Olmert's strange message to Syria.

The recent comments from Ehud Olmert are confusing to say the least:

"Israel does not want war with Syria and we need to be careful to avoid a scenario of miscalculations that could cause the security situation to worsen," Mr Olmert was quoted as saying after meeting ministers and intelligence chiefs. "I'm willing to negotiate directly with the Syrians, but without preconditions," he said, adding that his message about Israel's peaceful intentions had been conveyed to Syria.

Why is he saying this? We all know that George Bush wanted him to expand his war with Hizbullah last summer to include Iran and Syria and that he wisely resisted the neo-con calls, so why does he need at this point in time to say that he doesn't want war with Syria?

Perhaps Olmert's message is actually intended for Washington rather than Damascus, as there have been persistent rumours that a back channel has existed between the Israelis and the Syrians via Turkey, and we all know that Cheney and the hard right wing of the American administration would probably not favour any kind of peace deal between Israel and one of Bush and Co's enemies.

However, I am still puzzled by talk that Syria may be preparing to attack Israel. Where has that come from? After all, the Syrians signed up to the Arab peace plan at the recent Riyadh summit, which affirmed peace as the "strategic option" for all Arab states. So why would Israeli defence intelligence chiefs be giving reports that Syria might be planning to snatch one of the five still inhabited villages in the Golan heights to "shake the status quo".

Nothing would give the Americans a better opportunity to attack Syria than if they were to launch an aggressive war against Israel, so I fail to see why anyone would think Assad sees this as a viable option.

On Tuesday the Israeli army held a publicised exercise in the Negev desert that included the "capture" of a Syrian village, reportedly applying lessons learned during last summer's three-week war against Hizbullah in Lebanon.

But Amir Peretz, Israel's defence minister, said: "We have to relay to the Syrians that our exercises and preparations are a matter of course and in no way reflect Israeli plans to attack Syria."

I should think that if Olmert learned any lesson from his misadventure in Lebanon last summer it is that he's not very good at warfare and should avoid it wherever possible. And, again, Olmert's popularity is so low at this point that launching another war would finish him off, so why is he even bothering to make these kind of public pronouncements?

I understand that his intelligence community are sending him mixed signals over Syrian intentions vis a vis peace talks, but find it hard to believe that he is being seriously advised that the Syrians are preparing for war.

The Israeli intelligence community is reportedly divided over whether the recent Syrian peace overtures are genuine or a decoy to relieve the US-led international pressure on Damascus.

While the head of the army intelligence research department Yossi Baidatz believes Damascus's moves are sincere, the head of the Mossad secret service Meir Dagan thinks they are a scheme, media have reported.

Other Israeli experts suggest Mr Assad is interested in pursuing peace with Israel as a way of improving his fraught relations with the US. The theory is that that could help to derail the UN tribunal being set up to try suspects in the February 2005 murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, in which senior Syrian security officials have been implicated.

The Mossad intelligence service is said to doubt that Syria would be prepared to drop its support for Hamas and for Hizbullah in Lebanon - both Israel's sworn enemies - let alone end its strategic relationship with Iran. Mr Muallem repeated that Syria was committed to a "comprehensive peace" that would have to include a settlement with both Lebanon and the Palestinians, whose cause is genuinely popular among ordinary Syrians.

Here's my problem with the Israeli negotiating technique, they insist that Syria first end it's support for Hamas and Hizbullah and then end it's strategic support for Iran. Asking Syria to end it strategic support for Iran is like the Syrians insisting that Israel give up it's partnership with the US, it's simply a non starter and the Israelis surely know that this is a non starter.

As for their support for Hamas and Hizbullah, Israel appears to have got the cart before the horse here. Both Hamas and Hizbullah are by-products of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and parts of southern Lebanon. Were Israel to give up the illegal occupation there would be no further reason for these organisations to oppose Israel. However, the Israelis appear to be demanding that Syria desist from supporting organisations whose aims Syria must share. After all, Syria is in exactly the same boat as those organisations, they have all had land illegally occupied by Israel. So it's a non starter to ask that Syria cut herself off from organisations that share her aims before any discussions can take place.

Israeli commentators have been urging Mr Olmert to explore the Syrian track since he scrapped the planned unilateral withdrawal from a large part of the West Bank. Dan Meridor, a former Likud minister, told the Guardian: "Syria under Assad is a state that can make a deal. When he says he wants to talk it's a mistake not to. If it's a bluff, let's call their bluff. If we don't test it we won't know."

Meridor is of course right. Israel should talk to Syria. But if the Israelis are going to first insist that Syria give up support for Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran then the talks will go nowhere.

Israel is attempting here to pick off it's enemies one at a time rather than take on the whole deal offered through the Riyadh summit. Olmert could redeem his hellish premiership if he has the boldness to engage with the entire Arab world and finally comply with international law by adopting the demands of resolution 242.

But talk of war between Israel and Syria is, at this point, simply fanciful. Neither has the stomach for it, so perhaps Olmert is raising the subject as a bluff of his own in an attempt to get send Assad a message before any talks can take place. However, if the message also includes a demand that Syria desert her allies then Olmert is wasting his time.

Click title for full article.