacy Days, the activists participated in Brit Tzedek’s Grassroots Leadership Training Institute, which included intensive training on community organizing and advocacy.
“It was an amazingly invigorating experience to be part of a growing movement of Jews and non-Jews in this country, and an organization that advocates what I believe. We support the State of Israel by ensuring that through peace with her neighbors and co-existence, her future is secure.”
#######
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, also known as the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, is the largest Jewish grassroots peace organization, with 38,000 members and supporters nationwide. Brit Tzedek's mission is to educate and mobilize American Jews and others in support of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the organization has more than 1100 members and supporters
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Transforming Mountains into Molehills
Despite everything, an Israeli-Syrian peace deal could move forward
Thanks to the committed work of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israel and Syria are in their fourth rounds of low-level talks. Despite this unprecedented peaceful interaction (the two nations last broke of talks in 2000), they are still as far away from any tangible “land-for-recognition” peace deal as they have ever been in the past decade. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is still licking its wounds from a resounding defeat in 2006 when the comparatively weak Hezbollah held them off for 33 days. Israel is also plagued by an unstable Kadima government lead by Prime Minister Olmert who is under investigation for multiple counts of fraud. Despite the Prime Minister’s aid's assertion that “the sky [has] not fallen,” many see Olmert as the very definition of a lame duck. With a Kadima primary set for September 17 of this year, there is no doubt that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini or another party strongman will succeed him.
Unlike the United States, where presidents lose a considerable amount of power midway through their last year in office, Israeli prime ministers never fully lose control of the national agenda. Last week’s prisoner transfer with Hezbollah proves that the Olmert government is still able to effectively define the facts on the ground, meaning that despite the ongoing investigations against him, he may be able to make significant progress with the Syrians. It would be difficult for any future Israeli government, even one lead by Likud, to turn its back on major progress made with Syria. Israelis still overwhelmingly support peace with their northeastern neighbor, and any deal could have serious implications for the region. The Syrians are cautious of a weak Olmert but they too look forward to the change in the balance of power that negotiating a settlement with the Israelis would bring. Below is the framework for what a long overdue peace deal between Israel and Syria could look like.
At present, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, the United States has continued its push to keep Syria isolated from the West and the world community at large. UN Ambassador John Bolton went as far as to mention Syria in his ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil’ speech in 2002, and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have alluded to the possibility of overthrowing the Assad regime. Although such a scenario was more plausible before the invasion of Iraq, it still scares the militarily weak Assad.
The United States’ verbal attacks on Syria have pushed it to form an unlikely alliance with Iran. Assad’s Alawite regime is hardly a natural ally of the Iranian Ayatollahs, who see his sect as an apostate version of Shiism. The Iranians have chosen to look beyond this fact, because of the strategic location that Syria plays in the region. With Syria’s acquiescence, Iran is able to funnel arms and training to Hezbollah and Hamas, which in turn widens the Iranian sphere of influence. With a strong Hezbollah in play, Iran is able to indirectly attack both Israel and the pro-Western Christian leadership in Beirut. It is no secret that the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war began with the blessing of Tehran.
A destabilized Lebanon allows Syria to play a strong roll in the country. Hezbollah also acts as a buffer between the IDF and Damascus, ensuring that in any future conflict with Syria, Israel will have to fight a two-front war, a fact that keeps Israeli intelligence up at night while calming Assad. A weakened Lebanon also allows Syria to leverage its power over the lucrative legal and illegal financial centers in Beirut, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the cash-strapped government.
Syria is wary of its current relationship with Iran, however. Damascus wants a weak Lebanon, not one controlled by the same extremists who run Tehran. Being surrounded by two potentially unfriendly Shii neighbors could prove dangerous for Syria who has continued to suppress its Shii minority. Because of this, Damascus is looking for a way to neutralize the Hezbollah threat by cutting of its supplies and training. This cannot be done however, until Syria has secured peace along its southern border with Israel. Until this is done, Damascus is determined to keep Hezbollah strong as a buffer against Tel Aviv.
Any peace deal with Syria is ultimately in Israel’s favor. The Golan Heights no longer holds the military significance that it did back in the 1970’s. Syrian missiles fired from Damascus can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Despite this, the Syrian air force is still impotent, and any troops attacking Israel from the Golan could be easily taken out. Because of this, not even the conservative Netanyahu government (1996-1999) made any serious attempts to annex the Golan. Since 1973, it has been accepted that Israel would someday return it to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace deal.
Now that the Kadima government is failing, those in power are looking for any rays of hope that will help them maintain their power. Olmert is attempting to divert attention away from his domestic failings by engaging the international community in attempts to make any kind of peace. This has been evident for several months now, as Israel has vigorously pursued peace with Syria and the Palestinians, as well as making overt calls for peace with Lebanon. Olmert has recently turned towards the United States (Annapolis Conference, November 2007), France (Mediterranean Summit, July 2008) and Turkey (Syrian Talks, ongoing), looking for any way to get a major peace deal done before his power completely erodes. Nonetheless, any peace deal will in all likelihood come only after Olmert has left government, as the primary election will occur in two months and any deal will certainly take more time than that to complete.
Assad, for his part, does not want to legitimize Olmert in any way since he holds the Prime Minister personally responsible for the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor last fall. The attack both reaffirmed Israel’s continued dominance of the skies and demonstrated Damascus’s inability to defend against Israeli incursions into its territory. Giving up the Golan would not weaken Israel’s ability to strike at Syria, as even the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft weapons were unable to detect the Israeli strike. Assad knows this, but he also knows that ‘liberating’ the Golan would provide a huge boost for the government internally while also allowing Syria to declare a victory over its life-long enemy.
The actual returning of the Golan would be primarily symbolic for both sides. Israel would get peace with a neighbor that it views primarily as a pest, while Syria would get back a relatively uninhabitable piece of territory that is militarily insignificant. What would not be symbolic however, would be the implications of a Golan deal. It would be a significant step in isolating Iran, as the United States would surely make serious overtures to Syria after peace was reached (at the behest of Israel). It would be a serious step towards neutralizing the military component of Hezbollah, which would see its weapons caches dry up. It would also signify that Syria was serious in normalizing the relationship with Lebanon that it established at the Mediterranean Summit. For these reasons, returning the Golan to Syria would be a victory for both Israel and the United States.
Unlike the United States, where presidents lose a considerable amount of power midway through their last year in office, Israeli prime ministers never fully lose control of the national agenda. Last week’s prisoner transfer with Hezbollah proves that the Olmert government is still able to effectively define the facts on the ground, meaning that despite the ongoing investigations against him, he may be able to make significant progress with the Syrians. It would be difficult for any future Israeli government, even one lead by Likud, to turn its back on major progress made with Syria. Israelis still overwhelmingly support peace with their northeastern neighbor, and any deal could have serious implications for the region. The Syrians are cautious of a weak Olmert but they too look forward to the change in the balance of power that negotiating a settlement with the Israelis would bring. Below is the framework for what a long overdue peace deal between Israel and Syria could look like.
At present, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, the United States has continued its push to keep Syria isolated from the West and the world community at large. UN Ambassador John Bolton went as far as to mention Syria in his ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil’ speech in 2002, and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have alluded to the possibility of overthrowing the Assad regime. Although such a scenario was more plausible before the invasion of Iraq, it still scares the militarily weak Assad.
The United States’ verbal attacks on Syria have pushed it to form an unlikely alliance with Iran. Assad’s Alawite regime is hardly a natural ally of the Iranian Ayatollahs, who see his sect as an apostate version of Shiism. The Iranians have chosen to look beyond this fact, because of the strategic location that Syria plays in the region. With Syria’s acquiescence, Iran is able to funnel arms and training to Hezbollah and Hamas, which in turn widens the Iranian sphere of influence. With a strong Hezbollah in play, Iran is able to indirectly attack both Israel and the pro-Western Christian leadership in Beirut. It is no secret that the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war began with the blessing of Tehran.
A destabilized Lebanon allows Syria to play a strong roll in the country. Hezbollah also acts as a buffer between the IDF and Damascus, ensuring that in any future conflict with Syria, Israel will have to fight a two-front war, a fact that keeps Israeli intelligence up at night while calming Assad. A weakened Lebanon also allows Syria to leverage its power over the lucrative legal and illegal financial centers in Beirut, providing hundreds of millions of dollars for the cash-strapped government.
Syria is wary of its current relationship with Iran, however. Damascus wants a weak Lebanon, not one controlled by the same extremists who run Tehran. Being surrounded by two potentially unfriendly Shii neighbors could prove dangerous for Syria who has continued to suppress its Shii minority. Because of this, Damascus is looking for a way to neutralize the Hezbollah threat by cutting of its supplies and training. This cannot be done however, until Syria has secured peace along its southern border with Israel. Until this is done, Damascus is determined to keep Hezbollah strong as a buffer against Tel Aviv.
Any peace deal with Syria is ultimately in Israel’s favor. The Golan Heights no longer holds the military significance that it did back in the 1970’s. Syrian missiles fired from Damascus can now reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Despite this, the Syrian air force is still impotent, and any troops attacking Israel from the Golan could be easily taken out. Because of this, not even the conservative Netanyahu government (1996-1999) made any serious attempts to annex the Golan. Since 1973, it has been accepted that Israel would someday return it to Syria in exchange for a permanent peace deal.
Now that the Kadima government is failing, those in power are looking for any rays of hope that will help them maintain their power. Olmert is attempting to divert attention away from his domestic failings by engaging the international community in attempts to make any kind of peace. This has been evident for several months now, as Israel has vigorously pursued peace with Syria and the Palestinians, as well as making overt calls for peace with Lebanon. Olmert has recently turned towards the United States (Annapolis Conference, November 2007), France (Mediterranean Summit, July 2008) and Turkey (Syrian Talks, ongoing), looking for any way to get a major peace deal done before his power completely erodes. Nonetheless, any peace deal will in all likelihood come only after Olmert has left government, as the primary election will occur in two months and any deal will certainly take more time than that to complete.
Assad, for his part, does not want to legitimize Olmert in any way since he holds the Prime Minister personally responsible for the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor last fall. The attack both reaffirmed Israel’s continued dominance of the skies and demonstrated Damascus’s inability to defend against Israeli incursions into its territory. Giving up the Golan would not weaken Israel’s ability to strike at Syria, as even the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft weapons were unable to detect the Israeli strike. Assad knows this, but he also knows that ‘liberating’ the Golan would provide a huge boost for the government internally while also allowing Syria to declare a victory over its life-long enemy.
The actual returning of the Golan would be primarily symbolic for both sides. Israel would get peace with a neighbor that it views primarily as a pest, while Syria would get back a relatively uninhabitable piece of territory that is militarily insignificant. What would not be symbolic however, would be the implications of a Golan deal. It would be a significant step in isolating Iran, as the United States would surely make serious overtures to Syria after peace was reached (at the behest of Israel). It would be a serious step towards neutralizing the military component of Hezbollah, which would see its weapons caches dry up. It would also signify that Syria was serious in normalizing the relationship with Lebanon that it established at the Mediterranean Summit. For these reasons, returning the Golan to Syria would be a victory for both Israel and the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)