INTERVIEW with Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich

Conducted by Antonia Dimou

Reproduced by Middle East Observer Issue 2 Vol. 1, April-May 2010

What is your view of the new Turkish foreign policy as promoted by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, particularly in regards to Turkish-Israeli and Turkish-Syrian relations?

The notion of improving Turkey's relations with its neighbours is in itself sound, but the Turkish-Syrian rapprochement is in a separate category. It is related to Turkey's good relationship with Tehran so much so that the Syrians are now boasting of a new bloc in the Middle East. This reinforces the radical camp in Middle Eastern politics. Turkey has distanced itself from what used to be a strategic relationship with Israel. Erdogan may have put his unique personal stamp on this move but there is broad support in his party for at least a measure of distancing from both the US and Israel.

Let’s come to the recent situation between the Turkish and Israeli foreign ministries, with the escalated tensions between the two countries. How much has the recent tension affected the strategic nature of the Israeli-Tuskish relationship?

The question has in fact been answered above. In the give and take between the two governments both sides committed tactical mistakes that aggravated the negative trend.

How do you think that the advanced state of relations between Turkey and Syria effects Syria’s calculations?

Syria feels reinforced by this relationship. In its dealings with the US and the EU, it claims also that Sunni Turkey serves to balance the relationship with Shiite Iran.

On May 2008, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Ankara announced simultaneously in that Turkey has been acting as mediator in negotiations between Syria and Israel aimed at a comprehensive peace agreement. These talks however, reached to an end a year later. How feasible is achieving such a peace agreement?

Turkey is no longer mediating between Israel and Syria and that role is likely to revert back to the US through the work carried out by Senator Mitchell.

Israel and Syria were close to an agreement in 2000. The United States was mediating at that time. Ehud Barak was the Israeli Prime Minister and late President Hafez al-Assad of Syria actually met with President Clinton but the talks collapsed. Why was that, and what are the lessons learnt?

All three parties to the 2000 effort share the blame. In my view, the single most important reason for the failure was al-Assad's illness and imminent death. Physically, mentally and politically he was weakened and he preferred to use his residual power in order to secure his son's succession.

Israel wants Syrians to take some major political decisions in return for the Golan Heights. For e.g. Israel wants Syria to reduce its ties to Hezbollah and to Iran. Is that at all possible and what other Israeli demands are on the negotiating table?

This is, indeed, Israel's major current demand in addition to the familiar demand for a full fledged peace treaty and adequate security arrangements. It is feasible but would require a protracted effort and considerable skills on the part of the US to obtain it.

What are Israel’s non-negotiable premises in an arrangement with Syria? Would it accept a demilitarised Golan, under the supervision of an international peace force?

Israel needs more than a demilitarized Golan. The Golan is too small an area. There would have to be a much larger area of limited deployment and a monitoring station on Mt Hermon.

And do you see any immediate prospects for Syrian-Israeli reengagement on peace talks? Is an agreement, or are negotiations, with Syria any more imminent today than yesterday?

I do not. I think the current priority of both the US and Israel is to deal first with the Palestinian track.

The recent nomination of Robert Ford as the US ambassador to Syria is the first nomination since the American ambassador was pulled in 2005 following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. What do you think the appointment of Robert Ford means for the US-Syrian relationship and US policy?

It was part of the US effort to improve the bilateral relationship with Syria independently of the Israeli issue. The Syrians are good at pocketing such good will gestures.

From your experience, what are Syria’s interests in an improved relationship with the United States?

Syria would like to join the mainstream of international life and to receive US aid, like Egypt. But is the regime ready to take the risk of a genuine opening up?

* Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich is Israel's former Ambassador to the United States and former Chief Negotiator with Syria in the mid 1990's. He is the incumbent of the Ettinger Chair of Contemporary Middle Eastern History of Tel Aviv University. He is currently Chairman of the Board of the Dan David Foundation, Distinguished Global Professor at New York University, a member of the Advisory Council of APCO WORLDWIDE, Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Wexner-Israel Program, a member of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the International Advisory Board of the Brookings Institution in Washington, a member of the International Advisory Board of The American Interest, and a non-resident Distinguished Fellow at the Saban Center, Brookings Institution. He is also Vice Chairman of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an external institute of Tel Aviv University, and a senior research fellow at the Dayan Center for Middle-Eastern studies. Ambassador Rabinovich is a member of the American Philosophical Society, a foreign member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has recently served as Visiting Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.