Growing Tensions on Israel's Northern Frontier

Political rallies like this one are common in Turkey.

Recently, Turkey passed a referendum on changing it's constitution. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is meant to make the country more democratic, and thus more in line with the EU, which it wants to join. President Abdullah Gul said, "All the articles in the constitutional amendment package are about bringing Turkey's standards to the European level under Turkey's European Union membership process.” (Arutz Sheva, 9/13/10) But when it comes to internal politics, this is a big boost to the current ruling party, which is Islamist. The referendum recently took more power away from the judiciary as well, which is seen as the defenders of secularism in an increasingly visible Islamic nation.

When it comes to diplomacy though, this gives Turkey a huge boost. And this could lead to worse news for Israel in the long run, according to the author of the Arutz Sheva article. He reasons that now Turkey will try to implement a peace treaty between Syria and Israel, which has French backing. Although on the surface this seems like a good thing, being forced to sign for peace is never good. This could also lead to signing away the Golan Heights, which is vital for Israeli security to the north.

Israeli commandos boarding the flotilla.

Turkey's aim seems twofold: to not only gain EU membership and support, but to increase it's power in the Middle East. Thus, if it becomes more aggressive with Israel, as the Gaza Flotilla has shown, the world will in a sense care less. This could be very dangerous, and considering Turkey and Israel were once close allies, hurtful for Israel as well. That and a potential alliance between Iran, Turkey and Hezbollah, and you have one very explosive concoction.

Syria has much to gain as well. Signing a peace treaty will give them closer ties with Europe. And as mentioned previously, if they gain the Golan Heights, territory they claim, it is simply the icing on top of the cake. For some time Syria has been seeking a 'just and comprehensive' peace with Israel, with Turkey to be the key mediator, and possible French and EU observations. How permanent this peace will be if it comes is yet to be seen.

Israeli troops on their way to the front, 1973.

The Golan Heights are extremely important for Israel strategically. A hilly area on the Syrian-Israeli border, whoever controls the heights could very well control the war. As seen in 1973, this lead to deadly results on both sides, but Israel was able to maintain it's hold on the area. But there is another advantage; it would bottleneck any potential future Syrian attack. It is very narrow, and Syria's large army would not be able to use their numbers to the fullest potential, something which would give Israeli forces an immense advantage. And since one on one Israel overall is a much more effective fighting force, as seen by previous engagements between the two countries, this all the more important. Lastly, since it is elevated ground, it makes it much easier to detect Syrian troop movements, thus negating any element for surprise.

A UN soldier keeping watch in the Golan.

For Syria, Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli strike on Gaza in 2008, has severely crippled any chances of peace. So now that they seem to be putting the past behind them so quickly, including how in 2007 it's quite possible Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear site, it brings up questions of motives.

Overall, these developments on Israel's northern frontier are worrisome. On the one hand, peace seems possible, and tensions that have been perpetual on the borders could finally end. This could also mean they could concentrate diplomatically on things like Iran or Hezbollah and finally move on. On the other hand, the current peace deal could very well be against Israel's interests, and actually slow down their abilities to deal with the growing Iranian threat. And if it also means giving away a very important piece of land, that could leave them militarily vulnerable, something that could be followed up on if war does break out again.

Peace, it seems, can be quite international.

Although there is bias in the first article, there defiantly seems to be congruence in regards to the first articles claims and what the other articles were stating. A lack of contradiction and since it comes from a reliable news source means I can trust the source, even if it requires a bit of skepticism and a bit background reading. That is because the first article was relating the Turkish referendum and other events surrounding the Middle East at large, thus making the article holistic in it's views. And like I stated previously, an understanding of current events and the past together are essential to understanding even news articles like the first one. What sense would German reunification in 1989 have made if the readers did not understand WWII and it's impact?