JERUSALEM: It is said that good ideas do not die but wait till their time has come. When I read recently in the press that the American Government, or more precisely the office of George Mitchell, President Obama s envoy to region, had taken up the idea of creating a peace park in the Golan Heights as a way of resolving the Israeli-Syrian conflict, I felt a certain sense of pleasure.
As long ago as 1995, I put forward the idea of a peace park that would include most, but not all, of the Golan. The concept at that time was that the Golan would return to Syrian sovereignty but that much of it would be recognized as an international park or enclave which would be accessible to Syrians, Israelis, and other nationals of the Middle East and elsewhere. It would be controlled by an international commission, specifically created for this purpose, which would be comprised of representatives from Syria, Israel and a selected United Nations agency. A detailed paper was produced outlining how such a park would be managed and how its presence would be advantageous to all parties.
The concept was worked out in some detail at the time, but apart from a couple of articles in the Israeli press and a supportive message from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, it came to nothing. The Syrian authorities, approached by roundabout means, rejected anything which would in the least diminish their sovereignty.
The idea re-emerged during Israeli-Syrian second track negotiations conducted with the support of the Turkish Government in 2008 when one of those most involved in this effort asked for a copy of what I had written, and circulated it to those involved.
It is almost certainly true that without a resolution to the conflict over the Heights there can be no peace with Syria. But Israel s fears about returning the area to Syrian control are not unreasonable. When the Syrian army occupied the Heights, there were numerous incidents which involved the shelling of Israeli communities at the foot of the mountains and constant friction over water issues. On the other hand, there is no doubt in international law that the land belongs to Syria and is being held by right of conquest only.
The creation of a peace park represents a possible way out of this dilemma but will require flexibility on the part of all sides involved. The plan, put forward in 1995, assumed that the park would cover most of the area of the Heights (but not the area nearest to Damascus or close to the town of Quneitra), that the borders of the park would be fenced and that there would be entry points created on both its Syrian and Israeli borders. The whole area would be demilitarized and a specially formed UN force would preserve order within it. Both Syrian and Israeli military personnel would serve in the force, though not forming a majority of its personnel.
The day-to-day affairs in the park, including water management, would be in the hands of the abovementioned specially formed commission that would represent
Syria, Israel and a United Nations agency and have active support of the international community, in particular the members of the Quartet .
Israelis settlers were to be permitted to remain on the Heights if they wished to do so and former Syrian residents permitted to return, though further detailed negotiations would be necessary to determine how many of the descendants of the original residents of the Heights – whose numbers have presumably swollen over the years – could reasonably find a home there.
Israeli citizens who remain on the Heights would be subject to Israeli law but pay local authority taxes to the commission as would Syrian residents.
The existing nature parks and tourist attractions in the Golan would be maintained and a new airstrip built to serve tourists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States for whom the relative coolness of the Heights for much of the year might prove a genuine attraction. The unique biodiversity of the area would be preserved and made a long-term benefit for the entire region.
Of course there are significant obstacles to overcome. Mutual distrust runs deep and the possibility of friction between different communities living in the park has to be faced. It seems evident that an international conference needs to be called to work out the possible details of such a proposal. Funds would be needed for the establishment of a commission, fencing the park area, and ongoing expenses for the security force and the commission staff.
Legal arrangements would be complex and water issues would require special attention.
But the advantages of such a park are evident. All the countries in the Middle East would benefit from an end to the conflict between Israel and Syria and their nationals would be able to make use of the park and, possibly, invest in it. There is no reason why other tourist attractions such as a casino might not eventually be constructed there.
Most importantly perhaps, Israel would be able to enter into a peace agreement with Syria which does not threaten its security or water supply.
Syria would benefit from the economic success of the park and secure its border without great expenditure. Peace between the two countries may in the long run have incalculable benefits for both.
To look seriously at such a proposal will be especially difficult for Syria, whose leaders have so often re-iterated their insistence on full sovereignty over the Golan, but a pragmatic solution such as that proposed may have its attractions for a leadership which is looking to find a new and more positive role in Middle Eastern affairs. In any final arrangements made about the future of the park and its management it must be clear that Syria is the major shareholder in the venture.
I hope that the proposal for the creation of a park can now, with the backing of the US Government, shift from an idealistic and speculative concept to a practical plan. As a first step, the US Government can sponsor talks between the parties to explore the political and practical challenges which must be overcome before the park can become a reality.
Robin Twite is currently Director of the Environment and Water program of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) in Jerusalem. He was for 30 years a staff member of the British Council serving in a variety of countries and worked for some time at the Hebrew University on conflict resolution issues. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
