JERUSALEM, April 4 (UPI) -- U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday sounded optimistic after meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, but experienced hands in the Middle East peace process would have known better.
Pelosi arrived in Damascus after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem Sunday. On Wednesday she conferred with Syrian leaders, including Assad, and told reporters: "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. ... He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel. The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
Not long afterwards, however, Israeli and Syrian officials put her comments in a different light. The talk of readiness to negotiate peace is not new, and if anything Israel presented a new condition for talks: a cooling off of Syria's ties with Iran.
The prime minister's office said in Jerusalem it "wishes to clarify" a few points.
According to the Israeli account, Olmert told Pelosi that several Senate and House members recently visited Damascus and got the impression that "despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel."
Israel is interested in peace with Syria, Olmert said. However, "That country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.
"In order to conduct serious and genuine peace negotiations, Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."
"What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel, as was communicated to other foreign leaders," the statement added, suggesting there was nothing unique about it.
Syrian Minister of Information Mohsen Bilal indicated Olmert's message was, also, not good enough. If Israel and Olmert really want peace, they should say so clearly, Bilal stated.
Israeli doves have been criticizing the government for failing to follow an opportunity to conclude peace with Syria, but others would rather hold on to the Golan Heights that Israel occupied in the 1967 war.
In the latest issue of Strategic Assessment, published by the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, who headed the army's planning branch and was then national security adviser, cited several reasons for opposing peace talks with Syria, "especially if there are chances that the negotiations might succeed."
A treaty with Syria will not resolve other important problems. It will not remove concerns over Iran's nuclear threat. Israel would probably agree to withdraw to the pre-1967 war lines and by that set another precedent for talks with the Palestinians, he added.
"If there were any thoughts of reaching a peace agreement at some time with the Palestinians based on borders that are not identical to the June 4, 1967 borders, reaching an agreement with the Syrians that validates the borders of June 4, 1967 will make it very difficult to effect the changes," Eiland argued.
Moreover, Syria is ruled by the minority Alawi sect who Sunni Muslims regard as inferior and not genuinely Muslim.
The Alawis remained in power partly because Iran has been backing them and partly because the country is ruled by an emergency regime "on the argument that an Israeli attack is expected and that emergency laws are essential for defense."
With peace, thousands of Israeli tourists will visit Syria and this argument will no longer be relevant, Eiland said. "The Sunni majority ... will demand its share of power and will ultimately assume control in Syria. ... There is no guarantee that a Sunni government of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria would honor a peace treaty" that the Alawis concluded, Eiland argued.
A security agreement with Syria would be "unreasonable ... dangerous," he added. He did not believe the Syrians would adhere to a demilitarization of the Golan.
Syrian military deployment on the Golan would infringe the envisaged peace treaty, but an Israeli entry there would be a declaration of war because the Golan would be Syrian territory.
"This means that from now on ... should war break out with Syria, it will not be waged along the Golan Heights ridge and eastward; rather, it would start from the Jordan River and proceed (westwards) towards Safed and Tiberias," Eiland warned.
Israel's security concept is now based on the fact that its presence on the Golan Heights means it can immediately threaten Syrian government assets and reach Damascus. And what if there is no peace? There are dozens of territorial disputes around the world, some of which have been going on for centuries, Eiland noted. "There are conflicts that are solved, some that are not solved, and some will never be settled," he said.
