November 13, 2007 (LPAC)--The Israeli Defense Forces General Staff are pushing hard for Israel to open peace talks with Syria as soon as possible, writes Ron Ben Yishai, senior commentator for the mass-circulation daily Yediot Ahronot. In fact, recent tensions between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, are the result of the former refusing to follow the Syrian track, while the latter, who as defense minister is representing the view of the military, wants action on it.

While the Mossad, under the leadership of hardliner Mier Dagan, is against opening the Syrian track, the Shin Bet internal security service and military intelligence support an opening. The latter's assessment is that while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would not be able to implement an agreement, Syrian President Bashar Assad is eager for negotiations and is able to implement an agreement.

"In the 60th year of its existence, the State of Israel finally has to produce permanent borders that come with a clear return address, that we can reach understandings with and finalize binding agreements with," Ben Yishai quotes one very senior security official. "We can reach this state of affairs with Syria at this time; with the Palestinians, not yet." Such an agreement would positively effect the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. "If we don't at least try to reach an agreement with Syria, we'll be doing ourselves a disservice." In a reference to returning the Golan Heights in return for peace, the source said, "All of us know what Syria wants, and what previous Israeli governments agreed to give it. It's clear to me that if we have another war today, we'll win. But this war will cause terrible destruction and victims on both sides, and when it's over, we'll sit down at the negotiation table with the Syrians and reach an agreement. So why should we join this march of folly? Why don't we try to enter negotiations at this point already, in order to reach the same result we would be achieving after the war? In my estimate, today Syria is ready for such talks."

Ben Yishai writes that this position contradicts that of Olmert and the Mossad, but Military Intelligence points to the fact that Syria has grown uneasy with its alliance with Iran, and President Bashir Assad wants to see continued economic development in his country, which constitutes the main motive for the popular support for his regime as against the Islamist radicals. For this Assad needs European and American investments.

Barak and the defense establishment think Israel cannot afford to stay away from the Annapolis conference. "Israel must embark on negotiations with the Syrians. Initially, this should be done surreptitiously, through mediators, and later openly."

These sources say this should start after Annapolis, through opening a secret backchannel, perhaps through Turkey, which could lead to a special international summit. The article points out that there have been media reports that contacts are already underway, in preparation for convening such conference in Moscow. But Olmert and the Bush Administration oppose such a move.

Lyndon LaRouche responded: "That is it! Don't let this opportunity pass!"

He continued, "Israelis are not entirely crazy, and not all crazy. They see the losses they incurred in the last war in Lebanon. They know that Israel is no longer of interest to Washington or London, except as a tool. They must make a deal now!"

"All the pieces are coming together," LaRouche concluded.