MEIonline.com

News Analysis
Israel's "ideological" raid on Syria

From Haim Baram in West Jerusalem

October 9th, 2003 -- Israel’s “deepest raid into Syria” in 30 years, with its heavy symbolism and heady headlines, surprised international and local observers and engaged the world’s press. The air-raid on the almost derelict site at Ain Saheb, a largely abandoned training camp, wounded two guards had but a negligible effect on the Palestinian resistance. Officially, it belonged to the rather obsolete Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, but the Israeli government claims that Islamic Jihad fighters frequent it as well. It is a very doubtful assumption, based on little substantive evidence.

But it is pointless to dwell on this. The attack, which coincided with the 30th anniversary of Syria’s assault on Israel at the start of the 1973 war, was aimed at destabilizing the Syrian regime and achieving an ideological victory in Washington. The pattern has been established by Ariel Sharon. Israel strives to be the “US of the Middle East”, a regional power with self-proclaimed authority to decide who is a terrorist, what constitutes a terrorist state (Israel is excluded from such categorizing) and how to deal with terrorist entities.

The deliberate similarity in their policies prevents Washington from even the remotest semblance of “even-handedness” where Israel is concerned, as evidenced yet again by Washington’s performance at the Security Council on 5 October. This helped Israel escape yet further condemnation at the United Nations, and used the vocabulary both states share: Syria harbours terrorists; it should therefore be punished until all terrorist organizations are dismantled.

Dangerous brinkmanship

Of course, American acquiescence in Israel’s dangerous brinkmanship on 5 October stems from rather more than a shared philosophy about the nature of terrorism. The State Department regards Syria as a very weak country, both economically and militarily. The old respect shown towards the stability of the Syrian regime is clearly waning, and its role as a scapegoat after the terrible atrocity in Haifa on 4 October is quite acceptable to Washington.

Sharon was asked by the US to exercise restraint and prudence and to avoid unnecessary escalation, but it is obvious that the prevalent opinion in Washington is that “removing” Yaser Arafat is far worse, as far as the regional situation is concerned. The two guards at Ain Saheb who were injured served as substitutes for Arafat. Sharon bides his time as most of his cabinet bays for Arafat’s blood.

But the Palestinian leader’s “removal” has not been given the green light from President Bush. The implication is crystal clear: if Arafat is either deported or assassinated, the US Administration will be as culpable as the Israeli government. This claim holds true in both ideological and operational senses. If Bush has become the world’s chief executioner, Sharon is his sub-contractor.

Both enlightened Europeans and well-meaning Israelis have expressed the far from unreasonable opinion that Sharon and his ministers have gone mad. After all, Syria and Israel have adhered to the cease-fire agreement brokered by Henry Kissinger for 29 years. There has been no incident across the border in the Golan Heights, despite the prolonged occupation of this Syrian territory and the blatant arrogance of its annexation. Why has the beleaguered Israeli prime minister embarked on yet another front, in addition to his war against the Palestinians in the Territories and Hizbullah in Lebanon?

The Haifa attack

The attack on the Maxim restaurant in Haifa wiped out entire families, killing Jews and Arabs alike. It created terrible rage and despair. At least 19 people lost their lives.

Haifa is regarded as the most tolerant city in Israel. Perhaps because it is probably the least religious place in the country, it boasts a level of peaceful coexistence found nowhere else in Israel/Palestine. Most Arabs vote for the Socialist Hadash party, and Meretz and Labour have their traditional Arab voters, too. Even the city’s leading football team, Maccabi Haifa, is a party to this atmosphere. It has always had Arab players (currently, the Israeli international Walid Badir whose grandfather was killed by the Border Police during the Kufr Qasem massacre in October 1956) and marshals tremendous support in Arab communities in northern Israel. The team’s coach and two other members of staff were injured in the blast.

The level of rage among Israelis was perhaps best illustrated by the response to new Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmad Quray’s call to the Labour mayor of Haifa, Yoni Yahav, to offer his condolences. The call, and Quray’s condemnation of the outrage, was widely received by Israelis as a hypocritical attempt to prevent all-out retaliation against Palestinian targets in general and Arafat in particular.

But Quray’s message was not designed to mollify the Israeli public. Most leading Palestinians long ago internalized the fact that only total submission to Sharon’s wishes can placate the Nationalist Centre which today dominates Israel. As much as Arafat himself, Quray is tolerated by the Israelis only as long as the Americans support him. Sharon, all his ministers and most ordinary Israelis know full well that Arafat had nothing whatsoever to do with the atrocity in Haifa. They clamour for his removal in order to get a serious negotiating partner out of the way.

Sanity in context

This policy is consistent, even “sane”, from the point of view of the Israeli hawks. Since they have no intention of removing the settlements in the Territories, they regard every significant step forward in the peace process as a threat. The radical right-wingers say it openly; the “responsible” Likudniks in power say it privately. But this, except for the Oslo deviation between 1993 and 1996, has been the policy of successive Israeli governments since 1967. Golda Meir and Ariel Sharon belong to the same school of thought. They have employed very similar tactics.

This policy is “mad” in one sense only: the Americans appear to have the necessary might to carry-out their aggressive policies against the Arab world, despite the attending complications; Israel, however, for all its powerful arsenal and feared military strength, is a small country, in the throes of social unrest and very vulnerable to guerrilla warfare. It can afford a measure of insanity, but only if the Americans sanction it.

The main thrust of Israel’s foreign policy, therefore, is aimed at securing an American protective umbrella. To put it in a nutshell: aggression supported, aided and abetted by Bush is sane; the same aggression, opposed by Bush, is insane.

Israel’s policy vis-à-vis the European countries derives from the same roots. It would suit Israel perfectly if Europe accepted the American line without qualms. Which is why Sharon has such a close relationship with the Italian government. Silvio Berlusconi can praise his idol Benito Mussolini with total impunity, as far Sharon is concerned. Jewish organizations in the US have been asked by Israel to stop criticizing Berlusconi. As long as he serves the Israeli and American cause within the EU, he is kosher. For the end justifies the means, and Berlusconi is very useful to Israel, believing as he does that the key to the heart of the US Administration is unreserved support for Sharon in the face of hitherto universal EU hostility.

In this context, the attack on Syria can be safely regarded as an integral part of the Sharon’s philosophy. The Syrians have read the new map of the region in the aftermath of Iraq. They have made several attempt to renew dialogue with Israel via the US. But new talks would mean a demand for Israeli concessions. Therefore, it is crucial to depict the Syrians as, if not “terrorists” themselves, at least harbouring terrorists.

Jordan and Egypt have no territorial demands, and the cold peace with them can be maintained. But between Syria and Israel there is a thorny territorial dispute over the Golan Heights. Sharon is arguably more lucid and less crazy than his American backers.


All content ©1971-2004 Middle East International.
Middle East International magazine, 1 Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE, UK.
Tel: +44-207-832-1330 | Fax:+44-207-832-1339 | E-mail