Sarkozy Storms The Golan--But Will He Take It?

Nicholas Sarkozy is a take-charge-and-move-out sort of man. Since the French "Elect-A-King" form of government wisely places foreign policy and military matters firmly in the hands of the president, Sarkozy is able to work on his own policy imperatives as such are seen solely by him and his cabinet to further French national and strategic interests.

With this as context and taken in conjunction with M. Sarkozy's firm disdain for aspects of Islamic life and politics, it is neither surprising nor out of character for him to have jumped in what is potentially the most profitable direction for Mideast peace. During a recent Paris meeting between himself and Bashir Assad, the French president offered his assistance in gaining Israeli agreement to the return of the Golan to Syria.

By focusing on Syria and ignoring the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and the other diversions so beloved by the Obama administration, M. Sarkozy is being both realistic and willing to take a risk. He made no flights of glittering (and historically wrong) rhetoric praising Arabs and Islam. Nor did he demand the Israelis do something dramatic--and self-destructive.

All M. Sarkozy did was to build upon his good personal relations with both Assad and Israeli PM Netanyahu as well as his correct understanding that Syria was the key player in the Mideast. He called upon both countries to start direct negotiations without preconditions.

Of course, Sarko knows that there is one precondition resident in any talks between Israel and Syria. That, of course, is the Golan Heights. Israel must commit to rapidly and completely leave the Golan in order for any Israeli-Syrian peace talks to have meaning.

Assad knows this. Netanyahu knows this. Presumably any individual with any interest in and knowledge of the dynamics of the Mideast knows it as well.

Syria regains full control and exercise of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and a peace treaty comes quick and complete. Syria does not regain full control and exercise of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and there will be no Mideast peace regardless of any papers signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The Golan Heights represents the purist and most difficult test of Israel's desire for peace. If the government of Mr Netanyahu does not take up M. Sarkozy's offer promptly and effectively, the only legitimate conclusion is that Israel does not genuinely want permanent peace in the region regardless of what it might say.

The Golan Heights issue is clear, constrained, well defined, and free of the complications resident in the other disputed territories. Israel has no legitimate security concerns involved in the Golan. It has had no real-world military anxieties regarding the Golan region for at least thirty years. Not only has the UN monitoring mission worked completely, the changes in military technology which have occurred over the past three and more decades obviate the slight justification for the initial Israeli occupation forty-two years ago.

A refusal by Israel under whatsoever coloration to pick up the Sarkozy offer cannot help but put the lie to all that country's allegations of "security" issues being the fatal obstacle to regional peace. A refusal to work out the details of quickly returning the Golan Heights to Syria proves to even a very Israelophilic observer that the June War of 1967 was a land (and water) grab pure and simple. It would demonstrate to even an Arabophobic observer that the oft repeated Arab allegations that Israel is an aggressive, expansionist state have a strong seed of truth.

The Obama administration should be strongly backing the French offer. It is not enough simply to undo a bit of the damage in US-Syrian relations inflicted by the Bush/Cheney bunch. It is necessary to accept that Assad is a very, very important player in the region. More important than Mubarak or Abdullah II or even the Saudi monarch.

The administration should be doing all it can in support of the French move since the Golan is the clearest, purest, and most readily achievable test of both Israeli and Arab willingness to make peace. Best of all, dealing with Assad does not require either bowing to the Saudis, kissing the hem of Muslim skirts, or making any demands upon the Israelis which would be politically onerous.

Yes, there is one demand that must be laid on Israel. It is simple. Easy to understand. Hard to evade with honor and veracity intact.

Here it is: Put up or shut up. If you want peace, make it march. If you don't, just go ahead and stall, wiggle around, play word games, pull out the Israel Lobby, but the fact remains that you won't have peace and you have been exposed as a land (and water) snatching miniature imperialist. That would make continued American support very difficult.

The administration and President Obama must understand that the Sarkozy gambit has the potential to break open the stalemated game of peace making in the Mideast. Sure, it must bruise your ego(s) a bit to have the upstart Frenchman, who reputedly remarked to his cabinet apropos the US president, "Beam up, Barrak," accomplish a feat which has eluded your blandishments and threats alike.

But, Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and the rest of you: If you really, really want peace in the Mideast, the time has come to take second place to the French and back them to the fullest.