Yeah, pull the other leg:

Iran says it has increased the range of its warplanes, allowing them to fly as far as Israel and back without refueling.

State TV is quoting air force chief Gen. Ahmad Mighani as saying Iranian warplanes can now fly 3,000 kilometers (1,865 miles) without refueling. He didn’t specify the aircraft type or explain how the range was extended.

Okay, you can’t count magic carpets, and you certainly can’t count the flying horse of Mohammed that supposedly got him to Jerusalem (which, at the time, held no mosque, but why quibble?).

And no djinn, either.

So what do you suppose the Iranians have done to their aging fleet of F-14 Tomcats and Soviet-supplied aircraft, hm?

I’m thinking nothing. This is just bluster. And why would the Iranians want Israel to think that Iranian airplanes could reach Israel without refueling? Hell, even the AP can figure it out:

Sunday’s report did not refer to Israel by name, but Mighani’s remarks come after an Israeli air exercise in June that US officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Too bad Iran doesn’t really have the capacity. I think we’d see a repeat of the last dogfight with Syria: 100 downed Syrian jets to zero Israeli jets downed by Syria.

The Washington Post reports Syrian General Who Oversaw Arms Shipments Assassinated:

A Syrian general shot to death at a beach resort over the weekend was a top overseer of his country’s weapons shipments to Hezbollah, according to opposition Web sites and Arab and Israeli news media.

Syria by late Monday had issued no reaction to widespread reports of the assassination of Brig. Gen. Mohammed Suleiman near the Syrian port city of Tartous on Friday night.

Funny, nowhere does the article say that arms shipments to Hezbollah over the past two years are violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Andrew Lee Butters of Time writes:

Of greater concern is that Israel — by commission or by reputation — is building up a set of scores that sooner or later are going to be settled. Last fall, Israeli jets bombed a site in eastern Syria that American officials claim was a nascent nuclear weapons development facility. Naturally Syria denied this, and has claimed the right to retaliate against Israel at a time and in a manner of its choosing. Adding to the tension, Hizballah is still seething at the loss of Mugniyah, who is also said to have been Hizballah’s liaison to the Iranian military. A poster I saw in Beirut earlier this summer spelled out the feeling pretty clearly: a portrait of Mugniyah, and a missile firing (presumably towards Israel) with the caption “the account is still open and has not been settled.” Another assassination would make a revenge operation that much more likely.

Or would it?
Noah Pollak observes:

Bashar Assad has now absorbed three unanswered blows which have been struck either by Israel, or which are perceived as having been struck by Israel: the airstrike in September, 2007; the assassination of Imad Mughniyah in February of this year; and now the assassination of the government’s point man on Hezbollah. Whether the two recent killings were in fact Israeli operations is more or less irrelevant. What’s important is that they reveal the true nature of the Syrian regime. Regardless of his ability to convince many people to the contrary, Bashar Assad is demonstrably weak and vulnerable.

In fact as Barry Rubin writes that other than support from Iran the only thing keeping Assad going is the self-delusion of the West.

Here’s what’s central: Iran and Syria are weak. Their power largely comes from the rest of the world treating them as strong. It is a combination of their enemies trembling, seeking advantage, and not wanting to hurt their feelings.

Assad, like his father, teases the West, pretending he’s interested in peace with Israel, when, as Rubin writes in The Truth about Syria, he is more interested in fomenting unrest. And yet the self-induced illusion persists in the West that he’s essential for peace and calm in the Middle East.

The Post reported that speculation as to the killer of Suleiman around the Saudis or Lebanese. In that case, perhaps Assad has ticked off too many of his purported allies - either because of his alliance with Iran or his occupation of Lebanon or both - and they’re starting to hit back.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Ehud Olmert insists that the Syrians want peace. Some pundits are claiming that Syria needs only to be torn from its alliance with Iran, given back the Golan Heights, and allowed to continue its domination of Lebanon, and there will be peace between Syria and Israel. But if that’s all it takes, land for peace, well, someone isn’t getting the memo.

Or how do you explain these words by the dictator of Syria?

“The Zionist regime is not strong and the states can obtain their rights through resistance and determination,” he added.

During the meeting Assad stressed that the ongoing indirect talks between Israel and Syria under Turkish mediation would not affect Damascus’ ties to Iran. “Syria is working to embolden its relations with Tehran and is determined to maintain its cooperation and coordination with Iran.”

“Resistance,” of course, is the code-word among Arab regimes for war. And Ehud Olmert’s lack of leadership is what has caused Israel’s enemies to say things like this:

“The liberation of all occupied lands, the return of the Palestinian (refugees), the establishment of a Palestinian state and the collapse of the Zionist regime are not considered by the region’s nations to be goals that are unattainable,” the Iranian president said.

Hamas leaders believe this. Hezbullah leaders believe this. Israel’s deterrence was pretty much destroyed in the 2006 failed Lebanon war. Meantime, Hezbullah is now part of the Lebanese government, and it worked quickly to draft new rules allowing it both to retain its weapons and use the government of Lebanon to legitimize its fight against Israel. Hezbullah’s aims are being codified:

“Lebanon, its army, its people and its resistance [Hezbollah] have the right to take action to liberate lands that have remained occupied at the Shaba Farms, the hills of Shuba village and the northern portion of the village of Ghajar, with all legitimate means possible, and to resist Israeli aggression.”

The Shaba farms were never part of Lebanon. They were part of Syria, but Hezbullah uses this excuse to keep its “resistance” against Israel going. And note that now they’re expanding their territorial claims, so that even if Israel gives Lebanon the Shaba farms, Hezbullah will have another reason to continue fighting. And if Israel cedes that land to Lebanon, Hezbullah will come up with another reason. It isn’t small pieces of territory that is the Muslim grievance against Israel. It is her very existence. When Hamas calls “Palestine” an Islamic Waqf, every Muslim in the world nods his head in agreement, whether they are gun-carrying terrorists of Hamas or educated men discussing the Israel situation on Al Jazeera. It isn’t a matter of ceding territory. There will never be peace as long as Muslims think that Jews do not belong in their historic homeland—and as long as the world insists on calling Israelis “settlers” or “colonials.” I am once again struck by the absolute adherence to The Exception Clause that is so evident in the world: Everyone has the right to return to the lands of their origin—except for Jews.

And this mindset is what allows the very president of Lebanon to call war with Israel “legitimate:”

Suleiman announced Friday, during an address for Army Day, that “the countdown for the restoration of the Shaba farms and the hills of Shuba village has begun … all means are possible and legitimate to this end.”

The drumbeats of war are getting louder. I don’t believe the stories about peace with Syria. Bashar Assad has too much to gain from staying in Iran’s axis. And while it would be extremely valuable to remove the Syrian threat, I don’t think it will be gone. I think that Syria’s army will simply bombard Israel from the Heights again, while Hezbullah and Hamas attack from two sides.

I certainly hope Israel chooses a better leader, and does it soon. She needs one.

Yeah, they’re going so well, those indirect talks, that Ahmadinejad has the Syrian Foreign Minister in town and is talking about being BFF. Like, omigawd!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met on Tuesday evening with visiting Syrian Foreign Affairs Minister, Walid al-Muallem, and pledged he would work to strengthen the relationship between the two countries, to the discontentment of Israel and the United States.

Hosting his guest in Tehran, Ahmadinejad emphasized that he had no intention of letting any outside factor impact the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria.

“The deeper our regional cooperation is, the more beneficial this will be to the nations in the area and the more this will impair our enemies,” he said.

Gee, what enemies could those be?

“All of the US’ plans against Lebanon and Syria have failed,” said Ahmadinejad, adding that America “is in the worst situation it has ever been in.

“Fortunately, Iran and Syria see things as they are and stand by each other, invoking much disappointment from the enemies.”

Ahmadinejad warned that “the Zionist regime and America are interested in making concessions when they are already retreating, therefore we must be alert to the enemies’ ploys.”

And what did the Syrian FM have to say about all of this?

Earlier in the day the Syrian foreign minister declared in his address at the conference that there would never be peace until Israel “returned the occupied territories.”

Uh-huh. He’s got the talking points down. So what is Israel going to do?

Why, keep talking to Syria, of course.

A Turkish official said delegations from Syria and Israel have agreed to hold more indirect peace talks in Turkey.

The official said the delegations ended their fourth round of Turkish-mediated talks in Istanbul on Wednesday and agreed to hold more in the coming months. The Turkish mediators travel between negotiators from both side who stay in separate hotels.

Because they’re working so well so far. Way to go there, Olmert. There’s another pretend feather in your cap you can brag about when you tell Israelis they won’t have Ehud Olmert to kick around anymore.

David Ignatius hails Israel-Syrian negotiations in A surprise negotiation. There is so much wrong with this article it’s hard to know where to start.

OK, I’ll start with Noah Pollak’s observation that Ignatius:

regularly demonstrates that you can write about something for a living without understanding it

I don’t agree with Pollak’s assessment that Israel’s raid on the Syrian reactor makes it more likely that talks will succeed, his characterization of Ignatius is apt.

Lately I’ve been reading a review copy of “The Truth About Syria” by Barry Rubin. (Here’s an interview with Michael J. Totten and a review by Elder of Ziyon.) A review from me is upcoming.

Prof. Rubin’s thesis is that Syria has learned to be suited by the West. That’s how the Assad regime survives. Syria doesn’t leave obvious fingerprints on its support of terror and plays hard to get, demanding concessions from the West to support stability in the Middle East. And of course, even though the State Department classifies Syra as a state sponsor of terror, there are always those Nobel seeking politicians, credulous journalists and ambitious diplomats who see some semblance of reasonableness in the tyrants of Damascus.

Here are some of Ignatius’s points:

(3) Can Syria be decoupled from Iran?

Israel’s overriding goal has been to draw Syria away from its alliance with Iran. So far, the Israelis see no sign that the peace talks have achieved this goal. Syria-watchers caution that this sort of decisive transfer of loyalties is unlikely. But eventually, Syria may move away from Iran (and toward Turkey) because the Baath regime in Damascus is secular to its core — and mistrusts the religious fervor of the mullahs. The decoupling would be cultural and political, rather than a matter of security policy.

Really? Prof. Rubin makes the case that Syria - specifically the Assads - beneifts from the “religious fervor,” given the status of Alawites (who are not really Muslims, if I understood their description their sort of like Muslims for Jesus adopting some of the trappings of Christianity mixed in with their belief in Mohammed.) The Assads have cultivated their religious image in an attempt to mollify the Sunni majority in Syria and the Islamic world in general. Breaking with Iran would undermine Assad’s pious pose.

(4) Who assassinated Imad Mughniyah in Damascus in February?

The car bomb that killed Iran’s key covert operative in Hezbollah is still echoing in the Middle East. Suspicion immediately focused on Israel. But on Feb. 27, a London-based newspaper called Al-Quds Al-Arabi, with very good sources in Damascus, alleged that several Arab nations had conspired with Mossad to assassinate Mughniyah.

Adding to the speculation are reports that shortly before his death, Mughniyah was attempting to heal a split within Hezbollah between the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and its former leader, Subhi Tufaily. Tufaily’s power base is the Bekaa Valley, which has lost influence in Hezbollah to Shiites from southern Lebanon. According to one Arab source, Mughniyah — traveling under his longtime pseudonym, “Haj Ismail” — paid a visit shortly before his death to Tufaily’s village of Britel, just south of Baalbek.

Mughniyah usually traveled without bodyguards, believing that his protection was the surgical alteration of his features, which prevented even old friends from recognizing “Haj Ismail.” For that reason, the Syrians insisted they weren’t at fault. But a sign of tension was Tehran’s announcement that a joint commission would investigate the killing, a statement that Damascus promptly denied.

This is pure speculation. I was always skeptical of the claim that Israel killed Mughniyah. The idea that the Mossad conspired with Arab regimes in his killing. This strikes me as Uzi Mahnaimi-like speculation. Most likely Mughniyeh ran afoul of Assad.

(5) What about Syria’s secret nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by the Israelis on Sept. 6, 2007?

Oddly enough, that attack on what CIA analysts called the “Enigma Building” may have helped the peace talks. The Israelis felt that their decisive action helped restore the credibility of their deterrence policy. The Syrians appreciated that Israeli and American silence allowed them time to cover their tracks. Finally, the fact that Assad kept the nuclear effort a secret, and that he managed the post-attack pressures, showed Israelis that he was truly master of his own house, and thus a plausible negotiating partner.

Yes he’s master of his own house, but he uses that role to sow instability. The overtures to Israel worried Iran, which ended up making a new defense deal with Syria.

Getting involved in a peace process with Israel has only served to enhance Assad’s reputation in the West without requiring any tangible action on his part. It has also given leverage with his sponsor, Iran. Likely it will also get him some sort of concession from Israel that he will then claim is irrevocable, even when he fails to reciprocate.

Getting involved in a peace process for Assad is like the smoker who finds quitting easy because he does it again and again. The smoker never stops smoking and Assad will never make peace.

More at memeorandum.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Back in February, 2002, Thomas Friedman trumpeted the Saudi “peace plan” as proposed by then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah:

Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?

I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit — part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the ”big boys” — Saudi Arabia or Egypt — took the lead.

After I laid out this idea, the crown prince looked at me with mock astonishment and said, ”Have you broken into my desk?”

”No,” I said, wondering what he was talking about.

”The reason I ask is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind — full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations,” he said. ”I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level.

After this free publicity, Abdullah went around the Arab world to garner support for his initiative. On one of his stops he visited Syria and as the NY Times reports, President Bashar Assad gave his crucial support to the initiative.

Syria expressed its support today for a Saudi peace effort for the Middle East, while a bomb planted in an Arab schoolyard and crude rockets fired at an Israeli town fed the rapidly expanding blood feud between Israelis and Palestinians.

In its first statement on the plan proposed last month by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which pledges Arab countries to a full normalization of relations with Israel in return for full Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, Syria expressed its ‘’satisfaction with the position of Saudi Arabia.”

The statement followed a meeting between Prince Abdullah and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Riyadh. It said a comprehensive peace ”cannot be achieved except with Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab land, including the Syrian Golan.” The statement also called for the right of return for Palestinian refugees, a matter critical to Lebanon, where many of them live.

This report leaves out a critical point. Syria insisted that Abdullah include language demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. The communique from the Arab summit reflects this change:

Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

What’s remarkable about this demand is that Israel had already withdrawn beyond the accepted international border of Lebanon two years earlier!

The United Nations has confirmed that Israeli troops have completely withdrawn from south Lebanon. But the Lebanese Government rejected the UN verification, saying Israeli forces were still in control of some part of Lebanese territory.

The point of the dispute was the area known as the Shebaa farms.

A group of farms close to the poorly-defined border of Lebanon and Syria has emerged as a potential new flashpoint for conflict between Israel and Lebanese Muslim guerrillas.

The Syrian-backed guerrilla group, Hezbollah, says Israel must withdraw from the area of the Shebaa farms - which it says lies on Lebanese territory - or face continued attacks.

Israel says most of the area lies on the Syrian side of the Lebanon/Syria border and that it will only withdraw from the part marked as Lebanese territory on United Nations maps.

I suspect that the vagueness of the BBC’s reporting here is due to its pro-Arab bias, adding uncertainty to Israel’s claim, but later on it gets to the key point:

Syria agrees with Lebanon that the Shebaa farms area is part of Lebanon.

However, Israel points out that it seized the territory from Syria, during the 1967 Middle East War.

This isn’t a small matter. After everyone claimed that Hezbollah would lay down arms or if they didn’t would be exposed as terrorists worthy of destruction. Here’s Thomas Friedman from his fantasy “How Bibi got re-elected”

Now that Israeli troops are out of Lebanon, noted Mr. Netanyahu, everything is reversed: Politically, if the Iranian-directed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas try to come across the border, they will be invading Israel, and Israel will be justified in massively retaliating against Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian troops that abet such an invasion. And if Israel does retaliate, it won’t be with guerrilla warfare, but with the Israeli Air Force massively striking Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and maybe inside Syria.

But of course Hezbollah regularly violated the border between 2000 and 2006. In 2004 Friedman wrote:

Israel’s withdrawal is not a cure-all for this. Israel will still be despised. But if it withdraws to an internationally recognized border, it will have the moral high ground, the strategic high ground and the demographic high ground to protect itself. After Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the Hezbollah militia, on the other side, went on hating Israel and harassing the border — but it never tried to launch an invasion. Why? Hezbollah knew it would have no legitimacy — in the world or in Lebanon — for breaching that U.N.-approved border. And if it tried, Israel would be able to use its full military weight to retaliate.

Friedman having been proved wrong that Hezbollah would at least respect the border and would devote its energies to building itself politically in Lebanon. So he comforted himself by raising the threshold: Hezbollah would never invade Israel. It was a standard that would be proven wrong in 2006.

And of course behind Hezbollah’s continued war against Israel was the false pretext that Israel still “occupied” Lebanese territory, Shebaa Farms. That is the reason that Syria actively promoted the idea that Shebaa Farms was Lebanese. It needed a justification for allowing Hezbollah to continue attacking Israel with impunity. Alan Makovsky put it like this:

Support for Hizballah and the Lebanese claim to Shebaa Farms
Syria not only endorsed an Arab League summit statement supporting Lebanon’s claim to Shebaa farms, but Syrian U.N. ambassador Mikha�il Wahbi also wrote in an October 24 letter, “Israel . . . has not completed the withdrawal from south Lebanon to the internationally recognized borders, including the Shebaa farms.” This stance, in effect, justifies ongoing Hizballah attacks on Israel, retaining for Syria a source of pressure on Israel, despite the “loss” of southern Lebanon. Syria has supported and has no doubt directed Lebanon�s refusal to deploy its troops to the border following the Israeli withdrawal.

And the more pernicious implication of the claim that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory, is that it shows that the Arab world will continually change the terms to which Israel must comply in order to earn an ill-defined “peace.” So it’s a mistake for Israel to accede to this demand. It’s also a mistake for the West - especially the United States - to promote this fiction. All it does is strengthen Iran and its proxies at the expense of Israel and the West.

I’ve provided you with this background so we can evaluate a few paragraphs from yesterday’s New York Times on the current effort to push Israel to negotiate with Lebanon over Shebaa farms:

When Israel withdrew from the occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, the United Nations Security Council stated that the withdrawal was complete even though Israel held onto the disputed area because Shebaa, the United Nations said, was part of the Syrian Golan Heights occupied by Israel.

But Lebanon and Hezbollah say the land is Lebanese, and Syria has not contradicted them. Moreover, Hezbollah has used Israel’s hold over Shebaa as a reason for keeping its men under arms despite United Nations resolutions calling for the disarming of all Lebanese militias.

Hezbollah says that as long as part of the Lebanese homeland is occupied, it needs its weapons because the national army is weak.

But the West, especially the United States and France, wants to reduce the power of Hezbollah, a client of both Syria and Iran, and has been looking for ways to strengthen the pro-Western government of Lebanon.

On Wednesday, Hezbollah officials made clear that they viewed Israel’s offer as part of an effort to disarm the group. “If they really want to give us back our land, they can withdraw and implement the Security Council resolutions,” said Nawar Sahili, a Hezbollah member of Lebanon’s Parliament, referring to a United Nations resolution that calls for the Shebaa issue to be resolved.

Saying that Syria “has not contradicted” Hezbollah on Shebaa farms is a vast understatement. Syria has promoted this idea for its client Hezbollah.

The assertion that Israel negotiating with Lebanon will somehow strengthen the “pro-Western government of Lebanon” is outright nonsense. It will strengthen Hezbollah at the expense of the nominally pro-Western government of Fuad Siniora.

Finally, quoting a member of Hezbollah mentioning Security Council resolutions without mentioning the various resolutions that Hezbollah is violating serves to give cover to the terrorist organization.

Resolution 425 which Israel fulfilled when it withdrew from Southern Lebanon, also called for the disarming of militias and the Lebanese army establishing control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s continued control over Southern Lebanon prior to 2006 stood in direct violation of that resolution. And its re-arming now - which the article notes - violates Resolution 1701 - which the article doesn’t note.

For Israel, the main concern in Lebanon is Hezbollah’s increasing power. Israeli military officials say that Hezbollah has many more rockets and much deadlier ones today than it had two years ago when the two fought a monthlong war after Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the border to capture and kill Israeli soldiers.

Acceding to Syria’s and Hezbollah’s demands will only serve to strengthen them. If Israel gives in here, Hezbollah will make new demands. Better that Israel should be (unfairly) portrayed as unreasonable than that Iran’s proxies should be strengthened even further.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Le Monde has evidence that Mohammed El Baradei was lying when he declared yesterday that Syria didn’t have the knowhow to create a nuclear weapons site.

The website of the French news agency Le Monde reported that information originating in different countries other than the US and suggesting that Syria did indeed build a nuclear reactor in Al Kibar, was handed over to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) recently.

This report contradicts the most recent statement made by the UN’s nuclear watchdog, in which it denied having any knowledge leading to the conclusion that Syria had the knowledge and means to build such a reactor.

According to the French report, the new information confirms earlier claims that North Korea had assisted Syria in its nuclear endeavors. This negates a speech made on Tuesday by IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei, who said in an interview to Al Arabiya television that “we have no evidence that Syria has the human resources that would allow it to carry out a large nuclear program. We do not see Syria having nuclear fuel.”

Say, remember when I said just yesterday how I think we’re going to find out that El Baradei was in the Mullahs’ pockets all along?

I didn’t think it would be this soon.

Can’t wait to hear the spin from El Baradei and the UN. “No, we weren’t lying. Syria didn’t have the manpower. They had to bring in North Koreans.”

Wow. Just—wow.

Hey, the agency that slept through Pakistan, India, and North Korea getting nuclear weapons doesn’t think that Syria has the know-how to build a bomb. The organization that totally missed the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons black market doesn’t think that Syria can field a nuclear program because, gee, it’s not like they could get it from, oh, North Korea or anything. Because that’s never happened before, one nation helping another get nuclear weapons. Right, Pakistan? Right, North Korea?

There is no evidence Syria has the skilled personnel or the fuel to operate a large-scale nuclear facility, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog said in remarks aired on Tuesday.

“We have no evidence that Syria has the human resources that would allow it to carry out a large nuclear program. We do not see Syria having nuclear fuel,” International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television.

Uh-huh. And you have no evidence because Syria refuses to allow your inspectors onto the sites. Oh, wait. They buried the site beneath tons of sand. Guess you’ll have to just take a long hard look at it and determine whether or not Syria had the know-how.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m convinced.

Shyeah.

The true obstacles to peace in the Middle East are not settlements. The obstacles are the thugs ruling the Arab states that refuse to ever compromise.

First, Syria says Israel can forget about peace until AFTER she gives up all the land that should rightly be the object of the discussion towards peace between the two nations:

A senior Syrian official said on Tuesday no direct negotiations will be held with Israel until it recognizes what Damascus regards as requirements for a deal.

“I think it is too early to resume direct talks. There are conditions,” Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal al-Mekdad told reporters. “I hope Israel responds to the requirements of peace, which are the end of the occupation of Palestine and the establishment of a Palestinian state, restoration of the Syrian Golan and pull out of remaining occupied Lebanese territory,” he added.

Now, Lebanon says the same thing after Olmert floated the balloon of starting peace talks with Beirut. In order to achieve peace, Israel must begin bargaining after giving away the farm:

Lebanon poured cold water Wednesday on Israel’s hope that Beirut would follow Damascus in opening peace talks with Israel, saying it had to withdraw from what Beirut considers its occupied land.

Lebanon’s response came after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his cabinet on Tuesday he hoped Lebanon would consider opening talks on peace with the Jewish state.

In other words, give us everything we want and then some, and maybe we’ll talk peace after that. The Arab position hasn’t changed. They said no in 1948, again in 1967, and have been saying no to peace with Israel for over 60 years.

Let’s remember that next time some moron insists that it’s “settlements” that are stopping the peace process. No, it’s Arab irredentism and rejectionism of Israel.

A German magazine says that Imad Mugniyah was killed in revenge for exposing a would-be coup:

An attempt to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government was thwarted without the international community’s ever having noticed, German newspaper Die Welt reported Saturday, citing international German intelligence sources.

The report stated that Assaf Shawkat, Syrian military intelligence chief and Assad’s brother-in-law, planned to sieze control of the government while the president was hosting a meeting of the Arab League in Damascus in February. Shawkat was detained along with a hundred other Syrian intelligence officers.

According to Die Welt, Assad was informed of the turnover attempt by Hizbullah leader Imad Mugniyah, who was assassinated in Damascus days later. The intelligence sources postulated that the targeted killing of Mugniyah had been planned by Shawkat’s associates, as retaliation for the disclosure of the planned rebellion.

You know, I actually don’t care who killed him, or why he’s dead. I’m just glad he’s dead. But this is another report that blames Syrian security services for the act. Not, of course, that this will stop the Arabs from blaming Israel for it. In their worldview, I’m sure they blame the coup attempt on Israel.

Say, remember my telling you that Syria isn’t making a serious offer towards peace with Israel?

Yeah, well, I’m not wrong about that.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said during a visit to The United Arab Emirates on Monday that Israel’s agreement to withdraw from the Golan Heights was a prerequisite for the renewed peace negotiations between the two countries.

Speaking to editors of local news outlets in Abu Dhabi, Assad said “Syria conditioned the launching of indirect negotiations with Israel, with Turkey’s mediation, on the (Jewish state’s) agreement to cede the Golan.

Uh-huh. And after that, all the Jews who left Syria after the founding of Israel will trip merrily back into Damascus, singing “La-la-la-la” and bearing flowers, which they will lay at the feet of the dortktator president.

I think Tom Paine is wearing off on me.

A source says that Israel and Syria agree on 85% of the issues they need to agree on to give Syria back the Golan. What’s part of that 15%? Well, besides Syria trying to grab land it never had to begin with, a teeny, tiny problem: Syria’s support for terrorists.

The paper reported that according to the source, 85% of the issues standing between the two countries on the way to a peace deal have already been agreed. One of the issues which have yet to be discussed is Israel’s demand that Syria detach itself from Hamas and Hizbullah and break its strategic alliance with Iran.

“I am optimistic,” the source told the newspaper reporter. “This does not mean that Syria will have to sever its ties with Iran and its followers in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, but it will join those influencing them in a positive manner – in accordance with the peace relations between Israel and Syria.

“We have a clear example for that – the relations between Syria and Turkey, just like Damascus withdrew its support for the PKK (Kurdish militant organization fighting for independence from Turkish rule).”

Except that once again, let’s be clear: Syria has no intention of making peace with Israel.

Syrian President Bashar Assad dismissed on Tuesday Israeli demands for Syria to abandon an alliance with Iran as a requirement for a peace deal.

Assad told British MPs that the Baath Party government intended to maintain its “normal relations” with Iran while it conducts indirect talks with Israel to regain the Golan Heights, a source familiar with the meeting told Reuters.

[...] “The president said Syria has normal relations with Iran. He made it clear that any suggestion to drop them was not a reasonable request,” the source said.

“He said if Israel could question Syria’s relations with Iran then Syria could question Israel’s ties with other countries, particularly the United States,” the source added, referring to Israel’s main ally.

Yeah, because American is just like Iran. Oh, wait. We’re the polar opposite. My bad.

Thankfully, Olmert is going to fall soon, and these discussions will be moot.

Syria has no intention of giving up ties with Iran, no intention of giving up support of terrorist groups in and out of the Palestinian terrortories[sic], and therefore, no intention of the much-touted “land for peace” solution to the Golan Heights. Olmert is grasping at straws, trying to keep his miserable, corrupt political carcass in office just a little while longer for the most mystifying of reasons. Except, of course, selfish ones. Power. Money. Ego.

Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani said on Tuesday that his country was prepared to increase its military cooperation with Iran.

[...] “Iran and Syria share the same viewpoint regarding regional issues and efforts will be made to strengthen our shared interests and bilateral relations,” said Turkmani, who was dispatched to Tehran to reassure the outraged Iranian leadership following the resumption of negotiations with Israel.

The defense minister confirmed the statement released by the Iranian defense ministry regarding Syria’s intent to increase military cooperation with its chief ally.

The Iranian strategy of surrounding Israel with thousands of rockets continues unabated.

Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin said during the weekly government meeting on Sunday that since the breaching of the Philadelphi Route Hamas has succeeded in smuggling very advanced weapons into the Gaza Strip, and that there are certain indications that the organization now has rockets able to surpass Ashkelon, and possibly even to hit Ashdod and Kiryat Gat.

“There has been cooperation between Hamas and Iran, and the Shin Bet has already recognized Iranian-made rockets that have a range far greater than the Gaza Strip. Time favors Hamas and the rest of the terror organizations, and the threat on the State of Israel is steadily rising,” Diskin warned.

Some in Israel’s Military Intelligence thinks that Syria wants to move forward on the “peace process.”

The head of the research division of Military Intelligence, Brigadier-General Yossi Baidatz, attended the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting on Monday, and said that Syria was interested in advancing the peace process with Israel.

“It is our understanding that the Syrians are interested and want to see the diplomatic process move forward,” he told the committee members.

Baidatz noted, however, that Damascus was simultaneously working on bolstering the Hizbullah terror organization in Lebanon.

I’m sorry, but what? You do not want peace if you are simultaneously supplying Hizbullah with weapons to harm Israel. You only want to get your land back.

Ahmadinejad is predicting continued good relations with Syria, and the continued encirclement of Israel.

The FARS news agency reported that Ahmadinejad told Turkmani that he is “confident the Syrian leadership will handle the arena wisely and not desert the front line of the struggle until all the threats of the Zionist regime are completely removed.”

Iran is also promising to keep up its support of Hamas even if Syria were to stop as a result of the truce. (And by the way, how is it that Jimmy Carter can’t acknowledge that Hamas has no intention of ever living in peace with Israel, but he can give away classified information and betray an American ally?

Really, reading these, and all the other articles available, how can anyone pretend that Syria is willing to come to a peace agreement with Israel? There will be no peace, only another piece in the encirclement strategy. Once again, Israel will be fighting an all-front war, only this time, the civilian population will be under as much threat as it was in 1948. No, more. The rockets will make every inch of Israel unsafe.

And meantime, Olmert fiddles while Israel’s enemies build up their weapons.

There’s something that’s missing from the latest AP stories on the negotiations with Syria about the Golan Heights.

Israel captured the strategic plateau in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed the area. Many Israelis are reluctant to relinquish the Golan, which overlooks northern Israel and borders the Sea of Galilee, a key source of drinking water.

No, that’s not it.

In the most recent talks, conducted by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Israel reportedly offered to withdraw from the Golan, but the talks broke down because Syria wanted Israel to pull back several hundred yards more to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

No, that’s not it.

Israel and Syria have fought three wars, their forces have clashed in Lebanon, and more recently, Syria has given support to Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas and Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip. Israel is also concerned about Syria’s close ties to Iran.

No, that’s not it.

The Israeli public opposes giving up the Golan, home to a thriving tourism and wine industry. An opinion poll last week found that only 19 percent of Israelis are willing to cede the entire plateau - even in exchange for peace.

Nope. That’s not it, either. But hey, way to make Israelis look like warmongering, selfish scumbags, AP. No, Israelis don’t want to give back the Golan, even in exchange for peace. And by the way, how is that not an editorial statement? The “even” makes it seem that Israelis want war, no matter what. Nice little bit of yellow journalism there.

Perhaps we can find out why 81 percent of Israelis don’t want to give back the Golan. Maybe we can dig around a bit and see what the AP thinks is not important enough to mention about the Golan when describing why so many Israelis are reluctant to give the Heights back. In fact, we can find it in the AP factbox that was released on May 21st, so we know they had the ability to relay this information only five days ago:

Soldiers shelled northern Israel from the Golan Heights between 1948 and 1967. Israel captured the territory in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed it in 1981. No country recognized the annexation.

Ohhhhhh. Syria regularly bombarded Israeli communities from the Golan Heights for nineteen years. Say. I wonder if that has anything to do with why 81 percent of Israelis don’t want to give back the Golan.

The AP description above makes it seem like Israelis want to keep the Golan for their own personal pleasure and profit—not because it’s a strategically important plateau used to launch deadly attacks on civilian communities. (Gee, that sounds familiar. The Arab ways have not changed in sixty years.) The shelling stopped on June 10, 1967, when the IDF captured the Golan Heights.

After the 1948-49 War of Independence, the Syrians built extensive fortifications on the Heights, from where they systematically shelled civilian targets in Israel and launched terrorist attacks (in gross violation of Article III of the Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement of 20 July 1949). 140 Israelis were killed and many more were injured in these attacks between 1949 and 1967; heavy property damage was also inflicted. During the 1967 Six-Day War, the IDF captured the Golan Heights — in response to Syrian attacks — in just over 24 hours of intense fighting on 9-10 June. Nearly all of the Golan’s Arab inhabitants fled as a result of the war; four Druze villages remain, three on the slopes of Mt. Hermon and one in the northern Golan.

Funny how you never see mention of Syria being in violation of the Armistice Agreement—for nineteen years—by shelling northern Israel, and yet you always see drek like the AP boilerplate about how no one recognizes Israel’s annexation of the Golan.

Another sterling example of your objective media at work. Another example of why I’ll keep blogging, as long as the media keep on defaming Israel.

Things for you to look at this weekend, which is a three-day weekend for us ‘Murricans.

Toldja so: Syria wants the Golan, not peace.

A Syrian government paper rejects Israel’s demand that Damascus should cut its ties with Iran and Arab militant groups as a condition for peace agreement with the Jewish State.

The state-run Tishrin says in Saturday’s editorial that any preconditions to a deal would “put the carriage before the horse” and Syria’s relations with other nations were not on the bargaining table.

That’s why it’s all for show: Mad Mahmoud is not really mad. I don’t believe this report at all. It’s all part of the plan to make it look like Syria is on the peace track.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed his surprise and displeasure at Syria’s “violation of its commitment to Iran” by holding talks with Israel, the London-based pan-Arabic daily Asharq alawsat reported Friday.

Proof that Syria’s not syrious: It’s playing the Iran/IAEA game. Funny, you’d think that if Syria has nothing to hide, they’d welcome the IAEA investigation. Which makes it even more likely that Syria was building nukes. (Like I needed any more proof than there’s already been.)

Syria has not yet accepted a request by the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the site bombed by the IAF on September 6 - which Washington says was a nuclear reactor, Reuters reported Friday.

The news agency quoted diplomats in Vienna as saying Damascus was stalling its approval of the UN delegation, demanding more details on the proposed inspection.

Yeah, tell me again how it wasn’t a nuclear reactor being built. Because why on earth would Syria care if it wasn’t?

Gaza bombardment continues: No, not the bombardment of Gaza. The bombardment by Gaza. Of course.

Israeli Double Standard Time: Egypt shot another Sudanese refugee at the Egypt/Israel border. The UN will not issue any statements about this, nor will most newspapers even pick up the story. So, are we all shocked yet? Of course not. Today is a day that ends with a “y”, which is the only time that Israeli Double Standard Time occurs.

And I’m outta here. Talk amongst yourselves. Really.

When reading about the Israeli-Syrian negotiations it’s easy to dismiss them on account of Olmert’s legal trouble or because it isn’t even clear that Israel stands to gain anything from ceding the Golan to Syria. It’s also reasonably clear that Syria’s positions cannot be reconciled with Israel’s.

Even the past has shown that every once in a while (even with Assad Sr.) news would leak out about a “Syrian track” and then fade to nothing.

Asad’s goal, then, is not peace but a peace process. He participates in negotiations without intending that they reach fruition. Engaging in apparently serious talks wins him improved relations with the West without having to open up his country. He can wink at us while maintaining his ties to Iran and hosting a wide range of terrorist groups. He offers the occasional flourish (such as his call last week to Mr. Clinton as the latter was eating lunch with Shimon Peres) but does not change the substance.

Of course today, the negotiation, unlike what Pipes is describing seem to be intended for Israel, not the United States. Or perhaps to drive a wedge between the two countries.

So despite the record and Olmert’s political weakness, which convince some that nothing will come of these talks, Ethan Bronner of the NYT, thinks that there might be more going on.

A senior government official, who said he could not speak for attribution on such a politically delicate topic, agreed in part. He said that what Mr. Olmert was doing with the Palestinians “is much less than meets the eye.” Nonetheless, he, like others, contended that the new Syrian talks could prove significant.“This seems bigger than any one individual,” he said. “Olmert is, in a way, committing his successors who, by the way, may be coming in soon. I don’t think he will be the one to complete this. His motives may be suspicious. But something has happened here that will probably go beyond this prime minister.”

The idea that a lame duck could obligate his successor in a deal that he’s making in secret is one that’s very frightening.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

I’m only a tiny bit worried about the talks with Syria, because they’re going to fail. And they’re going to fail, because I doubt Syria will cut ties with terrorists and Iran, which is a deal-breaker for Israel.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni commented Thursday on the renewed negotiations between Israel and Syria and said any peace process hinges on Damascus’ renouncement of its support of terror.

“Israel’s primary goal has always been peace with its neighbors. The Syrians have to understand that it entails giving up their support of terror (elements), namely Hamas, Iran and Hizbullah,” Livni said at the onset of her Jerusalem meeting with French counterpart Bernard Kouchner.

There’s one interesting piece of news I didn’t know: Olmert obviously fears Livni’s chances of taking over his position. Why else would he not have her in the loop on this?

The Israeli FM did not comment on the fact that she was kept in the dark on the renewed peace talks by her fellow “Kitchen Cabinet” members – Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who led the initiative. Olmert updated Livni on the joint statement drafted by Jerusalem, Ankara and Damascus just an hour before it was issued.

Remember the last time it looked like Olmert was going to fall, Livni was announcing she was ready to take over Kadima. He bought her silence then. Looks like he’s playing politics with her future as well as Israel’s. Not that I think she’d be much better than Olmert. She’s too ready to give away the farm as well.

Meantime, the Syrians are showing the typical Arab mentality about bargaining with Israel: No concessions, no deals, just give us what we demand and STFU.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told the newspaper “There will not be a situation in which Syria advances even one step (in the peace process) without a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. This is not a prerequisite; it is our right.”

And oh yeah—we’re talking full withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines.

Senior Syrian officials were quoted by London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat as saying that the renewed talks with Israel were aimed, among other things, to set a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 (pre-Six Day War) borders.

Full withdrawal without Syria’s total shutdown of terror operations and breaking off ties with Iran is not going to happen. Even if Olmert wants to agree to it, his country will refuse to follow. Even now, the Golan communities are balking. They point out that every time Olmert has been investigated for corruption and things look extremely serious, he offers up some kind of peace deal to take attention away from his crimes. They’re calling him an “interogee” publicly, a reference to the ongoing investigations.

“The Israeli public will not allow such a strange and irresponsible act that will transfer strategic and settled land to the Arab axis of evil,” he added.

Malka and Katzrin Council head Sammy Bar-Lev issued a combined statement saying that “the Prime Minister’s Office’s declaration which is presently trying in every way possible to pull Olmert away from the prongs of investigation, is a cynical and dangerous act and places personal interests above national ones.”

Meantime, Israeli analysts agree: Olmert can’t possibly pull this one off. It’s a cynical move on both their parts.

Golan residents can relax. The Golan Heights will apparently not be handed over to the Syrians in the coming years, if at all. Syria has no interest in peace with Israel, just like Israel has no interest is handing the Golan over to the Syrians.

Syria cannot deliver the minimal goods required of it; that is, severing its ties with terror organizations and the Iranian influence in favor of normalization with Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has no desire to provide the Syrians with military positions on the Golan, which would again threaten Israeli communities, or to allow the Syrians access to the Sea of Galilee.

[...] The question which many Israelis must ask themselves is not how much peace we shall receive in exchange for the Golan, as if the Heights were a tradable commodity with a set price, but rather, does Assad really want peace? Would such peace serve his supreme goal, which is the safeguarding of his regime?

The answer to that is negative of course. The hatred for Israel, the external enemy, enables him to maintain absolute power in his country despite the economic and social repression suffered by the masses. The connection with terror groups, Iran, and the Palestinians enables Assad to get along with the Arab world and with his own citizens under the umbrella of hostility to Israel.

I like this part of the analysis the best:

When Assad’s people say that they are willing to engage in negotiations with Israel without pre-conditions, they only mean no Israeli pre-conditions, of course. The Syrians, on the other hand, are taking the pre-condition of getting the Golan for granted.

Of course, the AP does its best to spin the issue anti-Israel by ignoring the fact that the Syrians don’t really want peace. They just want the Golan back. Witness the headline, and angle, to the latest AP story:

Israelis express skepticism on Syria peace talks
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s dramatic announcement that he is negotiating a peace deal with Syria was greeted Thursday with overwhelming skepticism in Israel.

Many Israelis appear to believe the embattled leader made the declaration to divert attention from the corruption allegations that threaten to end his term in office, and opinion polls showed Israelis remained wary of withdrawing from the strategic Golan Heights — even in return for peace with one of Israel’s most bitter enemies.

Notice the emphasis on Israeli skepticism, rather than insincerity on the part of Syria. You have to read down to the last two or three paragraphs to find this information:

The nations have fought three wars, their forces have clashed in Lebanon, and more recently, Syria has given support to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups.

The sides’ demands in any peace deal are well-known. Syria wants a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, and Israel wants Syria to end its support for militants, curb its ties with Iran, and establish full diplomatic relations.

There is not one word about the eighteen years that Syria used the Golan Heights to shell northern Israeli communities. The vague “end its support for militants” supplants facts about Syria hosting and protecting terrorist leaders in Damascus, as well as utterly ignoring the Syrian colonization and subjugation of Lebanon. These are not minor issues. These are what Syria must stop in order to achieve peace with Israel, yet they all fall under the vague phrase “end its support for militants.”

As I said above, the only positive thing about all of this is that I know Olmert can’t carry it off—because the Dorktator dosn’t really want peace. He wants a distraction for his people, and he wants to make it look like the Israelis are the ones refusing to make peace. The AP is already helping him achieve that goal. Count on seeing more of the same from the rest of the non-Israeli media.

All of those fools who are touting talking to Syria, and giving back the Golan Heights to achieve peace with Syria can stop now. (Oh, they won’t, but they should.) Bashar Assad has said quite clearly that even if he gets back the Golan, he won’t be dumping his patron-in-terror, Iran, and he will never give up funding the Iranian proxy army in Lebanon, Hizbullah.

Syrian President Bashar Assad rejected Israel’s demand that Syria cut its ties with Iran and Hizbullah.

He said that detaching his country from the two was “irrelevant” to reviving peace talks.

So the point in talking to Syria would be…?

Uh-huh.

There’s a group called Follow the Women that’s organized a bike ride through the Middle East in the name of peace. Here’s what a participant wrote last month:

Nearly 250 women, representing 30 nationalities from mostly Europe and the Middle East, but also the United States and Canada, arrived in Beirut last week for the third “Follow the Women” bike tour, which winds through Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and - Israeli government permitting- the Occupied Palestinian Territories.Started in 2004. One of the founders is a British woman named Detta Regan, “Follow the Women” is not a race, but a bike tour where women ride in the name of female empowerment and the aim of expressing solidarity with the Middle East. It is also a good place to break down cultural stereotypes and experience woman-to-woman diplomacy, away from official government positions and media hype.

Most of the Western women I cycled with expressed surprise at how calm Beirut is, and how beautiful. “It’s nothing like how it is in the news,” the British woman next to me exclaimed.

Note that the group didn’t plan to show solidarity with the women of Israel. And also note that now that they are in Syria, things aren’t so calm in Beirut anymore. And it’s their current host who’s fomenting the violence.

The utter cluelessness of these women was described nicely recently by Bret Stephens:

For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women’s rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority. These are rights that exist in Israel and nowhere else in the Middle East. So why is it that the country that is most sympathetic to progressive values gets the least of progressive sympathies?

How welcome do you figure this woman would be in Tehran or Gaza?

But let them ride their bikes and give cover to the tyrants who are fomenting the strife in the Middle East.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Back in December North Korea condemned the Israeli raid on what we now know to be a Syrian nuclear reactor.

North Korea lashed out Tuesday at Israel for invading Syrian airspace last Thursday, its official news agency said.”This is a very dangerous provocation little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security,” a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying by the Korean Central News Agency.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea strongly denounces the above-said intrusion and extends full support and solidarity to the Syrian people in their just cause to defend the national security and the regional peace,” he added.

Last week it was revealed that perhaps there was an even bigger reason for North Korea to condemn Israel.

Ten North Koreans may have been killed in an Israeli air strike on Syria in September, NHK reported on its Web site, citing unidentified South Korean intelligence officials.The 10 people, whose remains were cremated and returned to North Korea in October, had been helping with the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria, Japan’s public broadcaster said. Some North Koreans probably survived the air attack, NHK said.

Now, President Bush is making the connection explicitly. The New York Times reports:

Making the first remarks in public about the Israeli attack by any American official, Mr. Bush said that his administration maintained a cloak of secrecy to avoid the risk of further military conflict in the region, including possible Syrian retaliation against Israel. He said that risk of conflict “was reduced” now.Mr. Bush did not explain why exactly the administration disclosed the information at this point, but the timing coincided with renewed efforts to persuade North Korea to abide by last year’s agreement to acknowledge all of its nuclear activities. The North Korean activities include what administration officials assert are a still undisclosed program to enrich uranium and the sale of nuclear technology to countries like Syria.

“We also wanted to advance certain policy objectives through the disclosures, and one would be to the North Koreans to make it abundantly clear that we, we may know more about you than you think,” Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference.

Senior officials have signaled that the administration may accept a less-than-full disclosure, allowing North Korea, for example, not to explain its nuclear cooperation with Syria in the kind of detail that American officials have now done.

In his remarks on Tuesday and at Camp David on April 19, the president appeared to back off such a compromise. He restated his demand that North Korea make “a complete disclosure” about its proliferation and enrichment activities.

More than that President Bush emphasized:

Mr. Bush said that the disclosure of a covert Syrian reactor, which Syria has denied, should persuade other countries to support United Nations Security Council resolutions intended to keep Iran and other countries from developing nuclear arms.“We have an interest in sending a message to Iran and the world for that matter about just how destabilizing a nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East,” he said.

In addition to his comments about the North Korean aid to Syria, the President also added (according to the Washington Post):

Bush avoided criticism of former president Jimmy Carter’s recent talks with Hamas, the radical Palestinian group classified by the U.S. government as a terrorist entity. The United States refuses to engage with Hamas, which Bush said is “undermining peace.”"They’re the ones whose foreign policy objective is the destruction of Israel,” he said. “They’re the ones who are trying to create enough violence to stop the advance of the two-party state solution.”

The President implicitly gives too much credit to Fatah, but it’s correct for him to acknowledge this.

Left unsaid, is that this episode suggests that the “axis of evil” was quite possibly more than just a rhetorical flourish.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

It looks like Shaul Mofaz is openly declaring that the Golan Heights needs to stay exactly as it is right now: Under Israeli control.

Giving Syria the Golan Heights will mean bringing Iran there as well, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said overnight Monday after meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[...] “I can only say one thing about that: Due to the fact that there is a strengthening of the radical axis, and Syria is a very central and dominant component of the radical axis, any handover of the Golan Heights to them means Iranians in the Golan Heights.”

“We must take this under consideration, not as a statement that creates headlines, but as an issue that will become very tangible and real,” he added. “Just as today the Iranians have a foothold in southern Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip, they will have one in the Golan Heights.”

Yes.

“This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make peace with the Syrians in the future, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk to the Syrians, but in this reality the Golan Heights is a strategic asset for Israel and handing it over to the Syrians is tantamount to handing it to the Iranians.”

And yes again. Let’s not forget that Syria regularly attacked Israel from the Golan.

From 1948-67, when Syria controlled the Golan Heights, it used the area as a military stronghold from which its troops randomly sniped at Israeli civilians in the Huleh Valley below, forcing children living on kibbutzim to sleep in bomb shelters. In addition, many roads in northern Israel could be crossed only after probing by mine-detection vehicles. In late 1966, a youth was blown to pieces by a mine while playing football near the Lebanon border. In some cases, attacks were carried out by Yasir Arafat’s Fatah, which Syria allowed to operate from its territory.

Israel’s options for countering the Syrian attacks were constrained by the geography of the Heights. “Counterbattery fires were limited by the lack of observation from the Huleh Valley; air attacks were degraded by well-dug-in Syrian positions with strong overhead cover, and a ground attack against the positions…would require major forces with the attendant risks of heavy casualties and severe political repercussions,” U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Irving Heymont observed.

Israel repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire. For example, Israel went to the UN in October 1966 to demand a halt to the Fatah attacks. The response from Damascus was defiant. “It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them,” the Syrian ambassador responded. Nothing was done to stop Syria’s aggression. A mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the UN when it retaliated. “As far as the Security Council was officially concerned,” historian Netanel Lorch wrote, “there was an open season for killing Israelis on their own territory.”

After the Six-Day War began, the Syrian air force attempted to bomb oil refineries in Haifa. While Israel was fighting in the Sinai and West Bank, Syrian artillery bombarded Israeli forces in the eastern Galilee, and armored units fired on villages in the Huleh Valley below the Golan Heights.

Sure. Let’s hand the Golan back to Syria. They’ve proven themselves eminently trustworthy. It’s not like they’re trying to build nuclear weapons on the sly or anything like that. Oh, wait. Yes they are.

A suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce enough nuclear material to fuel one to two weapons a year, CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Monday.

Hayden said the plutonium reactor was within weeks or months of completion when it was destroyed in an air strike last September 6, and within a year of entering operation it could have produced enough material for at least one weapon.

“In the course of a year after they got full up, they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons,” Hayden told reporters after a speech.

And then there’s this spin by the UN:

A diplomat close to the UN nuclear watchdog and outside analysts have said the US disclosure did not amount to proof of an illicit arms program because there was no sign of a reprocessing plant needed to convert spent fuel from the plant into bomb-grade plutonium.

Hm. Can we think of a country that Syria is currently allied with that would have the plant necessary to do the reprocessing once the Syrians had the nuclear fuel? Let’s think. Hm. Starts with “I” and ends with “ran.” That’s right. Iran. The same people who will show up in the Golan Heights if Israel gives it back now.

Shaul Mofaz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, said what Ehud Olmert has not yet said publicly: That Syria can forget about the Golan Heights or a peace treaty until it stops working with the enemies of Israel.

“Syria is entangled up to its neck with aiding Hizbullah and other terror groups like Hamas. Now it must decide, does it want to continue to allow Iran to lead it by the nose or does it want to abandon the axis of evil,” he said.

This is my favorite quote:

“We must ensure our moves regarding Syria are measured, very level-headed and very very responsible. I am not interested in issuing labels for (Syrian President Bashar) Assad – whether I believe him or not – but his strategic decision was to side with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah. And that speaks volumes.”

I’m thinking Mofaz is the unnamed “high-ranking official” that’s been quoted saying much the same thing in recent news articles. It’s good to know that Olmert has some people with sense working for him.

via memeorandum

Israel Matzav noted that PM Olmert has apparently gone even beyond Ehud Barak’s generous concessions to Syria and promised Bashar Assad the complete Golan even up to the Kinneret.

But my question is why now? Why would Olmert extend a lifeline to Assad at this point?

It’s just been revealed the Syrians were re-arming Hezbollah. The United States is just revealing more evidence that the site Israel hit in Syria was a nuclear reactor. In other words it’s time to be pressuring Syria not giving into its demands.

Of course this wouldn’t be the first time that Israel has strengthened an enemy at a critical time. In 1993 Israel rescued Arafat from political oblivion with Oslo. In 2000 Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon allowing Hezbollah to bolster its power and leading to the 2006 war. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza after killing the leaders of Hamas, giving Hamas a platform to regroup and intensify its war against Israel.

Past experience says this isn’t the time to concede anything to Syria.

Yesterday the NYT reported that Israel and Syria hint at progress on Golan deal:

Peace overtures between Israel and Syria moved up a gear on Wednesday when a Syrian cabinet minister said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel had sent a message to President Bashar al-Assad to the effect that Israel would be willing to withdraw from all the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria.The Syrian expatriate affairs minister, Buthaina Shaaban, told Al Jazeera television, “Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions; on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights in full to Syria.” She said that Turkey had conveyed the message.

Israeli officials did not deny the statement from Damascus but would not confirm it either, offering a more general, positive reaction. “Israel wants peace with Syria; we are interested in a negotiated process,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Olmert. “The Syrians know well our expectations, and we know well their expectations.”

The Washington Post today gives some background of past efforts:

Syria and Israel last held direct peace talks in 2000. The negotiations, mediated by President Clinton in the waning days of his administration, foundered over how much authority Syria would have over the coast along the Sea of Galilee.

It’s also worth pointing out that Assad insisted that Israel agree to his terms of withdrawal before negotiating with Israel. This is the reason Assad didn’t make peace with Israel.

Elliott Jager notes that Assad the younger isn’t likely to be welcoming Israel with open arms even if he gets all he (and his father) demand up front:

WHATEVER HIS motivations, Israel should judge Assad by what he says and what he does. Assad insists that even under a peace treaty normalization is out of the question. This is how he put it at a conference in Damascus last week: “Restoration of land and rights may lead to relations based on routine, but not [necessarily] normalization. What happened in Jordan and Egypt is proof to us that the public does not want normalization, and therefore nobody can impose it on anybody else. I know that the Syrian people reject normalization and therefore I will not impose it on them.”

Still that doesn’t stop Ha’aretz from enthusiastically supporting the surrender of the Golan in Don’t be afraid of Peace with Syria. (I won’t call it peace, because I don’t believe that the withdrawal from the Golan will bring peace.)

There seems to be a need to repeat, over and over, this basic fact: Nothing contributes to Israel’s security more than a peace accord. Before the protests of solidarity with the Golan Heights begin, it should be emphasized that withdrawal from the Golan in exchange for peace is endorsed not only by bleeding hearts, but by distinctly security-minded figures. The supporters of the Golan are West Bank settlers, like Golan resident Effi Eitam, who see any withdrawal as a national catastrophe; parties that gain strength by sowing security-related fears, such as Israel Beiteinu; those with economic interests in the region, hikers, bird-watchers, wine connoisseurs and winemakers; and mainly the people of the past, who still consider the lookout point on Mount Hermon to be “Israel’s eyes,” even though those eyes did not prove a very effective source of warning in 1973. Today, neither advance warning nor deterrence rely on the “Alpinists” (the elite IDF unit trained for snow operations), and the missile war expected in the future is not affected by natural boundaries, whether of the flowing or the ascending kind.

Of course it could be argued that Israel hasn’t come to a hot war with Syria since 1967 while it held the Golan. Also, why need peace come only on Syria’s terms? Why can’t Israel obtain peace for half the Golan? Surely if Assad would agree to a compromise that would be a better indication of peace than if Israel meets his unconditional demands, wouldn’t it?
Here’s Jager again:

It is in Israel’s long-term interest to have a peace treaty with Syria, but not at any price. Israel would have to make irrevocable strategic concessions. So it’s hard to imagine many Israelis having the confidence to support a deal that does not signify a true opening of genuine peaceful relations.

That’s the subtlety Ha’aretz and like minded folks miss. Syria views talking peace only in terms of what it will receive. So Assad and his lackeys can say “peace,” but don’t mean peace in any meaningful sense of the word. They want territory, and they’ll deign to accept that territory from Israel.

By insisting that ceding territory is the same thing as achieving peace, Ha’aretz accepts Syria’s “peace” talk at face value. It is a view that unhelpfully echoes through the diplomatic world. But it puts Israel at a disadvantage. Israel then in the name of “peace” is required to cede real assets in return for nebulous future considerations. It requires an element of trust that Bashar Assad, in his recent activities, has contradicted.

If people want peace, there needs to be a demonstrated change of heart from Damascus. Ceding the Golan Heights by itself won’t bring peace, unless one defines peace simply as the acc