I World
ANALYS c
Side Issue
Will Annapolis spur progress on Syrian, Saudi peace tracks?
Photo by PPO / BPH IMAGES
Leslie Susser
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Jerusalem
W bile the Annapolis conference
was meant to focus on Israeli-
Palestinian peacemaking, the
attendance of Syria and Saudi Arabia has
raised questions about the prospects for
peace between Israel and the wider Arab
world.
Syria came up because, contrary to
expectations, Damascus sent a delegate to
Annapolis to talk about trading peace for
the Golan Heights. And the attendance at
Annapolis of all 22 Arab League member
countries, led by the influential Saudis,
suggested that normalization of ties
between Israel and the Arab world could
be in the cards.
Israeli experts are divided over the pros-
pects of reaching peace with Syria. Some
insist Damascus will never break with its
Shi'ite sponsors in Tehran, which is a key
condition for progress. Others argue there
is a greater chance of achieving peace with
the Syrians than with the Palestinians.
As for accommodation with the Arab
world, the broad consensus is that peace
with the Palestinians must come first.
Nevertheless, the fact that both the
Syrians and Saudis came to Annapolis
had immediate ramifications in the
Middle East.
Iran At Issue
Their attendance demonstrated America's
ability to mobilize Arab moderates and
underscored the growing isolation of
Iran and its radical allies. Whether or not
Annapolis brings progress or not, it is
causing considerable alarm in Iran.
Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad made angry phone calls to
Syrian President Bashar Assad and Saudi
King Abdullah, urging them not to coop-
erate with the United States and Israel
against Iran.
Iranian state media outlets were more
blunt, warning that any Arab country
that provides logistic help for a U.S. strike
against Iran will be a legitimate target for
Iranian retaliation.
Saudi policy has been driven for some
time by the Iranian threat. The Saudis,
who are Sunni Muslims, are terrified at
A34
November 29 a 2007
President Bush with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, right, outside the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.
the prospect of an Iranian move against
their oil reserves or Iranian-sponsored
terrorism destabilizing their kingdom.
However, that does not mean the Saudis
will push for wholesale normalization of
ties with Israel, the regional counterpoint
to Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
For the past several years, the Saudis
have been key players in regional diplo-
macy. They fashioned the peace initiative
adopted by the Arab League in 2002, a
rough outline that proposed normaliza-
tion of ties between Israel and the Arab
world in exchange for a full Israeli retreat
to the pre-1967 borders.
The Saudis also mediated the now
defunct power-sharing agreement
in February between the moderate
Palestinian Fatah faction headed by P.A.
President Mahmoud Abbas and the radi-
cal Hamas group.
But in both these cases, the Saudis' aim
was to help create Arab consensus and
enhance ties with the United States as
hedges against Iranian aggression, not to
move toward normalization with Israel,
says Saudi expert Joseph Kostiner of Tel
Aviv University.
In September 2006, Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert met covertly in
Jordan with Saudi Arabia's national secu-
rity chief, Prince Bandar, presumably to
discuss the Iranian threat. This encounter
reportedly was followed by a string of
lower-level secret contacts.
No Handshakes
In the run-up to Annapolis, al-Faisal
declared there would not be so much
as a handshake with Israeli leaders at
Annapolis — so as not to give the Israelis
"free normalization."
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
argues for linkage between progress
on the Palestinian front and normal-
ization with the Arab world. But the
Saudi message at Annapolis was clear:
Normalization would not be an engine to
drive the Israeli-Palestinian process.
Still, there have been tacit understand-
ings between Israel and the Saudis. For
example, Israel raised no official objec-
tions to the U.S. plan to supply the Saudis
with $20 billion worth of sophisticated
weaponry over the coming decade. This
was predicated on the understanding that
the weapons were necessary for deterring
Iranian aggression.
While no overt Israeli-Saudi contacts
have been made, Israel and Syria have
been engaged in a public on-again, off-
again peace process since the early 1990s.
Four Israeli prime ministers — Yitzhak
Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin
Netanyahu and Ehud Barak — made seri-
ous efforts to make peace with Syria.
Over the past few years, Syria's Assad
has made repeated peace overtures, but he
has been unwilling to commit himself to a
break with Iran and its terrorist proxies.
Olmert, for his part, has not taken
Assad's overtures seriously, partly because
the Bush administration made clear it
was not interested in making overtures to
a Syrian regime it considers hostile to its
regional goals, analysts say.
In early September, however, a new
element entered the Israel-Syria equa-
tion: the apparent bombing by Israel of a
suspected nuclear weapons facility in the
Syrian desert.
Since then, Israeli intelligence experts
say Assad has shown newfound interest in
accommodation and moderation.
Now, both Olmert and Defense Minister
Ehud Barak are insisting it is time to
explore seriously peace prospects with
Syria. Most pundits believe the outcome
will depend on whether the United States
is prepared to promise Assad significant
diplomatic and economic guarantees if he
breaks with Iran.
So far, the Bush administration has given
no sign it's ready to make that promise.
Russia, however, reportedly is plan-
ning a follow-up to Annapolis in Moscow,
where the main focus would be the Israel-
Syria track.
Some Israeli analysts dismiss this as
Russian jockeying for position on the
international stage. Others argue it cre-
ates an opportunity that should not be
dismissed.
Annapolis seems to have boosted as
many as four separate tracks: Palestinian,
Syrian, normalization and creation of
a moderate front against Iran. For the
United States, the united front against Iran
is key. Some argue that it was the object of
the whole exercise.
That raises this question: If the moder-
ate alliance against Iran is so important,
will the United States press Israel to make
concessions to strengthen that alliance? E
For Annapolis updates: www.jewish.com