The Israeli-Syrian Peace Talks: 1991-96 and Beyond
The 1991 Madrid conference set in motion such Arab-Israeli steps toward peace as the Oslo agreement, sealed with a handshake between Yasir Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in September 1993, and the Israeli-Jordanian treaty of October 1994. In contrast, Israel and Syria reached no settlement after negotiating for almost five years. Why this difference? Cobban offers a compelling narrative of these negotiations, which were suspended in spring 1996 when Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres put the talks on the back burner while campaigning (unsuccessfully) for reelection. She has sought out the written and broadcast record -- important for unearthing diplomatic signals -- and interviewed almost all the principal Israeli, Syrian, and American figures. Her findings offer a solid challenge to establishment American and Israeli thinking on the subject. As she argues, both sides seriously sought to settle and almost succeeded. What foiled the agreement was more the leaks, mistakes, and domestic resistance on the Israeli side than the faults on the Syrian side. And the Clinton administration, instead of nudging along both sides as an objective party, passively followed the Rabin-Peres tactics.
Related
With protests raging across the Middle East, how should Washington respond? In an essay from the September/October issue, Robert Malley and Peter Harling argue that the Obama administration must recognize that there is not a clean divide between a moderate pro-American camp and an extremist militant axis.
After more than 50 years of Zionist activities-among them many decades over the international diplomatic front-and on looking back on the experiences gained in the 20 years of the existence of the state of Israel, I am beginning to have doubts as to whether the establishment of the state of Israel as it is today, a state like all other states in structure and form, was the fullest accomplishment of the Zionist idea and its twofold aim: to save Jews suffering from discrimination and persecution by giving them the opportunity for a decent and meaningful life in their own homeland; second, to ensure the survival of the Jewish people against the threat of disintegration and disappearance in those parts of the world where they enjoy full equality of rights. In expressing and explaining these thoughts, I want to make it clear that I have no doubt as to the historical justification and moral validity of Zionism. The concentration of a large part of the Jewish people in their own national home, where they are masters of their destiny, seems to me to be the only way to solve what has been called for centuries "the Jewish problem."
Israel is pushing the Obama administration to tackle Iran's nuclear program before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington shouldn't listen.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.