rime Minister Ehud Olmert recently urged Arab League states to start peace talks with Israel without preconditions. Yet strangely enough, Olmert seems hardly eager to resume negotiations with Syria,

saying that Damascus must fulfil a raft of conditions even before discussions can begin in earnest.

Syria’s interest in renewing talks, broken off seven years ago, is clear. Last week, Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations called on Israel to return to the negotiating table, and earlier, Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Ahmed Arnous, said that his country desires “to renew talks upon the land for peace principle, without preconditions, to bring about stability and security in the region.”

Nearly three months ago, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, relayed a similar message from Syrian President Bashar Assad. Shortly afterward, in an intriguing development, Ibrahim Suleiman, a Syrian American businessman with close ties to his homeland, informed the Knesset that Syria was ready for peace. Last December, following a trip to Damascus, United States Senator Arlen Specter told Olmert that Assad is interested in resuming talks. Around the same time, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem sounded an identical theme, saying in a Washington Post interview that Syria is willing to renew talks “without preconditions.”

Responding to these overtures, Olmert has expressed a willingness to sign a peace treaty with Syria. But like his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, he has laid down a list of conditions: Syria must end its support and sponsorship of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which have yet to reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence. Syria must refrain from providing logistical support and weapons to Hezbollah – which fought a war with Israel last summer – and stop trying to destabalize its neighbour, Lebanon. Syria must cut relations with Iran, whose president has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. And, in a nod to Israel’s ally, the United States, Olmert has demanded that Syria must prevent anti-American insurgents from reaching Iraq via Syrian territory.

Olmert’s demands are echoed in an Israeli foreign ministry paper, which states that Israel is “committed to peace with all its neighbours, including Syria,” but berates Syria for having failed “to demonstrate that it has made a genuine and strategic choice for peace.” Citing particulars, Israel says that Syria allows Islamic Jihad and Hamas to maintain offices in Damascus and that it nurtures its alliance with Iran. The paper adds: “In light of this record, Syria’s recent calls for talks appear to be made for the sake of relieving international pressure and the isolation that its policies have produced.” It concludes with these words: “To engage the Syrian regime, in the absence of any real change in its actions on the ground, would be to reward [Syria] for policies that have greatly endangered the Middle East and the cause of peace.” David Baker, an official in Olmert’s office, reiterated this stance: “The position of the Israeli government remains the same. The Syrian government is not pursuing peace but is merely posturing.”

Despite its public skepticism, Israel has sent peace feelers to Damascus through Turkey, Germany and Greece, as Deputy Prime Minister and former defence minister Shaul Mofaz has noted.

According to reports, Israel is currently in the process of reviewing Syrian motives, trying to assess what it might receive in exchange for giving up the Golan Heights (where 20,000 Israelis live in 33 settlements) and what the nature of future bilateral relations with Syria might be. Israel is also attempting to determine whether Syria would consider severing ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Palestinian radical organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The assessment is being conducted by the foreign ministry, which was charged with this task by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni last August after the 34-day war in Lebanon.

Israel and Syria, which have fought three wars since 1948, entered into direct negotiations at the 1991 Madrid peace conference. These talks, which adjourned to Washington, lasted until Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists carried out three successive suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in 1996 that claimed the lives of 60 Israelis.

Before these talks collapsed, Israeli and Syrian negotiators addressed three central issues – the depth of and timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan (which Israel annexed in 1981), the character of a peace agreement, and the contours of security arrangements. Syria demanded a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines, while Israel insisted on a pullback to the 1921 international border, a difference of a few kilometres.

Talks resumed in 1999, though Israel and Syria maintained secret contacts until then. The second round of talks, brokered by the United States, broke down in March 2000 over Syria’s refusal to cede the northeast corner of the Sea of Galilee, which Syria held prior to the 1967 Six Day War. Still, as Syria’s then-foreign minister observed, 80 per cent of the contentious issues had been resolved.

After becoming acting prime minister in January 2006, Olmert basically dismissed Syria’s peace overtures and spoke of the need for Israel to keep the Golan, prompting Assad to remark that Israel was too weak to make peace. In fact, Olmert preferred to focus on the Palestinian track, despite the formation of a Hamas government that refused to renounce terrorism or come to terms with Israel.

Apart from his belief that the Golan should remain in Israel’s hands, Olmert’s reluctance to engage Syria is rooted in the knowledge that the United States is hostile to the Baathist regime in Damascus. The Bush administration, having accused Syria of stoking the current insurgency in Iraq and planning the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, withdrew its ambassador in Damascus and imposed economic sanctions on Syria.

Washington argues that Syria will exploit talks with Israel to extricate itself from its international isolation. Shimon Peres, Israel’s former deputy prime minister and now its president, has admittted that Israel “cannot go against American policy and hold negotiations with Syria.”

Olmert, who was in Washington last week to meet President George W. Bush, is evidently constrained by the United States’ attitude. But in Israel, there has been a groundswell of support for resurrecting the Syrian track, its proponents ranging from Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi to Minister of National Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. They believe that an accord with Syria – which former U.S. president Bill Clinton thinks is eminently achievable – would encourage other Arab countries to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and prompt Damascus to distance itself from Iran, Hezbollah and Palestinian extremists, thereby contributing to a new regional order and a measure of stability in the Middle East.

Opponents of a rapprochement with Syria, such as Mossad director Meir Dagan, have voiced grave doubts about Syria’s intentions. But Dagan’s analysis has been challenged by Amos Yadlin, the chief of military intelligence, and Yossi Beiditz, the head of the foreign ministry’s research department. Ilan Mizrahi, the chair of Israel’s National Security Council, says that Syria’s call for a dialogue is authentic, but admits that Syria may be more interested in a peace process rather than peace. Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s chief negotiator with Syria in the 1990s, has asserted that Israel should take advantage of Syria’s outstretched hand.

Syrian officials from Assad on down have belligerently warned that war could break out if Israel rejects peace and clings to the Golan. This is not an idle threat. Syria, having learned the lessons of last year’s war in Lebanon, has rearmed and built up its forces. In anticipation of a possible Syrian offensive, Israel has held intensive maneouvres on the Golan.

The clock is ticking.

The Canadian Jewish News