DATE=10-09-03

TYPE=INTERVIEW

NUMBER=3-806

TITLE=ISRAEL-SYRIA

BYLINE=DAVID BORGIDA

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

INTRO:

Syria is in the news this week: Israel bombed a purported terrorist training camp near Damascus, and a U.S. congressional committee voted to impose sanctions on Syria for failing to end support for terrorist groups. The White House has indicated that it has no objections in principle to the legislation. To gain some context of these developments plus related events in Israel, NewsLine's David Borgida spoke with Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow and a foreign policy expert at The Brookings Institution in Washington.

MR. BORGIDA: And now joining us from the Brookings Institution here in Washington, foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon.

Mr. O'Hanlon, thanks for joining us. A lot to talk about in terms of Syria and in the Middle East. Let's begin with Syria. Does it appear that this is in fact an escalation, a widening -- I believe as the Syrians have said~-- of the entire Middle East conflict, the fact that the Israelis launched that attack on what they claimed was a terrorist training ground and now there has been some rhetorical back-and-forth?

MR. O'HANLON: Well, I think Israel, frankly, was throwing the dice on this. They knew that Syria was not the fundamental problem they faced or the fundamental cause of the problem, but they needed to try to ratchet up the temperature in the region, hoping that some Arab states or the United States would then make a decision to put more pressure on the Palestinians, in the fear that otherwise things could get out of control. I don't think Israel had a real clear direct military purpose for this strike, in other words.

It may or may not have had terrorist-related purposes at one time, this particular camp, but it was not the central organizing element or central sanctuary of any anti-Israeli terrorist groups as far as I can tell. So I think it was more of a political move to try to ratchet up the temperature in the region, hoping somehow that would lead to a breakthrough. I think it was in some ways a desperation move.

MR. BORGIDA: Let's talk a little about this legislation on Capitol Hill. It was passed by a key committee. It goes to the House of Representatives and of course has to go on then to the Senate and final approval. But is this a statement, a symbolic statement, made by members of Congress, and indeed the Bush administration, about their feelings about Syria?

MR. O'HANLON: Yes, but it's more than symbolism. The Syria case is actually very complex, because there is good and bad news. Syria has done some things we wanted. For example, it appears that Qusay and Uday Hussein may have been in Syria back in the earlier post-Saddam period in Iraq before being expelled, before returning then to Mosul and ultimately being killed by coalition forces. So there Syria appears to have helped.

Syria may also have had other top members of the former Iraqi regime on its territory and ultimately expelled them. However, there appear to be more Syrian fighters, or people from Syrian territory, coming through into Iraq and joining the ranks of foreign jihadists than we would like, many more than we think Syria should be tolerating. And frankly, we don't buy the argument that Syria is trying its best to stop this flow of foreign terrorists.

And that's obviously of huge concern to the United States, because the entire success of the mission could hinge on our ability to stop these foreign jihadists from coming into Iraq and causing trouble. Then of course you have the ongoing support for anti-Israeli terrorism we were discussing a second ago.

You put all that together and it's a mixed bag. And I think the Bush administration is basically saying to Congress, go ahead, give us some more leverage, give us some more tools against the Syrians. We're not yet sure if we want to use them; that depends on Syrian behavior, but it can't hurt to be prepared just in case the Syrians let more terrorists through into Iraq in the coming weeks.

MR. BORGIDA: Mr. O'Hanlon, let's touch on the state of Palestinian politics at the moment. Frankly, I was a little surprised to be finding out that Mr. Qureia, the latest prime minister, is now threatening to quit over some problems with the makeup of that new Palestinian government. What is your assessment of that?

MR. O'HANLON: My assessment is that even someone like myself who can be critical of Israeli policy on many issues, including settlement policy, has to acknowledge that Arafat is a big problem. And frankly, going back to 2000, when Arafat had a pretty good deal and turned away from it during the last months of the Clinton administration, throughout the tenure of the Bush administration he just continues to be a problem. And he's a problem for his own moderate Palestinians who really cannot work with him. Arafat is clinging on to power, clinging on to influence, not making tough decisions about going after his own terrorists or reforming his own security services. And frankly, I am not surprised, because I've given up hope on Yasser Arafat.

MR. BORGIDA: Well, then I have to ask you, as I've asked other analysts that we've had on NewsLine in recent weeks, what next then? A number of people, including the Bush administration, are criticizing Mr. Arafat, many of them calling him a key problem in the region. There are others, to be sure; it's a very complicated, multi-layered situation. But could I ask you, Mr. O'Hanlon, what is the way out of this if Mr. Arafat is entrenched and remains the biggest problem according to some people?

MR. O'HANLON: I don't claim to have a solution. And I think that we may have to be patient, until Arafat is gone. But I think, in the meantime, what you can do is try to influence those policies you do have some control over. And I'm speaking now of both the United States and Israel.

I think Israel's continuation of its settlement policies and its willingness to build this security fence in a way that protects some settlements, these are both major mistakes. Israel should make its moral case for its own policy unambiguous and crystal clear and compelling. It should not do things that are in violation of international law or the fair and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. And therefore settlements are the problem; Israel should not wait to trade those in when it gets a peace deal. It should begin to curtail them right now.

Do I think that will be a solution, however, as long as Arafat is around? Probably not.

MR. BORGIDA: Well, a very difficult situation. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, talking to us about both Syria and inside the Palestinian political dilemma at the moment. Thanks so much, Mr. O'Hanlon, for being with us today.

MR. O'HANLON: My pleasure, sir.

(End of interview.)

NEB/PT