Syria smarts over Israeli accusations

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS – On April 12, the United States celebrated the 65th anniversary of the passing of its war-time president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Memorable quotes of the leader were published in mainstream media, reminding the world of a man who tried – at all costs – to shake off the Great Depression and prevent his country from venturing into World War II.

At the same time, talk of war began to surface in the Middle East when Israeli President Shimon Peres accused Syria of supplying missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Syrian Embassy in Washington came out with a strong statement categorically denying the “spurious allegations”, claiming that they were part of a “disinformation campaign aimed at misleading the world’s public opinion”.

Earlier this year, the Middle East seemed at the tip of a volcano as a similar war of words broke out between Hezbollah and Syria on one front and Israel on another. Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, threatened to strike deep into Israeli territory if the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) waged another war on Lebanon. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem spoke of a “regional war” that would drown any future peace efforts “for an entire generation”, accusing the Israelis of being “thugs”.
That episode seemed to die down when a heavyweight summit was convened in Damascus in February, bringing together President Bashar al-Assad with his Iranian counterpart, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah.

The three leaders seemed to be telling the world that things had changed since the days of US president George W Bush, when he encouraged a massive Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. What was tolerated in 2006 would not be tolerated today, they were saying.

On another level, the Damascus summit helped reduce tensions in the region, reminding the Israelis of what lay in store for them if the three titans, Assad, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, joined hands in fighting off an Israeli war on Lebanon.

All indications coming out of Israel since Benjamin Netanyahu became premier in March 2009 show that the Israeli government is itching for another war with Lebanon – to right the wrongs done to the IDF since 2006 – or with Syria, or with both.

Netanyahu sees an Iranian threat to Israel and wants the Americans to put an end to Tehran’s military abilities. Striking at Hezbollah, he believes, would be a prelude to a regional war that would tackle the Iranians. He has not recovered – psychologically at least – from the results of 2006, when Israel promised to liberate two Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and to root out the Lebanese political group that had been a thorn in Israel’s side for decades.

The two soldiers were not released and Hezbollah was not annihilated. Far from it, the military group managed to strike deep into Israeli territory in the summer of 2006, targeting what Nasrallah famously described as “Haifa and beyond Haifa”.

According to both the Israelis and Hezbollah, the latter emerged from the war of 2006 stronger than ever before, both morally and militarily. Continuous military drills by the IDF, violation of Lebanese airspace and provocative statements by Israeli officials have echoed across the Lebanese-Israeli border for the past four years, usually prompting Hezbollah officials to snap back with similar – often louder threats – on how a new war would look.

Hezbollah has made it clear, however, that it does not want war and fully abides by United Nations Security Council resolution 1771, although if war were imposed on it by the IDF, it would be ready to fight until curtain fall.

For a variety of reasons, however, it seems unlikely another war will erupt on the Lebanese-Israeli border. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon is still there, and world capitals like Riyadh and Paris would not want it to happen.

Many believe, however, that the likelihood of war between Syria and Israel is again on the rise, given the escalation of rhetoric between the countries. Syria sees things in a different light, claiming that Israel is raising tensions to possibly justify a new war, shatter the prospects for peace (in which Netanyahu is clearly not interested), and divert the world’s attention from recent military orders by the IDF aimed at expelling 70,000 Palestinians from the West Bank.

These laws, described by Syria as “ethnic cleansing”, call for the deportation (within 72 hours) of any Palestinian “infiltrator” residing in the West Bank without an Israeli permit. Those who break the law, the IDF stated, could receive a jail sentence of up to seven years.

Both Syria and Hezbollah are furious with the law, saying that not since the West Bank was occupied in 1967 or since it was returned to partial Palestinian rule after the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s has it been obligatory for Palestinians to secure residency permits to live within their own territory.

It is widely believed the law is aimed at expelling the 25,000 Gazans living in the West Bank to further corner and put pressure on the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, which is strongly allied to Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

All is not well in the Middle East. It is no secret that relations are at an all-time low between the US and Israel – unprecedented since the days of the Suez Canal War in 1956. Israel made US President Barack Obama look silly in March when it announced that it would build 1,600 Jewish settlements in Jerusalem – turning a complete deaf ear to Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo when he explicitly said there would be no new Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories.

Last week, sources close to Obama said that he was planning to unveil a new Middle East peace plan next autumn, after having conferred with six former national security advisors in late March. By raising tensions to dramatically new levels after the IDF orders, Netanyahu seemed to be telling Obama: “Stay out of the Middle East if you plan on solving its problem in any way but ours.” He bluntly remarked: “We will oppose an imposed solution,” claiming that if the US leader really wanted peace in the Middle East, he should assist all players in finding common ground rather than dictate terms.

Syria has made it clear, ever since it agreed to the terms of reference of the Madrid peace conference – which promised to negotiate a full restoration of the occupied Golan Heights to Syria – that it wants peace, nor war in the Middle East. That peace, however, requires the full restoration of the Golan according to UN resolutions and the June 4, 1967, border with Israel.

In every speech by Assad since coming to power in 2000 he has emphasized how important it is to achieve peace in the region – reminding, however, that under Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu there is no Israeli partner for peace. Contrary to what the West believes, Hezbollah does not crave for a new war in Lebanon. It knows – just like FDR did 74 years ago – that war is horrendous and Hezbollah would rather help Lebanon rebuild from within through the massive charity network it operates and the number of seats it controls within parliament and the cabinet.

There has not been a single Lebanese violation of resolution 1771 since 2006, thanks to Nasrallah, which adds conviction to the argument that peace and stability, not war, are on the minds of the Syrians and Lebanese.

But then again, it was Roosevelt who sent his army marching into World War II when at 7:45 am on December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In as much as sensible people hate war, they nevertheless do not shy away from it when they are attacked and provoked.

Sami Moubayed is editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine