With the changing international and regional context, it has become ever more difficult to predict what course Syrian-Israeli relations will take and when and whether a peace settlement will be reached between the two countries. The process is dogged by uncertainty, dilemmas and contradictions.
Both sides talk about peace but rhetoric is overshadowed by ongoing military operations near the occupied Golan Heights. While some observers predict that a peace process will soon be underway between the two countries, others are convinced that war will break out next summer. When we analyse the stances of both sides, we see that they advocate peace. However, both parties are extremely distrustful of each other and sceptical about the process and, as a result, suspect each other of secretly planning for war while preaching peace. So will we witness a bilateral war or, even worse, a regional war in the Middle East next summer? Or will there be a peace process which will solve long standing problems once and for all?
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel was ready to retreat from Golan Heights in order to make peace with Syria but it should be assured that its security, water rights and the peace process with Arab countries would not be adversely affected by this. Olmert meant that in order to prevent further suffering in the region, Israel would retreat from Syrian territory, however undesirable this may be for the Israeli establishment.
Israel lost its last war on Lebanon and it is still suffering from the negative repercussions of this defeat. Israel is afraid of Hezbollah's missiles and would like to bring an end to Syria's support for both the Hezbollah forces near the Lebanese border and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and to prevent Syria from cooperating with Iran. By reaching an agreement with Syria, Israel intends to cut Syria's ties with these three forces in the region and isolate them. First, Israel hopes to eliminate Hezbollah or at least its armed forces. Second, an agreement with Syria is deemed to be the best way for Israel to weaken Palestinians. Observers say that the prospect of such an agreement has already been affecting Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians negatively. With Gaza coming under Hamas's control, Tel Aviv is pressed to moderate its stance against Syria and establish better relations with Damascus. Former US president Jimmy Carter's recent trip to the region where he met with Hamas leadership attests to this. Third, Israel aims to sever ties between Syria and Iran in preparation for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
From the point of view of Syria, reaching an agreement and making peace with Israel is just as desirable. However, for an agreement to be reached, conditions must be right. First, the Olmert government must express intent and readiness to negotiate a peace agreement with Syria and commit to withdrawing from Golan Heights. Second, the US government should make the peace process between Syria and Israel a policy priority and take necessary steps to bring about an agreement. Syrians believe that the US is the only country that can influence Israel's policies. At the moment there is little chance that these two conditions will be fulfilled. We can also say that the Syrian demand for commitment to peace is rather ill-timed. However, it is a significant indicator of a shift in Syrian policy. Syria is now focusing on policy initiatives in order to prevent military threats and is trying to hasten the peace process which could be derailed at any moment by sudden shifts in the balance of power or political developments in this volatile region. If the process is derailed by political or military developments, Olmert may try to impose an agreement on the basis of the Madrid Conference and the UN Security Council resolutions 242-338.
There is a possibility that a peace deal may be brokered whereby Israel is not required to return Golan Heights. Some observers see parallels between this possible outcome and the agreement on Alsace Lorraine between France and Germany signed after the Second World War. Israel's habit of presenting itself as the victim and Arabs as the aggressors reinforces this argument.
The Syrian government is aware of shifting power balances after the occupation of Iraq and the mounting pressure due to the UN Security Council Resolution 1559. Therefore, it tries to create a new political atmosphere to bring about a peace deal. That is why Damascus used shock tactics and declared its readiness for peace regardless of how diplomatic negotiations went. Syria's peace offer was widely debated in Arabic, European and American media and it took many by surprise. Some commentators even said that Syria was ready to sacrifice its sovereignty over Golan in exchange for security.
I cannot agree with this claim. First, Israel has already accepted that Golan belongs to Syria and all the resolutions adopted by international organisations affirm Syria's right of sovereignty over Golan. Under the circumstances Syria does not need to make any concessions about its sovereignty over Golan and does not have to make return of Golan a prerequisite for negotiations.
Second, steps taken by Syria for a peace settlement are sincere unlike those of Israel. Israel is trying to ease US pressure by seeming to be committed to the peace process but at the same time dodging the process by demanding preconditions in order to continue negotiations. Meanwhile, Israel is hoping that the US will put pressure on Syria by giving Israel the green light to undertake military operations. That will not only force Syria into accepting an unfair deal but will also most likely give Israel a free hand in expanding its control in the Middle East. Getting Syria out of the picture in this manner will help the US and Israel to turn their attention towards Iran which at the moment stands in the way of US-Israeli plans for reshaping the Middle East. Keeping this in mind, it is important to support the peace process and not let Syria being railroaded into an unfair deal as this will inevitably pave the way for further Israeli and American neo-con aggression in the region.
Third, although, as mentioned above, the timing of Syria's initiative might not be perfect, it still is an evidence that Syria has adopted a pragmatic policy based on realistic expectations which will put Israel on the spot. If Syria, Arab countries and international organisations manage to rekindle the peace process is the Middle East, tables may be turned on Israel. It was Israel that made the UN Security Council to approve Resolution 1559 to the detriment of Syrian and Lebanese interests and provoked the world against Syria. If the new Syrian peace initiative finds support in the international community, the ball will land in Israel's court. This time it will be Israel who will have to prove its commitment to peace.

In short we can say that the Syrian peace effort is not a cosmetic initiative that entails giving concessions to Israel. It is a wise political move that aims to expose Israel's real intentions and shifts the responsibility to Israel's shoulders while garnering the support of the international community in order to put pressure on the US.
The situation deserves a pragmatic analysis given that a happy ending is nowhere in sight. For this we should look at regional balances that affect the prospect of a Syrian-Israeli peace deal. While the US is trying to expand its domination over the Arabian peninsula, a region with vast oil reserves, Iran is working towards producing nuclear weapons. This puts Iran and the US and its European allies at loggerheads. Iran bears grievances against the West accusing it of perpetuating the embargo imposed after Khomeini's revolution in 1979. In this polarised situation Syria cannot take any major strategic steps without taking Iran's national interests into account. Similarly, Israel cannot take any unilateral actions regarding its conflict with Syria without taking the US's regional interests into account. Washington will certainly not oppose a Syrian-Israeli agreement which aims to eliminate Syria's dependence on Iran for support and will welcome a solution to Israel's problems with Syria which may act as a precursor to settling other regional conflicts such as those in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq . This was mentioned in Olmert's message which was passed on to the Syrian leadership by the Turkish Prime Minister. However, it would be naive on the part of Washington and Tel Aviv to expect Syria to abandon its ties with Iran in return for Golan. This would be underestimating the significance of the Syrian-Iranian alliance for both countries. This alliance is perhaps the most strategic asset both Iran and Syria have for gaining leverage in regional affairs. Iran and Syria may have disagreements from time to time but these do not affect the nature of their alliance as both are dependent on each other's support to fight domestic and external threats.
Under the circumstances Syria cannot proceed with negotiations with Israel without protecting its alliance with Iran. The same goes for Israel. In short just as Israel will not abandon its erstwhile ally the US to reach a deal with Syria, likewise Syria will not abandon Iran, its strongest supporter for getting Golan back, and enter into an agreement with Israel and the US without Iran's approval.
What does it really mean when both Israel and Syria say that they are ready for peace and intend to start negotiations as soon as possible? In my view the interest of both parties in political negotiation stems from the need to take advantage of the regional conflict created by the tensions between the US and Iran; both aim to maximise their interests and minimise losses. Syria needs a compromise whereby it can take back Golan Heights, returning to the status quo ante, and liberate its citizens from Israeli occupation while securing access to water resources. Such a settlement will diminish tensions with the US who has been threatening Syria with war, accusing it of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. At the same time it will ease hostilities between Syria and Israel, and Syria will cease to be the number one target in case tensions between the US and Iran escalates.
The Tel Aviv peace campaign that started a few weeks ago after a long period of resistance is a part of the Western strategy to distance Syria from Iran. The new Israeli initiative is an attempt at influencing Syrian policies and it should not be seen as a genuine and sincere step towards a peaceful settlement. Neither does it mean that Israel now believes its security can only be enhanced by peace. Despite all these peace initiatives, there is ample reason to predict that the region is drifting towards war. In the past year neither Tel Aviv nor Washington have taken any meaningful steps towards calming the rising tensions in the region that threatened the interests of many countries. This shows us that the Israeli-American alliance is bent on waging a new war in the region and their actions in Iraq, southern Lebanon and Gaza attest to this. However, we wish not to rule out a situation whereby the strategic map of the region will be transformed in a way which will pave the way for peace.

*Representative of Al-Arabia TV, Turkey