U.S Troops in the Golan Heights?

BY: Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times, November 15, 1994

There’s a debate bubbling up on the sidelines of the Arab-Israeli peace process: Should U.S.
troops be sent to the region to monitor a possible peace agreement between Syria and Israel?
Judging from a poll commissioned by the Middle East Quarterly and carried out on election day
last week, the American public is saying an emphatic no.

Here’s the background: After four decades of nearly unmitigated hostility toward Israel, the
government in Damascus agreed in 1991 to sit down to talk peace with the Jewish state.
Although the talks hit snags over the course of the next three years, they did progress to the point
that the two sides are now within sight of an agreement.

The Israeli leadership has tacitly indicated that, subject to the results of a referendum, it is
prepared to return virtually all of the land seized from Syria in 1967. While the two parties
disagree on the timetable of withdrawal, a compromise here seems possible. The same goes for
security arrangements (Jerusalem calls for mutual reductions and Damascus wants symmetrical
demilitarization), but again these differences do not seem insurmountable.

The only serious issue that divides them concerns normalization of relations: What will peace
look like? The Syrian foreign minister has offered Israel a “warm peace” and President Hafez
Assad himself has spoken of “peaceful, normal relations” with Israel. At the same time, Mr.
Assad refuses to say anything more about normalization. Will it include, as Israel’s Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin insists, “an Israeli Embassy in Damascus, a Syrian Embassy in Israel, an Eggd [i.e.,
Israeli] bus traveling to Aleppo, Israeli tourists in Homs, Israeli ships at Tartus, El Al planes
landing, and commercial and cultural ties — everything, and in both directions”? Mr. Assad won’t
say. He promises to reveal the nature of peace following a complete Israeli withdrawal from the
Golan Heights — and no earlier. This the Israelis reject as completely inadequate, and so the
negotiations lumber on.

Two facts have always to be kept in mind about these talks. First, over five decades, the
Syrians have consistently been Israel’s most ferocious opponent, so that Israelis are more
suspicious of Syrians than any other Arabs. Second, the Israelis will be giving up a tangible asset
(the Golan Heights, a great strategic position) for nothing but words in return. These two factors
render Israelis understandably nervous about the course ahead. Indeed, the Likud Party and even
some members of Mr. Rabin’s own Labor Party don’t like the shape of the impending deal with
Damascus. They are likely to put up a strenuous opposition.

That’s where U.S. troops come in. Hoping to make the deal more acceptable to the Israeli
electorate, Mr. Rabin has raised the notion of placing an American force on the Golan Heights to
monitor the agreement with Syria. The Assad regime likes this idea as well, and the Clinton
administration has indicated it is ready to do its part.

Trouble is, the American people appear to be in no mood for such a commitment. In a survey
of 1,000 voters, the polling firm of Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates found that by a ratio of
3.6 to 1, Americans dislike the idea of sending troops to the Golan Heights. (The exact figures
are 64.3 percent against and 17.9 percent in favor, with the remainder not knowing or not
replying.)

When reminded about previous American experiences with peacekeeping missions, the thumbs
down vote for this mission increases slightly, to almost 4-to-1 against. (Here the numbers are
64.8 percent against and 16.5 percent in favor.)

The poll also reveals that, by a 4-to-1 ratio, American opinion wants this issue to be approved
by Congress before U.S. soldiers pack their bags for the Golan Heights. (70 percent favor this,
17.1 percent think it unnecessary).

These strong opinions appear to be in synchrony with the new, Republican Congress. If there
is one thing that separates Republican from Democrats on foreign policy issues these days, it is a
close attention to American national interests: no troops and no money unless it’s clear that they
benefit the U.S. taxpayer. This is known to be the view of Jesse Helms, the presumptive chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it is likely to be that of Benjamin Gilman, his
counterpart in the House.

The message is clear. Messrs. Clinton, Rabin and Assad have to make a very compelling case
if they are to get their way and station American troops between Israel and Syria.

Daniel Pipes is editor of the Middle East Quarterly, a new journal published in Philadelphia, and
author of a forthcoming book, “Syria Beyond the Peace Process,” to be published by the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy.