A white paper for a picnic in the park

22 Jan

January 22, 2007

“Israel has said that the Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And it seems this time that it is Israel which is missing the opportunity. Here you have all Arab parties involved in the Israeli conflict negotiating for seven rounds, for hundreds of hours, during the mandate of two Israeli governments, and yet not being able to agree on any of the core issues, or the essential issues necessary to establish peace, a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace between them.”

Ambassador Mowaffak Allaf, Chief Syrian Negotiator,
National Press Club, Washington DC, October 29, 1992

My father said these words during a press conference 14 years ago, on the first anniversary of the Madrid Peace Conference. He felt that Arabs had already given enough (more than enough) commitment to warrant better responses from Israel (even the so-called Rabin Deposit, never honored, was a mere statement of the obvious in a process based on the equation of land for peace), and he never really believed Israel was interested in peace.

I can only imagine how my father would react to the news, over the past few years and more recently this month, of repeated Syrian offers for unconditional resumptions of negotiations – unconditional to the extent of scratching all these hard years of negotiating and starting again from square one, thus renouncing previous agreements. And I’m sure he would not be the only one horrified by the extents to which Syria seems to be bowing to Israel (even as the latter wages war) as it continues to practically beg for them to pay attention to its overtures. Be it a secret track two attempt, a repeated open call for talking without restrictions, or a rash handshake, such actions do nothing to keep Syria in a strong – and legally rightful – position.

There was nothing “informal,” as wrongly explained by a number of analysts, about Syria’s participation in the Madrid +15 Conference which took place a fortnight ago. Do not be fooled by the relatively low level of representation allowed there, in the persons of Riad Daoudi and Bushra Kanafani – both of whom pretended to be there in a personal capacity, with the approval of the authorities. In fact, the Syrians were most eager not only to attend this conference, but also to make sure they could influence the agenda and even choose some participants – at least in the Syrian and Lebanese camps. Although the initial invitation to the conference came from an NGO, the Toledo International Center for Peace, which had wanted to keep it out of governmental channels, staying amongst academic circles to keep the discussion open, the Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, took over contacts with Syria and was only too happy to get a more official participation – one which dictated who was acceptable to the Syrians, and who wouldn’t, say, bring up things that were inconvenient (like, for instance, the fact that there is no need to negotiate unconditionally).

This is why my name (along with that of another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so) * Update: see Addendum below was stricken off the invitation list as one of the requests made by the Syrian government. A few journalists had already seen my name on the participants’ list and asked me to talk to them about Madrid +15 before it convened, but I stalled, knowing what was happening behind the scenes and not wanting to reveal much before the actual event took place.

That the Syrian regime is not a great fan of mine is not much of a revelation – our feelings seem to be mutual on at least one issue. But it amuses me to know (and this is not the first time it happens) that they feel threatened by my presence, even as an observer or a normal participant, worried I might actually say something that makes sense to others, with all my intransigence on the status of negotiations that doesn’t agree with their particular agenda. (Someone very close to me told me I should take this as a compliment, because people like me make people like them look bad. I choose to believe him.)

In any case, given that the current regime seems willing to start from scratch again just for the sake of talking, it seems I am way too much of a hardliner as far as they are concerned, with regards to the Golan and to Syria’s negotiating stances. So was my father, of course, with an “intransigence” described by the despicable Yossi Ben Aharon. Ben Aharon’s ugly antics are well known to diplomats and journalists, and Sami Moubayed remembers one of the many incidents my father had to endure with this Likudnik (see the last paragraph, which explains the title of Sami’s article, “Too busy dancing”). While my father always believed there was little difference in substance between Likud and Labor, I am sure he was happy to see the back of such a nasty character when Shamir’s ousting as prime minister brought Itmar Rabinovitch to the head of the Israeli delegation’s as Rabin’s man.

It’s normal to assume that my father’s position simply followed the orders at the time, but that is only partially correct. In fact, my father accepted to head the negotiations with Israel only reluctantly, to put it mildly, and only after having asked Hafez Assad, face to face, to give him his word that the June 4 1967 border was the minimum acceptable, and that no secret track two talks would be allowed – to which Assad replied: you know, if you hadn’t said this, I might have doubted you were really Mowaffak Allaf! This is a story that has been recounted to my brothers and I over the years by various Arab diplomats, for whom it confirmed that my father’s ultimate concern was always defending his cause, and for whom daring to face Hafez Assad with a provocative and loaded question few others would have the courage to pose as a condition was not a problem. Assad had chosen my father personally to head the talks, and word was that a number of regime cronies who wanted to push their own people were upset that Assad couldn’t find a single person inside the regime to become this “responsible,” or inside the Baath, or even inside Syria (we were living in Vienna at the time)!

This long digression went through my mind as I read last week about the secret talks between Syria and Israel that have been making headlines. One might think my reactionary position is inherited, but with a hundred reasons to denounce the attitude of the Syrian government, I hope it is a natural reaction which is typical of my compatriots.

We’ve already seen it repeatedly: the more Arabs (Syrians and Palestinians included) concede needlessly on major issues, the more Israel finds itself in a strong position, whining that it is making “painful concessions” and trying to dictate the parameters of a strange kind of peace. Like the “peace” peddled in this strange, dangerous non-paper (which reeks of really being a white paper to me) divulged by Akiva Eldar last week in Haaretz.

A non-paper “based” on the June 4, 1967 border, but a border which remains to be agreed. In other words, it completely ignores the pledge of Ehud Barak, who numerous observers (including “honest broker” Americans) agreed got cold feet at the eleventh hour and went back on the agreement which would have brought real peace between Syria and Israel, fairly and squarely.

A non-paper giving Israel unprecedented, unwarranted water rights. Syria’s rights, in contrast, are limited to residential and fishing rights.

A non-paper which doesn’t even mention Israeli settlements (as it speaks of “areas that Israeli forces will vacate”), but implies that Syrians will not have the right of return to their own land (a specialty of Israeli policy) so that the area can remain “free of permanent residents” (so much for residential Syrian water rights). No right of return, and no right of compensation, although both are guaranteed by international law.

A non-paper that would see Syria dropping its support of Palestinian groups in a second, in blatant contravention to every pledge ever made by successive Syrian governments, let alone by Syrian Baathists. The Palestinian cause becomes a tangent, an afterthought, as if we hadn’t spent the last 60 years living through its impact, all of us.

A non-paper demanding cooperation on “local and international terrorism” without defining it, implying both countries have equal understanding of the term.

A non-paper demanding, for once, Syria’s interference in Palestinian, Lebanese and even Iraqi affairs ... but according to Israeli and American interests.

A non-paper giving Israel the luxury of “withdrawal” over 15 years (and certainly not less than 5) while the demilitarized area (on the Syrian side mostly) becomes controlled by American checkpoints – and possibly the unmentioned armed Israeli settlers.

A non-paper, finally, pretending to seriously present the idea of a park on the Golan Heights, allowing Israelis free access without a visa. A park, for picnics with Israeli neighbors we happen to meet. The person who takes credit for this ridiculous notion of a park, an insult to our collective intelligence, should really stay out of politics – especially if he thinks Dennis Ross deserves the Nobel Prize (although given some of the recipients, the Nobel for Peace has certainly gone downhill).

After 40 years of hardship, of young Syrian men spending up to 3 useless years in the army, of army officers’ children driving around recklessly in their big Mercs, and of the regime justifying every excess on the state of war, we get a peace park. It’s a wonder this non-paper didn’t propose, as a “confidence-building step,” a Syrian commitment to acknowledge our beloved falafel as the national dish of Israel, and to throw in our hummus too for good measure (an “Israelization phenomenon” which I once complained about as it smacked of “having your hummus and eating it too”). But not to worry. So far, the Israelis are officially being all high and mighty, pretending they are worried about real Syrian intentions, and insisting they can’t talk for now. So if the Israeli government is refusing even this pittance of a deal publicly, after so much bowing from the Syrian regime, imagine what an actual “peace” treaty would actually look like. Unlike the Syrians, the Israelis have held on to every point yielded by the opposite party as if it was manna from heaven. It is not the Israelis who will ever say they will negotiate without preconditions (on the contrary, of course). Some “humat addiyari” our current negotiators are!

In desperate situations, capitulation is understandable (this agreement being a glorified version thereof) if it is to save lives and eradicate war and all the related suffering. Nobody wants to play hero over the misery of their people. But in that case, it should be called capitulation, and not peddled as a peace deal to be applauded. I am certainly not a fan of “creative solutions” to clear problems, whether in the case of Syria or of Palestine. As far as I’m concerned, and until I see some humane, decent, or even simply lawful action from Israel, I think it’s time to call for a new version of the 3 Nos:

- No to unconditional re-negotiations
- No to undignified track two supplications
- No to unnecessary capitulations

For all its solemnity, this post is light-heartedly dedicated to my Syrian cyberfriends, who will rue the day they ever nagged me to write and ended up with 2000 words!

Addendum: I wrote above that “another Syrian, a friend to whom I leave the freedom to declare himself should he wish to do so” was also taken off the invitation list to Madrid +15. He has gracefully revealed his identity himself in the comments section, and you can read for yourself what he has to say. It is Dr. Murhaf Jouejati, our well-known Syrian scholar and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at The George Washington University, whose career is summarized here. On a personal note, I would like to add that Murhaf is also the son of one of our most eminent and respected diplomats, my father’s friend and colleague who was equally involved in the peace talks - the late, regretted Ambassador Rafik Jouejati.