Israel Matzav: Getting something for nothing

Getting something for nothing

In the Middle East, giving an interlocutor something for nothing is considered a sign of weakness. Showing weakness to the autocratic rulers of this region is like showing blood to a great white shark: It's inviting them to come and eat you.

But that's precisely what President Obama has done by announcing his intention to return an ambassador to Syria. And Syrian President Bashar al-Assad showed last Thursday night that he can smell the blood in the water through his meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbullah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, at which they ridiculed the United States.

“In the Middle East, favors are not accepted; you always trade something for something,” said a veteran Israeli diplomat who supports US dialogue with Syria. “If Obama got anything for all he just gave to Assad, it’s a very well-kept secret. He’s still problematic in Iraq, tightening his alliance with Iran, smuggling arms to Hizbullah, moving back into Lebanon and refusing any dialogue with Israel.

When [Yitzhak] Rabin was offering Assad Sr. an opportunity to get back the Golan Heights, we asked for the return of the bones of [Israeli spy] Eli Cohen as a goodwill gesture. We were turned down flat,” he added.

Topping the US wish list are separating Syria and Iran, stopping support for the Iraqi insurgents, halting the arms smuggling to Hizbullah and ending support for Hamas. Assad delivered his rebuff with Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and Mashaal just days after the White House announced the return of the ambassador.

...

So far, all we know is that William Burns, number three at the State Department, met with Assad to inform him of plans to return the ambassador, and the Syrian leader assured him he is not helping the Iraqi insurgents, meddling in Lebanese politics, smuggling arms to Hizbullah or assisting Palestinian terror groups. Burns came away saying he was “hopeful we can make progress together.”

The White House said returning an ambassador “represents President Obama’s commitment to use engagement to advance US interests by improving communication with the Syrian government and people,” but the White House hasn’t answered the big question – where’s the beef?

Assad made it repeatedly clear that his relationships with Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the other terror groups are not negotiable.

So far, all we know is that William Burns, number three at the State Department, met with Assad to inform him of plans to return the ambassador, and the Syrian leader assured him he is not helping the Iraqi insurgents, meddling in Lebanese politics, smuggling arms to Hizbullah or assisting Palestinian terror groups. Burns came away saying he was “hopeful we can make progress together.”

The White House said returning an ambassador “represents President Obama’s commitment to use engagement to advance US interests by improving communication with the Syrian government and people,” but the White House hasn’t answered the big question – where’s the beef?

Assad made it repeatedly clear that his relationships with Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the other terror groups are not negotiable.

In this case, however, the Senate will have a chance to undo President Obama's mistake. Robert Ford, Obama's nominee to be ambassador to Syria, must be confirmed by 60 Senators. Fortunately, there are only 59 Democrats, which means that 60 Senators will not automatically vote in favor of confirmation. And there may even be Democrats that will oppose confirmation (Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, comes to mind).

The critical question here may not be Robert Ford's qualifications for the position. There is a different question that the Senate can and should consider through the confirmation process: Whether this is the appropriate time for the United States to give Syria something for nothing by returning an ambassador to Damascus. Close examination of that question should result in its answer being "no."

Israel Matzav: Getting something for nothing