ANKARA: Amid talk of renewed efforts towards peace in the Middle East, discussion regarding the Syrian-Israeli track in particular is growing. Though an agreement to even restart talks has yet to be made, and admittedly would be difficult to achieve in the current political atmosphere, speculation abounds. Much of the talk centers on Turkey possibly reprising its role as mediator, even in the context of faltering Turkish-Israeli relations. Indeed, as Turkey was key in bringing together Israel and Syria in the past, and was reportedly close to brokering an agreement to restart talks before the outbreak of the Gaza War, it seems a natural candidate to mediate a new round of talks.
But if Turkey intends to resume this role, it could not do so alone. Circumstances being what they are, Turkey could best contribute by using its newfound relationship with Syria to bring the two parties plus the United States together once more. Indeed, Damascus has repeatedly stated its desire to have Turkish mediation, a demand which arguably is bolstered by the growing relationship between the two neighbors. This request gives Turkey leverage to maintain its profile as a player in the peace talks and to buttress its position in the eyes of Washington.
Washington’s attention has also swung towards Syria, seen as a gateway to regional peace. The appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador and Senator John Kerry’s visit to President Bashar Al-Assad are all recent examples of this shift.
But the task of facilitating negotiations will not be simple. Although Damascus welcomes the return of a US ambassador, Syrians are wary of Washington’s clear intent to invest in the Syrian track of the Middle East peace process. Syria appears hesitant to believe that this administration can succeed where others have failed, or that Washington is sincere in its peace efforts. This is especially true with regards to Damascus’ foremost demand that the Golan Heights be returned. Syria is highly unlikely to even agree to talks without some sort of guarantee on the return of the Golan, to which Israelis are publicly opposed. In the wake of the Obama administration’s widely noted failure to prevent further Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, Syrians are sceptical, to say the least, of the likelihood that the United States can persuade Israel to return the Golan.
The strained relations between Israel and Turkey do not help matters. Its increasingly polemical anti-Israeli sentiments have led some observers to posit that Turkey is quickly losing credibility as an equal and unbiased mediator between Syria and Israel. But is an “unbiased” stance necessary for success? Perhaps not.
A brief glance at the history of the Middle East peace talks, from Camp David to Oslo and so on, shows that a “neutral mediator” has not guaranteed success. The United States, though it claims to be an “honest broker”, is viewed as having a one-sided pro-Israeli approach; however, it has presumably had the most success in Middle East peace talks, as seen in the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli peace agreements.
Perhaps the biggest contribution Turkey can make in the near future is in helping to convince Syria to come to the negotiating table. Beyond that, as the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Turkey can trade on its reputation to help bring Syria to the table, but it can’t guarantee a successful Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.
Arguably, Turkey’s potential success as mediator in the Syrian-Israeli peace talks is partial. Ultimately, all parties know that only the United States has the potential to persuade Israel to sign a peace deal.
Kaitlin MacKenzie is a columnist with Turkish Weekly. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
