Israel and Syria officially announce peace talks

[Nemesis6]

Latest article from jpost on the subject: Israel denies it agreed to full withdrawal from Golan Heights -

Hours after the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) announced that Israel and Syria had begun indirect peace talks, the PMO denied Wednesday a statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to the effect that Damascus received commitments for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights up to the June 4, 1967 border during Turkish-brokered indirect talks.

"As (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert has said in the past, Syria knows what Israel demands of it and Israel knows what Syria expects it to do," officials in the PMO said.

"We received commitments for a withdrawal from the Golan to the June 4, 1967 line," Moallem had told AFP during a visit to Bahrain. "This is not new. It started since Rabin's pledge [for a pullout] in 1993, and all subsequent Israeli prime ministers abided by it."

The announcement comes after months of reports of unofficial messages going back and forth from Jerusalem to Damascus through Turkey, and was simultaneously announced in Ankara and Damascus.

"Israel and Syria have begun indirect peace talks with the Syrians, under the auspices of Turkey," the statement read. "The two sides have declared their intention to conduct the negotiations in good faith and with openness."

The statement said Syria and Israel have agreed to carry out the dialogue in a serious and continuous manner with the aim of reaching a comprehensive peace within the framework set up at the Madrid Conference.

According to the statement, the two sides thanked Turkey and its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for their role in the talks and for their "generous hospitality."

The indirect talks started in February 2007 when Olmert visited Turkey and in a two-and-a-half hour private conversation with Erdogan agreed that Turkey would begin mediating between Israel and Syria with the goal of beginning peace negotiations.

Olmert placed responsibility for the Syrian dossier in the hands of his chief of staff Yoram Turbowicz and his foreign policy adviser Shalom Turgeman. The two have traveled to Turkey a number of times over the last year and held talks with Turkish officials. Currently they are in Ankar, and have been there since Monday, together with high ranking Syrian officials. The two teams, however, are not believed to be holding direct talks.

According to the officials, one question being discussed in exchanges Turkey has carried between Jerusalem and Damascus over the last few months is what comes first: an Israeli announcement - in some yet-to-be-determined form - regarding withdrawal from the Golan, or a Syrian announcement of ending support for Hamas and Hizbullah.

Israel is also keen on a Syrian commitment to distance itself from Iran as part of any future peace agreement.

At the time, Olmert's office denied reports that a decision had been made that Turbowicz would head discussions with the Syrians until a meeting was arranged between Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Assad.

In an interview with Newsweek and The Washington Post last week, the prime minister said Israel was examining the possibility of peace with Damascus, even though Jerusalem was concerned over Syria's role in the region.

"We are very unhappy with the continued intensive involvement of Syria in the affairs of Lebanon and the lack of a democratic process in electing a new president in Lebanon. We are also unhappy with the continued links between Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas," he said.

Olmert said Israel was aware of US interests in the region, including in Lebanon and rejected reports that US President George W. Bush was blocking peace talks between Israel and Syria.

Last week, in an interview with The Jerusalem Post and other Israeli journalists in the Oval Office, Bush said he had never sought to prevent Israel from negotiating with Syria. But he also highlighted his own objections to American-Syrian dialogue and warned of the threat inherent in the Iranian-Syrian alliance.

"I have made some very clear conditions for the United States talking with [the Syrians]," the president noted. "Early on in my administration, Colin Powell went to Damascus ... followed up by some other people. And we said, 'Look, you're housing Hamas. You're enabling transit of materials to Hizbullah in Lebanon.'... Since then they've made life miserable for the young democracy in Iraq," said Bush.

What Syria needed to do if it wanted to open a new relationship with the US, he continued, was to "become a constructive force, a positive force, a force for peace, not a force that continually uses these extremist groups to destabilize the neighborhood."

But Israel, he went on, had to make its own decisions. "Israeli politicians, responsible to the people and responsive to the people, have got to come up with their own vision of security," said Bush. "And I have never told Olmert one thing or another about what to do with his security. That's not what friends do... I know him well, and know that he is as concerned about Israeli security as any other person that's ever been the prime minister of Israel."

Still, Bush stressed, "My hope, of course, is that a decision is made with Israel's interests at heart." Thinking strategically, "the biggest long-term threat to peace in the Middle East is Iran," Bush said. "The Iranian connection with Syria is very troubling for not only the United States, but Israel, as well as other Arab nations. And anything done should keep that strategic vision in mind. And of all the people who understand the existential threat that the Iranians pose, it's the Israelis."

The surprise announcement of peace negotiations comes at a time of increasing political uncertainty in Israel, stemming from the current investigation of Olmert.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288134665&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Indirect talks... Yeah, that'll lead somewhere! :cheese:

 

[The Monkey]

A step in the right direction, I guess. At the very least not a step in the wrong direction.

 

[<RJMC>]

bet ya in less that a week things will go back to the usual

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Basically ya^

 

[No Limit]

Nemesis, I'll take this opportunity to ask you a question, I hope I won't regret it.

What do you think is the solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict?

 

[Nemesis6]

Anything but useless talks, really... I think this will go down the same road as the Oslo Accords and the more recent Annapolis conference. If there's a solution, it's not this. It sounds good, just like all the other attempts, but as always, it an illusion for the bubble-headed optimist to cling on to.

Oh what the hell, I'll humor you: The solution is reform in the Arab countries. The solution is not to give more land to them, like in this recent travesty where Syria's only motivation is to get the Golan Heights back. No, the solution is to get the Arabs to realize that the hell they live in is most likely NOT due to the evil Zionist tentacles infiltrating their governments, etc, as newspapers like Al-Ahram and Hayat Al-Jadida would have them believe, but rather the Imams and radicals who are playing the government like a violin, the government of course being more than happy to be that because if it didn't, it would be overthrown. But a thorn exists in the idea that it's Islamism's fault; Ba'thism also had a role to play. This needs to be confronted too, and Arafat is the best example of its horrors. Saddam and Arafat mainly.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, great you want to reform arab countries and show their people the light. I'm on board. But just how do you want to get this accomplished?

And if this sounds like I'm being a smart ass I'm not. I'm seriously not interested in another Israel debate, I think that dead horse has been beaten plenty of times before. You post on this subject a lot but I don't think you ever explained exactly how you would deal with it, so I'm curious.

 

[Nemesis6]

That's the problem - I'm no Mustafa Kemal Atat?rk, so my methods of achieving it are virtually none, all I can do is theorize. But a basic step would probably be to increase cooperation with them on matters such as trade, etc, in order to boost their economy, but at this point, that's dangerous, because you risk the countries using this new-found financial stability to attack Israel and consequently arrive right back at the breadlines a few weeks later. The real challenge is getting rid of the Islamists because they've consolidated a lot of power, and they're a pain in the butt for all Arab countries. Except Saudi Arabia and Iran of course, but I digress. After they're gone, you'll have to deal with the secular dictatorships, and they're no different as far as barbarity goes. Anyway, it is a hard question because once one problem is solved, it most likely generates another.

Another solution might be quicker, but inherently more dangerous - Nationalism, you see it's not without reason I mentioned Atat?rk, because he turned a theocracy into a secular state. The problems this blind nationalism brought are irrelevant in the scope of what they gained. But then again, the Turks are historically quite different than the Arabs although their history is very intertwined. But this solution is of course also a gamble because once again you risk another war.

Basically, the problem is this: 1400 years of theocracy ends, and the people have to choose between that or a just as brutal secular state. The secular states have to be brutal and suppressive because Islamism still wields power, as I said above.

 

[No Limit]

Your cooperation idea is actually fairly reasonable. The problem I think is you are looking at this as a black or white solution, we eighter stop all attacks on Israel or we tell them to kiss our ass. If the cooperation you suggested decreased attacks but some attacks still existed in the short term would you be ok with that or would it be a deal breaker for you?

I'm familiar enough with Turkey's history to comment on that but like you said I would think the history would be much different there.