On Monday Oct. 23, I will be talking at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institute with Ammar Abdulhamid on the subject: "Should the US engage Syria?"

I will write on the release of Michel Kilo from jail in a separate post. It is important. Everyone is praying that Bunni, Dalila and the others will follow Kilo out of jail soon.

Israel – Syria Dialogue

Olmert's insistence that Israel wants to begin peace talks with Lebanon, but not Syria, this weak was delightful political theater. Lebanon's PM Siniora immediately announced that Lebanon was not interested. "Peace should come with Israel's acceptance of an Arab peace initiative," Siniora answered, putting his best Arab foot forward. What else could he say? His government, like Olmert's, is too weak to engage in real peace negotiations.Olmert's desire to talk peace with Siniora comes only weeks after the Lebanon War, during which Olmert declared war on Siniora's government for harboring and working with terrorists, i.e. Hizbullah.

What possibly has changed since then? Hizbullah remains a part of Siniora's government. The Lebanese army, although it has been deployed to the south of the country, has no orders to disarm or apprehend Hizbullah militia men. Lebanon continues to support Israel's most potent enemy. How could Israel possible negotiate peace with Lebanon? Syria, of course, also supports Hizbullah. The difference between Syria and Lebanon is that Israel would have to give back the Golan to Syria as a price of negotiations. Another difference is that the Syrian government is strong enough to implement any undertakings it would agree to as part of a peace deal. Here are the two news items:  

Israel Wants Lebanon Talks but not Syria The Associated Press Monday, October 16, 2006; 10:46 AMJERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday invited the Lebanese prime minister to begin peace talks following Israel's recent war against Hezbollah guerrillas, but Olmert ruled out peace talks with Syria at the present time, saying President Bashar Assad isn't a suitable negotiating partner.Olmert said that Israel made significant gains in its battle against the Lebanese guerrilla group. Olmert has been heavily criticized for his handling of the war, in which Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel.Olmert called on Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fuad Saniora, to enter peace talks, saying the time has passed for indirect mediation between the nations.

See also: Olmert Accuses Assad of Seeking Along with Hizbullah to Topple Saniora

Prime Minister Fuad Saniora rejected his Israeli counterpart Ehud Olmert's call Monday for direct peace talks between the two countries. A statement from Saniora's office said he "had announced more than once that Lebanon would be the last Arab country to sign peace with Israel."

"Real peace should come with Israel's acceptance of an Arab peace initiative proposed by (then) Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah and that was adopted by an Arab summit conference in Beirut" in March 2002, the statement said. "In this context, it has become clear that, as a first step to prove its desire for peace, Israel should withdraw from occupied Lebanese lands, including the Chebaa Farms and fully apply U.N. Security Resolution 1701," the statement added.

Shmuel Rosner in Haaretz tries to explain why the US should not engage Syria. He has two arguments. One, the US has Syria just where it wants it, isolated and hemmed in by the Hariri investigation. Two, the smartest people in Washington think Bashar al-Asad is not serious in wanting to make peace with Israel. Both of these arguments are wrong and tired.

The assessments repeated by Rosner are part of the broader Middle East Bush policy that has failed so miserably in a mere four years. The longer analysts, such as Rosner, are able to foist these assessments on Washington, the more profoundly the US will lose credibility and effectiveness in the Middle East.

First, Syria's isolation from the West is not crippling, except in the imagination of Washington. The Hariri trial is not going to undo the Asad regime or make it go away, no mater what the outcome. Bashar al-Asad will be President of Syria long after Bush, Chirac, and Olmert have stepped aside. Washington must deal with him.

Second, striking a peace deal between Israel and Syria that has Israel returning the entire Golan will be very good for the US and Israel. By refusing to enforce international borders, the US is shooting itself in the foot and prolonging the life of extremist forces in the Middle East.

If the United States could get Syria to sign a peace deal with Israel as Egypt and Jordan have done, it would undermine much of the rational for a one party state in Syria, for emergency law, military rule, and you name it. The list is a long one. Once Syria officially recognizes the Jewish state's right to exist in historic Palestine, Arabism is finished – at least your father's brand of Arabism. The Arabism that claimed that there was one Arab nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Arab Gulf and from the Taurus Mountains to the Arabian Peninsula – the kind of Arabism that is at the heart of the Baath Party.

If America really wanted to undo Baathism in the Middle East and the ideology that makes it resonate among Arabs, it would get a deal signed between Syria and Israel. The Arab-Israeli conflict that we are all so tired of would be over. Then the real conflict that should be waged, the battle over ideas, could be fought in a meaningful way. That is the conflict we are waiting for, but it can only be fought when the land war is over. 

I will quote the first paragraphs of Rosner's article, but read the entire thing to see how he fails to make any concrete argument other than by listing names of famous people who oppose talking to Syria – and some of these names, such as Denis Ross, are now advocating that the US talk to its enemies, including Syria.

In fact, the Guardian has a long article explaining that British authorities are signing onto James Baker's plan as it is being advanced by the Iraq Study Group. It calls for engagement with Iraq and Iran. The kicker line is: "The Foreign Office is backing the ISG proposal to engage with Iran and Syria. "We are encouraging them to go with that," a Foreign Office source said." Rosner wants us to believe that NSC's Steven Hadley and Elliott Abrams know better and have a plan that will keep Iraq from imploding or make Hizbullah disarm.

Israel, U.S. agree: Not the time for Syria talks
By Shmuel Rosner
Friday, October 20th, 2006
Haaretz

WASHINGTON – A few short weeks ago, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Army Radio, with regard to talks with Syria, that "if it turned out that there was someone to talk to and something to talk about, the idea would be right." On Tuesday, however, after his meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Dichter sounded somewhat different. He was for talks "in principle," but at the same time presented three conditions amazingly similar to the unbending American ones: the need for the closing down of the terror organizations in Damascus, for cessation of support for Hezbollah and of intervention in Lebanon, and prevention of the entry of terrorists into Iraq from Syria. On the third point, Dichter revealed another element: as long as the U.S. saw a problem with the Syrian channel, "Israel could not ignore it."

The U.S. does indeed see a problem, even a few problems, when it comes to the possibility of talks between Israel and Syria. In the continued approaches by President Bashar Assad, they see a clumsy attempt to escape the siege they have instituted, and perhaps also to escape the possible implications of the Rafik Hariri murder investigation. The U.S. is thus not interested in seeing Israel and Syria move ahead with a separate channel. The fact of the matter is that most of the people who have negotiated with Syria have advised sounding out Bashar and figuring out what he has to offer. This includes Rabinovich, Baker, Ross, and Kissinger. There are many more, but the point isn't to line up authorities. Politicians beholden to the Bush administration are insisting that Israel not negotiate. They cannot explain why except to say that Asad is bad and Syria is bad.

George Ajjan's article on US-Syria relations appeared in "Chronicles." In contrast to Rosner, He claims that Asad is the right person to talk to.  Here are his key paragraphs:

"At a time when Washington was rolling out the red carpet for PLO leader Abu Mazen, the Syrian regime seemed determined to undermine those efforts, much to the fury of White House officials.  In retrospect, the Bush administration's actions suggested neither a valid assessment of Arab public opinion nor the establishment of robust contingency plans for the pending Palestinian election. Instead, Bush continued to pout, the Palestinians voted, and White House protégé Abu Mazen lost his legitimacy almost overnight, to the benefit of Hamas. Bashar Assad completely outmaneuvered Bush. For all the juvenile blunders he and his obtuse cronies committed in Lebanon, Assad, strategically speaking, more than compensated by reading Meshaal's coffee cup like a seasoned pro."

 

"While the Israeli military can inflict major damage on Lebanon and certainly wage similar air strikes on Syria with relative impunity, its leaders know that this strategy is not sustainable. Unless Israel occupies every square inch of land from which missiles could be launched, the possibility remains for isolated rocket barrages to send tens of thousands of her citizens into bomb shelters.

Only one force has demonstrated the capability to stop such activities: the military and intelligence services of the countries from which these attacks could be launched. The only way that Israel will be safe in the long term is for these tightly controlled Arab state institutions to deal with internal rogue elements themselves. Essentially, Israelis need the infamous Syrian moukhabarat to work to disrupt terrorists instead of facilitating them. They would have to conclude that this outsourcing of crackdowns against militants, which has already been done with Egypt and Jordan, would ultimately increase Israel's security. Of course, the price for the Syrian and Lebanese governments to switch sides and comply would be "land for peace" treaties that allow those governments to recover some of their dignity."

 "Responding to such a proposal would no doubt be the biggest and toughest decision Bashar Assad has faced. He has already navigated a few considerable challenges, and, despite some foolish rookie mistakes, his regime remains solidly in control of Syria, while his naive opposition is barely functioning. This would be his first true test as a leader and would define his legacy. During his six years as Syrian president, did he tighten relations with Hamas and Hezbollah because of some ideological commitment? Or did he astutely surmise their rising fortunes and merely ride their coattails to a stronger bargaining position with the United States and Israel? The answers are unclear, but it is worth the risk to discover them."

Simon Dodge, an old friend and fellow Middle East hand, is a hero, I discovered a few days ago. [Simon Dodge is the son of David Dodge, and the late Doris Westfall Dodge, of Princeton. Born in Beirut, Lebanon, he is the son, grandson and great-grandson of former presidents of the American University of Beirut.] I grew up with Simon in Beirut, who was a next door neighbor on Rue Bliss and in Ainab, a small village above Shimlan, where we spent summers. What did Simon do to make him a hero?

According to Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Simon Dodge, who works for the State Department's intelligence bureau blew the whistle on the fake Niger "Yellow Cake" documents planted by the Italians. He explained that the papers were a hoax to his colleagues in October 2002, but the vice President's office refused to hear it, claiming State was filled with enemies. CIA buried their copy of the report, and so it went. The President used the false evidence in his January 2003 State of the Union address, and the Vice President still seems to think that Saddam's nuclear program was active.

Syria's Foreign Policies Impede Economic Progress, Dardari Says
By EHSANI2
October 20, 2006
"Syria Comment"

Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdallah Dardari has been the country’s chief spokesman and optimist when it comes to promises of reforms and economic prosperity.

As readers of this forum recall, this writer was always a skeptic. While the Minister promised reforms and tried to convince his populace that growth and prosperity were around the corner, this writer offered caution and warned that the country’s true economic prospects are far worse than what is being portrayed by the country’ s leadership.

This summer, I posted a note on "Syria Comment," entitled “Does Syria’s President Have The Will Or Conviction To Reform”. Set below is my opening remarks from that article:

“Syrian political reforms are unlikely to take place anytime soon. The President has recently listed security as first on his agenda. Some people think that this is a direct result of the recent events in Iraq. To be sure, however, security has always been Syria’s top priority under this regime. Indeed, it is only when one fully understands how much this leadership is preoccupied with security that one can fully appreciate what Syria is all about. Against many odds, this regime has been able to stay in power for close to 40 years. The longer it has been able to stay in power, the more convinced it has become that its preoccupation with security in not only warranted but a prerequisite for survival. All calls for political reform is viewed with great suspicion. Pushing for such reforms is seen as a prelude to weakening the grip of regime, which will ultimately lead to its downfall. The regime is unlikely therefore to want to tinker with a survival formula that has served it very well over four decades.”

Since then a lot has happened of course:

Arab leaders were derided and referred to as half-men. The country’s relationship with the U.S. and the west continue to deteriorate. Cooperation and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran has strengthened. The Hariri investigation still hangs as a dark cloud over the country.

As the country’s leadership charted its political strategy, reforms and the economy were bound to fall as victims. Thus far, the country’s leaders gave the impression that they can handle the political pressure AND deliver on their economic growth promises.

According to the article below, not anymore.

"Syria's Foreign Policies Impede Economic Progress, Dardari Says"
Dania Saadi
Oct. 17
(Bloomberg) — Syria's refusal to bow to U.S. pressure to sign a peace treaty with Israel has choked aid flows to the Arab nation, jeopardizing plans to sell state assets and cut the bloated public payroll, a cabinet minister said. Syria, which is under U.S. sanctions, would risk civil unrest if it pushed through reforms that drove up unemployment without first guaranteeing social benefits and pension accords, said Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdallah Dardari. “In a country that is confronting all these regional challenges and is under pressure from the West because of its political positions, is it worth it to have social unrest,'' said Dardari, 42, in an interview on Oct. 11 in his office in Damascus.

“We are definitely not willing to pay the political price of such international financial support.''  Syria, which borders Iraq and Lebanon, is seeking to cut some of its 1.3 million state jobs to offset tumbling revenue from oil production, which now accounts for 40 percent of fiscal income. The U.S., the biggest potential donor of financial aid, expanded sanctions in 2004, accusing the country of pursuing weapons of mass destruction and hindering the U.S. effort in Iraq. Syria denies the accusations. 

The U.S. has blocked Syria's application to enter the World Trade Organization. The European Union, which imports almost half of Syrian exports, delayed ratification of a free trade accord.

Jordan and Egypt have signed peace accords with Israel and now receive aid of about $2.3 billion a year from the U.S. and have won tariff-free access to its markets.

Fiscal Crunch

Syrian President Bashar Assad says the country will only sign a peace accord with Israel in return for the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day war. The government needs to boost growth and raise taxes to avoid a fiscal crunch in 2010, when the International Monetary Fund forecasts it will become a net importer of oil. The state plans to introduce a value-added tax by 2008 and lower fuel subsidies to compensate for a decline in oil revenue, Dardari said. Oil production, running at about 400,000 barrels a day, is expected to drop to 12 percent of gross domestic product by 2015, from about 25 percent now, the IMF says.

“We have a budget deficit risk because of depleting oil resources, this is the driving force behind our reform program,'' said Dardari, a former journalist with the London-based Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper.

Mixed Results

To date, Syria has failed to boost tax revenue to compensate for declining income from oil. Tax as a percentage of GDP is currently at a low of 10.5 percent, compared with 13.7 percent in Egypt and 15.8 percent in Jordan, according to the IMF. 

“We would like to go faster but there are a number of reasons why we are not. For example, human resources to manage a market economy do not exist in Syria,'' said Dardari. Syria has cut income taxes over the past two years to 28 percent from 64 percent in order to broaden the tax base and boost revenue. The government wants to raise income from direct and indirect taxes to 14 percent of the GDP by 2010, from 7 percent now, Dardari said.

“So far implementation of reforms such as lowering taxes has been mixed,'' said David Butter, senior Middle East analyst at the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit. “There has been some progress, but it is small and limited.'' Under a five-year plan adopted by the Baath Party in 2005, the government set a target of maintaining a fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP by 2010. To do that, it needs to slash fuel subsidies that will rise to 14.5 percent of GDP by the end of this year, the IMF estimates.

Investment Climate

Syria aims to boost economic growth to 7 percent by 2010 by reducing paper work, easing state controls and attracting more investors, Dardari said. It currently takes 43 days on average to start a business in Syria, compared with nine days in Turkey and five days in the U.S., according to the World Bank.

The country is counting on investments, mainly from Persian Gulf countries, to boost growth in non-oil industries such as manufacturing, tourism, services and banking, Dardari added. Investment increased 88 percent to 375 billion Syrian pounds ($7.2 billion) last year from 200 billion pounds in 2004, he said. “Regional surplus oil revenue is looking for places to invest so we managed to grasp that opportunity despite the very difficult political circumstances,'' said Dardari, who also heads the State Planning Commission in Syria.

Unemployment, which the government says is at 10 percent, is forecast to decline to 8 percent by 2010, according to the five-year plan. The IMF estimates that the unemployment rate was at 14 percent in 2004 and could exceed 20 percent by 2010 because of a 4 percent annual increase in the labor force.

“There will be some painful decisions, for example cutting fuel oil subsidies,'' said Dardari. “Yes, these decisions are coming, but we are doing them in a manner that suits the social stability and coherence of the people of Syria.''

Being the eternal optimist, Mr. Dardari reminds us of course that these decisions “are coming”.

I would not hold my breath.

Let me conclude by reminding everyone what a 4 percent annual increase in the labor force means: Even in an expanding population like that of the U.S., the labor force currently grows at 1.1 percent annually. Labor Force is defined as that portion of the population, which is actively seeking work. Given the low median age of the Syrian population, the labor force as a percentage of the population is relatively high. As more women decide to seek work, the labor force as a percentage of the population is likely to expand further. However, even if one assumes that today’s labor force makes up only 60 percent of the total population, one can conclude that close to 12 million Syrians belong in this group. A 4 percent annual growth translates into 480,000 new entrants into this pool every year. In other words, unless the economy creates 480,000 new jobs every year, the ranks of the unemployed will continue to rise. Note that creating this many jobs will not help the already unemployed but only the new job seekers. 

This is a ticking time bomb that no one wants to confront or address.

Most Syrians are apparently proud of their leader for standing up to the west and the great Satan in particular. They choose to ignore the country’s massive economic challenges ahead. Regrettably, our country’s fortunes and the economic well being of our citizens continue to deteriorate at an alarming speed. Most people on this forum do not feel it. It is highly unlikely that they represent the majority of struggling Syrians who do not know or have not seen any better since birth. Millions of people have resigned themselves to the fact that prosperity and higher standards of living is not for them. For 43 years, their leaders have convinced them that their country is challenged and targeted. With the loud tunes of that CD playing in their heads, the country continues to live in denial of what the future holds for them and their future generation.

“I believe in talking to your enemies,”

James A. Baker III, the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said Sunday that he would suggest that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.

He noted that he had made 15 trips to Damascus to negotiate with then president Hafez al-Assad to get involved in Middle East peacemaking. It worked. Syria did become involved and Middle East violence diminished. “It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but it my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.” The UNHCR had previously been concentrating its operations in Iraq on helping exiled Iraqis return home and helping non-Iraqi refugees living there.

According to a New York Sun article, copied below, James Baker’s group is going to propose to President Bush that he drop the objective of democracy in Iraq and the Middle East in favor of “representative” governments. Also US troops would simply try to stabilize Baghdad and go after al-Qaida in Iraq. But how can the US stabilize Baghdad without becoming involved in the civil war? Baker implies this can be done by accommodating the different groups. He makes it sound easy. They may not be accommodated. What seems to be happening in Iraq is a power struggle between the various militias. One needs to win, or at least become dominant in order to establish an order.

Secondly, as the leaker of this report explains, Baker distinguishes between a “democratic” government and one that is merely “representative.” “Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative,” the group member, who leaked this report claimed.

If the “representative” concept becomes accepted, it would mean that Syria is the one unrepresentative state in the region. (It sounds like representative is being used to denote confessionally representative.) Lebanon could be the other state that is not fully representative because the Shiites don’t have their share of power. If the US used the same representative model on Lebanon that it used on Iraq, the Shiites would have to get either the presidency or Primiership. Perhaps one could argue that Jordan would have to become a Palestinian state? Bahrain a Shiite dominated state? Clearly the “representative” word used by Baker is only a fig leaf meant to mitigate the political damage of jettisoning the concept of democracy from US goals in the region.

If the use of the word “representative” will help in dumping democracy as the military goal of US forces in Iraq, I am all for using representative. The US should always stand by the notion of promoting democracy as a civilized goal, but it must recognize that democracy cannot be forced at the end of a gun. This notion is a deception. The faster Americans recognize that democracy cannot be forced on people the better. As things stand today, the Bush doctrine of unleashing chaos on the region has only relegitimized dictatorship as a form of government. 

Baker’s Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory
BY ELI LAKE
October 12, 2006
New York Sun

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, “Stability First” and “Redeploy and Contain,” both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, “Stability First,” argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The “Redeploy and Contain” option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should “make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are.” It also says America’s top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.

Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq….

The “Stability First” paper says, “The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory.”…

But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was “democratic” and one that was merely “representative.”

“If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success,” he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. “Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative,” the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

The following article explains how US diplomacy has retreated from democracy promotion since the Hamas victory gave democracy a bad name. David Morgan, Reuters, October 12, 2006 U.S. seen retreating from democracy push.

Pam O’Toole of the BBC writes that ever more Iraqis are ‘fleeing rising violence’ writes that ever more Iraqis are ‘fleeing rising violence’

‘Silent exodus’

The UNHCR says that last year about 50,000 Iraqis returned from neighbouring countries. This year only 1,000 did.

“UNHCR is monitoring the border in Syria, for example,” said UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond. “Our staff [are] seeing about 2,000 people a day coming across, so it’s more than 40,000 people a month just into Syria.”

The UN estimates 50,000 Iraqis are internally displaced each month There are also increasing numbers of people leaving their homes but staying in Iraq.

“The estimate now is something around 50,000 people per month are joining the growing numbers of internally displaced inside Iraq,” Mr Redmond said. Most of those Iraqis who have fled to Syria and Jordan have not registered with the UNHCR, in what the agency calls a “silent exodus”.

The UNHCR says that tens of thousands more are moving on to Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf States and Europe. Statistics from the first half of this year show that Iraqis were the biggest single national group claiming asylum in Europe, while the number claiming asylum in industrialised countries had risen by 50% compared to the same period last year.

The UNHCR says it has had to rechannel its efforts from helping exiled Iraqis return home to assisting those who have fled insecurity.

Peace with Syria should include withdrawal from Golan an honest Israeli Internal Security Minister reminded Israelis. Giving back the Golan is the real impediment to peace. The percentage of Israelis who are in favor of leaving the entire Golan is usually below 50%. A strong Israeli leader might be able to swing a majority behind peace with Syria, but only if he were willing to put his full attention to the task.

Official Israeli Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said on Thursday that it is impossible to reach peace with Syria without an Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights, Israel’s local daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported. Avi Dichter said that a peace agreement with Syria would have to include an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. “Those who say that the Golan Heights will remain under Israeli control after an agreement with Syria suffer from a failure in logic…they don’t understand reality,” said Dichter, adding that ” I don’t think it’s possible to reach peace with Syria without an Israeli withdrawal to the international border.” Dichter, however, disagreed with the approach of putting the Syria subject off the agenda.

He said that Israel needs to improve relations with Egypt and Jordan, and wait for (Syrian President Bashar) Assad to get ready for peace talks.

Meanwhile, Syria rejected Thursday Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres’ invitation for Assad to visit Jerusalem, saying the Israeli gesture reflected the country’s weak position after its war with Lebanon. According to a latest poll published by professors Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann of Tel Aviv University on Israel’s newspaper Jerusalem Post on Thursday, the recent bellicose declarations by Syrian President Bashar Assad were heard much more loudly by the Israeli Jewish people than his statements calling for peace. The warlike statements caused a further decline in the already low support for giving the Golan to Syria, even in exchange for full peace, and in the small number of those who believe such a peace is possible in the foreseeable future. Assad has in recent weeks renewed a call for peace talks with Israel. Last month, he told the German magazine Der Spiegel that ” We want to make peace with Israel.” But in an interview with the BBC on Monday, Assad cast doubt on Israel’s desire for peace.

Marc Perelman of The Forward explains how many liberal Jews in the States are joining the chorus of those demanding that Bush jump-start Arab-Israeli peace talks and get Syria involved. Soros and other philanthropists are also talking of setting up an alternative Jewish lobby to Aipac.

Ray Close, ex-CIA bureau chief in Saudi Arabia and a number of other Americans are worried that Bush is serious about using military power to keep Iran from gaining the bomb. Close sent around this article by former New York Times bureau chief Chris Hedges. 

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse
Posted on October 9, 2006 By Chris Hedges

Editor’s Note: The former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and author of the bestseller “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” reports on Bush’s plan for Iran, and how a callous war, conceived by zealots, will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.

Egypt and Syria seem to be putting their differences behind them in order to find a working solution to the Palestinian impasse. Many Syrians are happy to see the war of words between Egypt and Syria ended. Mubarak sends message to Syria’s Assad

October 14, 2006 Damascus- Syrian President Bashar Assad received a letter from his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak dealing with “developments in the region,” Syria’s official news agency SANA reported. The report said that Assad received Omar Suleiman, the head of Egyptian intelligence, who delivered the letter from Mubarak which dealt with “bilateral relations and the developments in the region.”

Asad’s interview conducted by John Simpson on the BBC.

Here is the complete BBC video
24:00 mins