Gone with the wave

The story at first received considerable attention in the US because of the ongoing debate among the presidential candidates over whether Washington leaders should talk to rogue regimes. President Bush joined the discussion during his trip to the Middle East by implying that those who are for direct talks with people like Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmedinajad and entities like Hamas are in the business of the "appeasement" of enemies. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush said. Democrats felt this was one last example of tough "cowboy talk," and that their candidate Barack Obama was a target.   

The pro-Obama argument went like this: Even the security-conscious Israelis are talking to their enemies, such as the Syrians, why shouldn't the US? Well, Bush and his favorite presidential candidate, Republican Senator McCain, will not have to worry too much about refuting such arguments, because if and when the current administration in Israel collapses, hard-line Likudniks will most likely seize power. Be assured that one of Benjamin Netanyahu's first acts as prime minister will be to stop peace talks, to the joy of his neocon friends in Washington.

Sometimes pleasing friends may produce as many dangerous outcomes as appeasing enemies in international relations. Wasn't good friendship between Bush and Sharon an important factor leading up to the disastrous war in Iraq? For hard-liners in Washington, crafting wars has traditionally been preferable to making peace. That's why they are now heavily involved in the business of preparing the US for yet another war, one with Iran. As long as the power of the war lobby lingers, one should keep expectations low when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian peace.  

Not only the hotbeds of hawks in the White House National Security Council and Vice President Cheney's office, but also the US State Department seems "cool" to peace efforts between Israel and Syria, as The Associated Press put it. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said, "It's a good thing and we hope it progresses, but where we're making the effort right now is on the Palestinian track." The message to Turkey: Thank you, but don't waste your and our time with this. If you ask me, given the hot potato issues like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, the Bush administration does not even have sufficient time or political capital for the Israeli-Palestinian track, despite the overblown Annapolis process.

Turkey would certainly benefit from an Israeli-Syrian peace in many ways. For example, if Israel agrees to leave the Golan Heights, a main water resource, they might end up buying Turkish water, which would help bolster Ankara's strategic and economic interests in the region. However, having heard about the relayed to-do list for Syrians in exchange, full of politically revolutionary compromises, I have little reason to believe Damascus would go for it.

The US administration further bound itself with its diplomatic lockout policy toward regimes such as Damascus and Tehran after Bush's appeasement remarks. Republicans wouldn't be interested in taking a talking point from the hands of comrade McCain, who seems to stick to the Bush line on this. The Assad regime cannot be fully trusted unless it suddenly begins acting constructively in Lebanon and stops being an agent of disruptive Iranian policies. The expected change in Israel's political landscape is also a liability for peace. Having disconnected from its southern backyard since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, this peace effort can only be a warm-up for Ankara, which, by the way, is caught up in its own domestic crisis.