Let's recall the events of the last few weeks - after observing a tacit pact of non-aggression for more than 20 years, Israel launched an air attack on Syria; Damascus threatened to take revenge, but not necessarily by direct military action. At the same time, a discussion is unfolding over whether or not Syria will attend the meeting in the United States.
It does not matter much why the Israelis attacked Syria, or what they achieved. In the context of current developments in the region (political chaos in Lebanon, disputes around Iran, a Palestinian split and vague prospects in Iraq) it is much more important to understand why Israel has struck now.
Syrian-Israeli relations have recently become a riddle. Border tensions between the two rapidly escalated following the war in Lebanon in 2006. During the conflict the Israelis had feared that Syria might open a second front, and were greatly relieved when this did not happen. But right after the war, they started maneuvers near the Syrian border - "just in case." This is understandable, because the short war proved that Israel had been unprepared for fighting Hezbollah.
Practically at the same time, the Israeli media started discussing the need for peace talks with Damascus, a subject that had not been raised since 2000. Some analysts maintained that success on the Syrian front would allow the Israeli government to justify itself for its failures in Lebanon and Palestine. Judging by the publications of the time, unofficial talks were already underway. In turn, political leaders started sending each other signals about possible contacts, although they seem to be no more than movements in the air.
The conduct of a Syrian journalist at the UN seminar on the Middle East in Tokyo last June is quite indicative. To take part in the seminar, she had to obtain official permission from her government. Having received it, she was engaged in rather lively discussions with her Israeli colleagues in the lobby.
I'd like to emphasize that, as distinct from contacts between Palestinians and Israelis at most different levels, which are nothing new, Israeli-Syrian dialogue has little precedent. For that to become possible, official change of policy had to take place, at least in Damascus.
In less than half a year, the gossip about secret Syrian-Israeli talks dried up. Does this mean that there were no talks, or that they failed? Or were they simply unnecessary?
In this period, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process became more active; the United States and Israel placed their bets on talks with the head of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas, and totally ignored HAMAS, who had seized power in the Gaza Strip. U.S. President George W. Bush announced his intention to hold a peace conference on the Middle East. The Palestinian issue was declared its priority; it was supposed to be attended by many Arab nations and to discuss the possibility of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement. However, Syria was not initially invited. In the meantime, the political crisis in Lebanon was going from bad to worse, compelling Washington and Paris to intensify their pressure on Damascus.
But at the same time, Arab nations, a number of EU members and Russia made the point that talks on a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East were impossible without Syria's participation; it would also make it much more difficult to resolve the Palestinian issue. With some reservations Washington agreed to Syrian involvement in the event, which is gradually turning from a conference into a meeting. Damascus, however, says that it has not yet received its invitation from the Americans.
Even if it does, Syrian participation is far from certain. Syrian President Bashar Assad told the BBC in early October that Syria would not take part in the forum unless the occupied Golan Heights were on the agenda. He added that Syria would enthusiastically welcome the meeting if it focused on ways of achieving comprehensive peace. Otherwise, there is no sense in Syrian participation.
The Golan Heights will not be discussed at the forum, although its agenda is still unclear, and the Syrian leadership knows this.
Nevertheless, their position is quite logical - a comprehensive settlement cannot be achieved unless the sides agree on the status of the Golan Heights and settle all points of contention between Israel and Syria, as well as Lebanon. Arab nations with no territorial or other disputes with Israel find it easier to talk about peace than Syria. For this reason, Damascus needs guarantees that Syrian problems are not left out of the framework of a Middle Eastern settlement. The same goes for the Palestinian issue. Why should Syria make compromises to facilitate a Palestinian-Israeli settlement if it is being subjected to outside pressure on a whole number of other issues?
But it seems that the circumstances into which Syria is being forced are encouraging it to a strong reaction rather than compromise or bargaining. It is enough to recall the strange episode of the Israeli air raid.
But maybe it makes sense for the Syrians to come to the United States - if they get their invitations - even if they have nothing obvious to gain? Such an elegant step would surprise Damascus's opponents, and would at least get them officially involved in the process of settlement. In any event, it would be better than the current escalation of tensions in the region.
Marianna Belenkaya is a commentator for TV Channel Russia Today in Arabic.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
