Related Resources

Dr. Liel commenced his presentation by informing the audience that in January 2004, the president of Syria paid the first visit to the Republic of Turkey. Given Turkey’s good relations with Syria and Israel, Bashar ‘Asad hoped that Turkey would be able to effectively mediate between both sides to reach a settlement over the Golan Heights.

Following Bashar’s visit, a small unofficial working group was established, consisting of two Israeli representatives (including Dr. Liel), a Syrian representative (Ibrahim Soloman) and several Turks meeting in Switzerland under the auspices of the Turkish government to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights.

According to Dr. Liel, it became clear in the meetings that Syria was rigid on issues of sovereignty and a return to the 1967 border between Syria and Israel. On the other hand, it was flexible on a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, accepting a five to 15 year time framework, and expressing a willingness to turn a third of the Golan Heights into an international park that Israelis can enter without a visa. Israeli economic interests and successful old businesses would be protected in this international park and Syrians would have to pay for a ticket to gain admission into this “international” territory. Liel confirmed that Syria continues to support this arrangement for the Golan.

Dr. Liel reported that during the July war between Hizbullah and Israel in July 2006, Syrian representatives met eight times with their Israeli counterparts in Switzerland to discuss the future of the Golan Heights and place pressure on Hizbullah to end its missile barrage on the state Israel, particularly the city of Haifa.

These meetings were discontinued due to American pressure, as confirmed by Dr. Liel. In March 2007, Prime Minister Olmert went to Turkey to assess Syrian willingness to resume bilateral or regional talks. By this time, the talks clearly held an official status. Syria had only one condition: it demanded the presence of an American official in the round table discussions, as an expression of US support for these negotiations.

When asked why Syria insisted on the presence of an American and not European official, Dr. Liel explained that the Europeans were not courageous enough to oppose Washington policy, and the Syrians were primarily interested in securing American support, seen as a critical backup for Syria in case of deteriorating Syrian-Iranian relations following Syrian negotiations with Israel.

In May 2007, Olmert went to Washington to lobby for American support and secure official American presence in the Syrian Israeli talks. The Americans vetoed this initiative, rejecting any contact with the ‘Asad regime. By then, it was clear to Israel that the bottleneck for reaching a settlement over the Golan came from Washington. With Annapolis approaching, the Bush Administration had other priorities.

Over the last eight months, bilateral relations between Syrian and Israeli representatives continued in Europe. Dr. Liel made it clear that they had tried to move the concept of an international park in the Golan into an actual plan by commissioning five to ten companies to draw up competitive designs, whilst asserting the difficulty of getting funding for this project given the lack of an official statement from Israel that it was willing to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

As expressed by Dr. Liel, Syrian-Israeli relations can break the deadlock in the Middle East peace process by: giving Syria an incentive to change its regional policy and terminate its close ties with Iran, while putting an end the flow of arms to Hizbullah from Iran through the Syrian border; capitalizing on Syrian influence to strengthen the PLO while planning a defeating blow to Hamas, and citing the expulsion of the PKK from Syria as an example of Syria’s potential to break Hamas; and pressuring Arab governments to grant citizenship to Palestinians, confirming that that part of the agreement with Syria would entail giving citizenship to Palestinians in Syria, with the hope that this would also exert pressure on the Lebanese government to settle the Palestinians in Lebanon. It was made clear in the discussion that due to Lebanon's precarious sectarian divisions, there is national consensus that the Palestinians would not be settled in Lebanon.

When asked about the Sheb‘a farms, Dr. Liel said that the issue was controversial as it was not clear if this land belonged to Syria or Lebanon, but in all cases Israel (according to his point of view) had no geopolitical issues with Lebanon as it was on the 1967 border.

Even if Syria is indicted by the international tribunal for complicity in the assassination of Rafiq Harriri in February 2005, Dr. Liel held the view that Israel ought to initiate dialogue with its enemies, expressing a willingness to deal with a “bad” party that can deliver, rather than a “good” one that fails to deliver.

Dr. Liel will be meeting with the US congress shortly to urge the Bush Administration to discontinue labeling Syria as a “terrorist” country and begin acknowledging its importance as a key player in the Middle East peace process.