Between the Golan Heights And The Presumed Nuclear Reactor
Elias Harfoush Al-Hayat - 28/04/08//
It may be mere coincidence that on the very same day when, through President Bashar Assad, Syria announced Israel's willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights in return for peace, the US Congress was conducting hearings for administration testimonials confirming that the military target destroyed by the Israeli raid last September was set for military nuclear use with North Korean aid.
Yet it is a most fortunate coincidence! The Syrian announcement of indirect negotiations through the Turkish channel implies that Damascus is not interested in traditional military solutions to the conflict, let alone nuclear solutions - and that it is ready to sign a peace agreement as soon as it retrieves the territory it lost to occupation in 1967. Additionally, it seems that Damascus does not consider its ties to Hamas and Hizbullah an obstacle to such a deal. This means that the American and Israeli "accusation" of Damascus's sponsorship of the two organizations is an impediment to better conditions for peace on the Palestinian level and to a solution in Lebanon where Syria supports Hizbullah. This "accusation" would be automatically nullified upon execution of the Syrian solution, and both Hamas and Hizbullah would then have to find another sponsor- or such is the assumption.
However, the US announcement about the details of the alleged nuclear installation at Der ez-Zor also implies other conclusions. If Israel possessed the videos and even the land photos and had delivered them to Washington, what prevented it from making the announcement since it is more concerned than the United States with the installation and its objectives- especially since Syria's nuclear installation is aimed against Israel first and foremost given to the enmity between the two countries.
Washington's reply to this question is divided into two parts; the first is an American attempt to block any progress in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, since what Washington expects of Damascus on the political and regime levels is much broader and more extensive than any outcomes that may satisfy Israel. It is perhaps what prompted president Assad to express his conviction that any progress would be difficult with the current US administration. The second part which involves the link to North Korea reveals the desire of the right wing inside the Bush administration - represented in particular by Vice President Dick Cheney - to focus on Pyongyang's role in proliferating nuclear weapons in sensitive regions. This would shed doubt on the success of the related ongoing negotiations with North Korea conducted by Christopher Hill who stated that nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea "has become a thing of the past".
In any case, Washington's observations on the images of the Syrian nuclear installation so far seem more like a test of Syrian intentions than an expression of actual facts. Even if the location was truly used for the objectives announced by the Bush administration, American experts themselves assure that the United States and Israel did not observe any uranium separation operations or any installations for manufacturing nuclear weapons - not to mention the absence of proof regarding the ability of Syria to provide fuel for the alleged reactor.
If this is a test of intentions, the Syrian response related to a peace proposal will satisfy neither Israel nor the US. Even with the Bush administration out of the picture, peace calculations from the Israeli perspective require more than denying the existence of a nuclear installation at Der ez-Zor. Such requirements include Syria's policy towards the issues related to the conflict, the most important of which being its position toward Palestinian organizations that reject the principle of peace and its related requirements. It is not sufficient to say that the fate of the Syrian sponsorship of these organizations is linked to the fate of negotiations since the peace option reflects first-degree conviction and is not merely a tactical decision subjected to timing and interests.
|
