Imad Fawzi Shueibi* argues that Israel is playing with fire through its violation of the 2nd Disengagement Agreement of 1974 with Syria The military operation conducted by Israel this week in Syria, at Ein Al-Saheb near the Lebanese border, is an alarming shift in the Israeli position. It implies that Israel is trying to scuttle the Second Disengagement Agreement with Syria, signed in 1974. Over the past 29 years, Syria has never violated the agreement, which has kept the border peaceful in a tumultuous region. The Israeli violation can only mean that the situation is open to all possibilities. All of the available information points to the attack having targeted a group of Palestinian refugees living in Ein Al-Saheb, 10 kilometres northwest of Damascus. These Palestinians have no connection to Islamic Jihad, which in turn has no training camps in Syria. Some Palestinians, members of the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command, used to live in this neighbourhood where Syria hosted Palestinian refugees, but it was completely evacuated a few years ago. If the Israelis wish to bring up the issue of Syria's hosting of Palestinians, they will have to bear the consequences of opening the question of the 360,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, still waiting to return to their homeland in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The recent unfortunate incident at Ein Al-Saheb can only be described as playing with fire. It opens up the possibilities of breaking the inherent limits of the 'no-war no-peace' game drawn by the Second Disengagement Agreement of 1974. The Israelis are sending a clear message -- that they are passing from folly to sheer madness. This can only lead to the confusion of different issues in an attempt to find a pretext for wider military action against Syria. Syria will retain its right to respond accordingly. Damascus started by working through diplomatic and international channels, as any rational, peace- loving state would do. This however does not mean that Syria can allow this game to continue indefinitely. Syria too is in possession of decisive weapons, albeit diplomatic ones. Bringing up the issue before the Security Council will distract attention from the draft of the US resolution concerning Iraq, exposing the hypocrisy of American policy and subjecting both America and Israel to intense criticism in diplomatic circles. Should Israel think that it can volunteer to carry out in Syria something similar to what has been done in Iraq, particularly since this would be in line with the recent American threats against Damascus, this would be another act of lunacy. This type of behavior cannot serve US interests, only greatly burden them. The Palestine and Syria cases are tied into intricate regional and international considerations, and cannot be solved, but only aggravated, through such simplistic answers. The Israeli blunder has clearly confused the US at a time when it is heading the Security Council. Israel chose this particular timing according to facile calculations, thinking that it would serve its security interests. However, the Israelis overlooked the more subtle implications of their action, such as complicationg the American attempt at passing a resolution concerning Iraq. If the latter does not agree to a draft resolution concerning Syria (which it will not), it should expect more intense confrontation concerning its Iraq draft resolution. Damascus is not deluding itself. Syria might not get anything directly from the Security Council, particularly as there is a striking lopsidedness in the balance of power among member-states. However, this can be an opportunity to test the international waters while lobbying against Israel and the US for hijacking the political discourse on terrorism. The discourse encountered within Security Council meetings was not 'ambivalent'; it clearly supported Syria and condemned Israel in a demonstration of international solidarity with Syria. It also expressed a very sceptical attitude towards the American claims that Syria harbours terrorism. For its part, Syria can seek to revive the Middle East peace process, which would positively affect the stability of the region. At a minimum, Damascus needs to force Israel back into the framework of the Second Disengagement Agreement of 1974, which has drawn the limits of the no-war no- peace game. * The writer is a political science professor at Damascus University.
