Reports | 25 05 2020
In a historic event, the magnitude of which has not been seen since the establishment of the state of Israel approximately 70 years ago, Israeli parliament, with the leadership of Netanyahu, held its weekly meeting in the Golan Heights. In that meeting, the Israeli prime minister announced that the Golan Heights will belong to Israel forever. The statement was not provocative or rude, it was intended to attract everyone's attention, but what was provocative and rude was the way that the meeting was held and the location in which it was held.
The place is occupied Syrian territory that Israel announced it was going to take decades ago. No international organization agreed or approved of Israel's decision. The fact that the meeting was held outdoors and in the open was a clear statement by the Israelis that they are not scared. The nature of the meeting was a clear symbol meant to say that Israel is not worried about any threats coming from the east, where the border between Israel and Syria lies.
People had differences of opinion over the meaning of Netanyahu's statement about the Golan Heights belonging to Israel forever, though some of these opinions reflected a lack of understanding the context in which it was made. Both the meaning and the underlying reasons of the release of the statement relate to the current situation in Syria, and what Israelis think about Syria's future. In their opinion, Syria is finished. They believe that Syria has begun its dissolution into many separate parts, starting with a federal government for Muslims, and including a separate Alawite state. If the Israeli prediction is correct, then the Golan Heights will never return to Syria, because there will no longer be a Syria. Israel is addressing what the Golan will become, not what it currently is.
Israel cannot imagine Syria without al Assad being its ruler, and for that reason they prefer a more manageable Syria that is divided into many different religious colonies. Many of the high-level Israeli representatives believe that that it what is going to happen.
The challenge is keeping Syria together as one country when the war is over with a new government that doesn’t scare the Syrian people, and also doesn't scare Israel. The positions of the countries invested in this process are revealed in how they feel about Bashar Al Assad: Russia wants him, but is looking for a replacement, Israel does not want him, but also does not want replacement, and Iran wants him to stay, and is not looking for an alternative.
Discussions with Israel: The Elephant in the Room
After Netanyahu's statement, the silence of the opposition was an implicit agreement that Syria will indeed split apart and that the Golan Heights will stay with Israel. By silence, I do not mean an absence of words, for words mean nothing, even if the opposition were to address Israel’s position every day. I mean that it is time for the opposition to look toward where Syria’s destiny is going to end up in relation to its enemy, Israel.
I say this for many reasons. The first reason is that Israel is able to maintain and sustain itself for the next 20 years, or even a half century. But can any Syrian assure us that Syria will stay intact for even one more year?
Why is the Syrian opposition scared to openly speak to Israeli officials? Are they still under the influence of the national illusion created by the fathers of the Ba’ath party, or are they still trapped in the theory of defiance that was created by Assad's regime and later embellished by Khomeni?
Does this mean that the Syrian opposition is seriously disengaging from international politics?
Is the Assad regime-supported rumor that the opposition is working for Israel what is stopping the opposition from engaging in dialogue and negotiating with Israeli leaders? If that actually is the reason, it does not justify in any way the lack of contact between the opposition and Israel.
The reason is simple. Al Assad, both the father and the son, have secretly contacted Israel for their own benefit, and to strengthen the ruling elite. The opposition does not have to be like Al Assad the father or the son, or like their flawed and selfish government. The Syrian opposition does not have to contact Israel for any personal reasons or reasons related to gaining power, but they do have to negotiate with Israel for the future of the Syrian people.
If this conversation does not begin within the next year as a unified, Syrian opposition, then each group will be forced to meet separately with Israel, and they will need to grow accustomed to receiving commands from Tel Aviv and delivering the message back to their respective sects.
If the Syrian opposition envisions Syria as one, independent country, then they will have to overcome their fear of Israel, and they will have to reverse the prohibition of negotiation with Israeli leaders. This prohibition that was initiated by Anton Sa’ade and later by the Ba’ath Party and Abdel Nasser, and was preserved by Hafez al-Assad, even though he openly sent his own foreign minister to negotiate with Israel, and sent others for secret negotiations with Israel. Those same secret negotiations were also taking place when Bashar al-Assad became president, and the result was an economic alliance between Israel and “Al Makhlouf” [Rami Al Makhlouf, cousin of Bashar al-Assad, and business powerbroker in Syria].