For Israel: A Nature Park for Peace?

So, this just in from our friend, MJ Rosenberg at theIsrael Policy Forum in D.C. MJ makes a compelling case for why the Middle East Peace Process is in a critically important phase. Until I read this, I was not aware that a) Israel and its primary enemy du jour (i.e., Syria) have been meeting for two years in secret trying to build a peace framework and b) a public park available to both Israel's citizens and Syrias could take the place of a no-man's land buffer zone between the two countries. Can you imagine what the zone between North and South Korea would like if it were turned into a park for both nations? Fascinating. Very creative. All parties to this kind of thinking should be given the Nobel Peace Prize for simply thinking up such a brilliant idea.

Of course, both Syria and Israel deny that the secret meetings ever happened. But, the more we share of this news around the world the more likely we are to see a small ray of hope that the people there could live in peace for once.

Here's what MJ has to say for background...

The 1973 war between Israel and Egypt cost Israel 3,000 young lives. In the end, Israel got peace with Egypt but at the price of surrendering the the Sinai. Had they negotiated with Egypt earlier -- as they were encouraged to do by President Nixon, they would have only lost about 3 miles of the Sinai. (It is worth noting that the pro-Israel community’s backing of Israel’s resistance to Nixon’s “pressure” contributed to the worst disaster in Israel’s history–a demonstration that unthinking and uncritical “support” is, in fact, anything but.

It is just possible that another colossal missed opportunity is in the making right now. According to the highly respected and well-connected reporter in the region, Israeli and Syrian representatives – meeting secretly over a two year period ending in July 2006 – agreed on the framework of a peace treaty.

The plan allegedly provides for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Syria and Israel would be separated by a buffer zone in the form of a nature park, open to citizens of both countries.

Israel would retain exclusive control over the coveted waters of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee. Demilitarized and reduced military presence zones, provisions for early warning stations and international security oversight, would be established. And, of critical importance, Syria would end its support for Hezbollah and distance itself from Iran. Likewise, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal would be forced to leave Damascus.

Once these mutual commitments are met, a full peace treaty would be signed and normal relations established.

Encouragingly, the Bush administration appears to be moving away from its hard-line on dealing with Syria. Perhaps, taking a page from the Baker-Hamilton report, it is concluding that our disdain for the Assad regime should not prevent us from engaging Syria. Not if doing so will lead Syria to stop its trouble-making on the border with Iraq and drive a wedge between Iran and Syria (not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah).

Nevertheless, Olmert should not hesitate to explore the Syrian option. The possibility that Syria is ready for peace is too important to ignore. Any peace feeler is worthy of exploration, especially one as promising as this.

By pursuing the Syrian track Israel could succeed in eliminating the threat from its most implacable neighbor. Peace with Syria would remove Iran's entry point into Israel's immediate neighborhood and halt its arms supply, virtually destroying Hezbollah. And Hamas would be almost totally isolated.

Anyone who believes this is not a gamble worth considering simply does not understand what the stakes for America and Israel really are.

But wait. There's good news. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is, according to media reports, ready to make a major push for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with a view toward reaching an agreement by the time President Bush leaves office. That explains why the Vice President has, apparently, encouraged the unofficial Israeli-Syrian talks (or, at least, not opposed them).

Bush, Cheney and Rice may understand that success in Iraq looks increasingly unlikely and that, by comparison, achieving a final status Israel-Palestinian agreement would be relatively easy. It's legacy time. The Bush administration should go for it.

As for the pro-Israel community and the Congress, it should recall the lesson of 1971. Supporting Israel by supporting the status quo is no support at all. Just visit the military cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem and imagine it without the 3,000 graves of soldiers who died heroically in an utterly preventable war.