Israel Matzav

When engagement works and when it doesn't

Ed Morrissey at the Captain's Quarters had some interesting comments on Friday regarding a column by Beirut Daily Star editor Michael Young in the Times of London. Young's column related to the idea that the US should 'engage' Syria and Iran, and Ed's comments responded to that idea. But I think that many of Ed's comments are equally applicable to Israel 'engaging' Syria and Israel 'engaging' the 'Palestinian Authority.' I don't expect the inept Olmert-Peretz-Livni government to listen, but the comments are worth noting all the same. I'm just going to edit them slightly to attune them to the Israeli situation. Ed's original:

Engagement only works when both parties have goals in common in an area or on an issue. It does no good when the parties have diametrically opposed goals, and that certainly appears to be the case with Lebanon, if not Iraq. Syria has assassinated two pro-democracy, pro-Western ministers in the past year and actively support the radical Islamist terrorists in the sub-Litani region of Lebanon. The US wants to help democracy succeed in Lebanon and opposes radical Islamists around the globe. Where is the overlap of mutual concerns? It doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the engagement of the assassin regime in Damascus will signal the Lebanese that we care more about "stability" than in democracy -- a message the realists from both parties have eagerly sent for the past four or five decades. The Cedar Revolution gained momentum from the shift in American policy towards open support of people's revolutions for democracies, but it succeeded because the Syrians knew that George Bush would have reacted militarily to any use of its army to quell the uprising that forced them from Lebanon. "Engagement" would remove that key containment of Assad's military options, both against Lebanon and against Israel.

My revision for Israel's situation:

Engagement only works when both parties have goals in common in an area or on an issue. It does no good when the parties have diametrically opposed goals, and that certainly appears to be the case with the 'Palestinians', if not with Syria. The 'Palestinians' have repeatedly expressed their desire to destroy the State of Israel; they differ among themselves only on tactical questions. Israel wants to continue to exist as a Jewish democracy, and opposes radical Islamists wherever it meets them. Where is the overlap of mutual concerns? It doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the engagement of the Assad regime in Damascus, which would inevitably entail Israel giving Syria the Golan Heights, will signal Israeli residents of the Galilee (let alone Israeli residents of the Golan) that we no longer care about their security. Israel has had peace and quiet on the Golan for the past thirty-three years because the Syrians knew that the Israeli government would have reacted militarily to any use of its army to attack Israeli cities and towns in the Golan or the Galilee. "Engagement" would remove that key containment of Assad's military options.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:24 PM