‘Look Who’s Talking’! Unlikely New Voice Makes the Case Against Putting U.S. Troops on the Golan Heights

(Washington, D.C.): Question: What enemy of peace, what underminer of the Mideast peace
process, what retrograde Likud-nik opponent of the Rabin government’s diplomacy with Syria
made the following statement on 5 October 1994?

“Syria is likely to attack Israel even if a peace agreement is reached, if extremist
elements in Damascus are disappointed by it. It is likely that leaders will arise in
Syria who will deploy anew their tanks⁽¹⁾
and planes, and therefore we must be careful.”

Answer: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres!

Vestigial Sanity?

Peres — a charter member of the Labor Party’s left wing, an unstinting enthusiast concerning the
Mideast peace process and an architect of the Rabin government’s so-called “land-for-peace”
strategy with Syria and other Arab foes — is reported by the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot
Aharonot in its 5 October editions as having offered this stunning explanation in response to press
inquiries as to why the Rabin-Peres government was seeking to have American troops placed on
the Golan Heights in the event of a deal with Syria.

One can only wonder at the impact such an uncharacteristically candid statement by Israel’s
foreign minister might have on an Israeli public already deeply uneasy about the wisdom of
relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.⁽²⁾ What is clear, however, is the following: The
admission by a senior Israeli official that war is likely to ensue in a region where his
government wants to have U.S. troops serve as a “tripwire” puts that proposition in a
different — and far more realistic light — than has been done to date by either Jerusalem or
Washington.

After all, Prime Minister Rabin told the Knesset on 3 October 1994: “We will ask nothing else
of the Americans when we achieve a peace agreement with Syria on the Golan Heights
[than to make a deployment like that in the Sinai] — the same thing.” This is, on its face,
absurd. There are, after all, major differences in geography and topography between the Golan
and Sinai and profound differences in the relationship between Egypt and Israel on the one hand
and Israel and Syria on the other (e.g., the point of Peres’ comment), differences which invalidate
any such comparison.

American officials have similarly tended to minimize the risks inherent in such a U.S. deployment
on the Golan, arguing that it is premature to discuss this initiative and downplaying evidence of
continuing Syrian malevolence. For example, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on 4 October 1994, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian
Affairs Robert Pelletreau confirmed that Syria had begun production of lethal Scud-C ballistic
missiles but averred that that step “is not inconsistent with Syrian intent to make peace with
Israel.“

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy has long believed that the insertion of U.S. troops on the Golan
Heights would: invite terrorist or other violent attacks against such personnel; possibly embroil
the United States in a new Middle East conflict; encourage a false sense of security on the part of
Israelis; and ensure strained relations between America and one of its most important allies, Israel.
In light of Foreign Minister Peres’ admission, however, the Center believes that Secretary of
State Christopher simply cannot be permitted to make any commitments to such a
deployment in the course of his trip to the region next week. In light of the Peres statement
and the possibility of just such a Christopher announcement, moreover, the Center believes that
the Congress must begin an urgent examination of the risks associated with any American
deployment on the Golan and insist that the Clinton Administration refrain from pledging the
United States to such a course of action. Such a sequence of events would seem the bare
minimum implied by Secretary Pelletreau when he testified on Tuesday that the Clinton
Administration intended to “consider a request [for U.S. forces to be deployed on the Golan as
part of peace between Israel and Syria] within constitutional processes” by which he said he
meant “full consultation with the Congress … we want to hear the views of Congress.”

As an aid to congressional deliberations and public education on this subject, the Center expects
to release its major study entitled Mission Impossible: The Case Against a U.S. Deployment on
the Golan Heights early next week.

– 30 –

1. The magnitude of Syria’s armored capabilities are awesome indeed. In April 1993, Major
General Uri Sagi, head of the Israel Defense Forces’ Intelligence Branch, noted that:

“…Syria has improved and is improving its tank fleet in a very impressive manner.
If and when Syria will complete its procurement transactions that it has already signed,
all of its armored divisions will be equipped with the latest model T-72 tanks. Today
Syria has over 4,000 tanks and 300 self-propelled artillery tubes that provide it with an
enhanced offensive capability in land battles.”

2. The same edition of Yediot Aharonot reports the results of a poll of young Israelis conducted by
the respected School of Education at the Hebrew University. The poll found that fully 78%
opposed a withdrawal from the Golan. Interestingly, the poll also indicated that a further 70%
felt that the agreement with the PLO would endanger Israel’s security and that terrorism would
continue even in the event of peace. And 63% of those polled said that the continued existence of
Israeli settlements in the territories was more important than peaceful relations with Arab
neighbors.