The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

If Jesse Helms and Bill Clinton agree on anything, it is that Syria can't be trusted. The President won't say so publicly. The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says it all the time. Despite their shared skepticism, Clinton and Helms view the future differently. In concert with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Clinton is pushing an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. Like Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu, Helms dismisses the process as a "fraud." Syria, says Netanyahu, wants Israelis "resting in peace, not living in peace."

As the negotiations stretch on, the key obstacle remains Syria's demand that Israel return the strategic Golan Heights captured in the 1967 war. Critics view the price as too high, and even those who support a peace accord are loath to relinquish the Golan. Who would feel safe in the U.S. capital if just across the Potomac River an enemy force occupied a 9,000-ft.-high plateau in northern Virginia?

& Many Israelis believe Syrian President Hafez Assad has observed a cold peace with Jerusalem because he hopes to get his territory back; give up the Golan, they argue, and Syria will lose any incentive to stay in line. Then, says Netanyahu, "nothing would keep Damascus from violating a treaty."

Other Israelis argue that with Jordan and Egypt at peace with Israel, Jerusalem has the security it needs. A combined Arab force failed to vanquish Israel in four previous wars, they note; if the talks with Syria collapse, Damascus is unlikely to wage a one-on-one battle over the Golan. "So why deal on Assad's terms?" asks Netanyahu.

If an agreement with Syria is ever reached, Rabin promises a national referendum to ratify it. His chances will improve immeasurably if the U.S. agrees to station troops on the Golan to monitor the deal. Clinton has indicated he would send them, but political realities dictate that Congress approve the deployment, and Helms is only one of many who say no. "Just like in Beirut, our forces would be an inviting target for extremists out to derail the peace even if Syria itself really favors it," says New York Senator Al D'Amato, whose views on the matter are respected by other Senators because of his state's large Jewish population.

Terrorism is always a possibility, but the risks pale beside the opportunity of a pact with Syria. Even with Israel at peace with its other neighbors, Syria might seek to undermine the existing agreements if it remains the only state on Israel's borders still at war with it. Peace with Syria would also calm the region, help secure Western access to Middle East oil at reasonable prices and further isolate Iraq and Iran, the bad actors supporting the world's worst terrorists.

Finally, those who dismiss Syria's potential to wage war alone against Israel miscalculate; past conflicts are a poor forecast of future battles. In this case, Israeli civilians would face a new threat: a missile attack far harsher than the limited Scud barrage Iraq launched at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. Syria already possesses the most advanced strategic-weapons capability in the Arab world, and its chemical, biological and ballistic missile programs are proceeding on a crash basis even as Damascus talks peace. A battle utilizing weapons of mass destruction would invariably provoke a punishing Israeli counterstrike, possibly with nuclear weapons, but Israel would suffer as never before. For that reason alone, peace with Syria is clearly in Israel's interest. If the cost involves stationing 1,000 U.S. troops in a demilitarized Golan -- which is the number the parties are talking about -- that is a small commitment for a large and unambiguously worthy goal.