Michael Oren’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times comes in for some tough criticism at the Commentary blog, where Hillel Halkin chides the usually hawkish Oren for his willingness to “give up the unchanging for the contingent and the certain for the unpredictable.” Rumors of talks between Syria and Israel over the Golan are flying, and Oren says that such negotiations are taking place without American approval. Oren’s analysis is that a peace treaty between Syria and Israel would allow “Israel . . . to address the Iranian nuclear threat–perhaps by military means–without fear of retribution from Syrian ground forces and missiles.” Halkin has a different take. While Halkin is less concerned with American opinion (Oren writes that “the potentially disparate positions of Israel and the United States on the question of peace with Syria could trigger a significant crisis between the two countries”), he counsels against trading away the Golan for so little–“land is an unchanging asset; it never loses its value.” Hezbollah, he says, would still be free to retaliate against any Israeli strike on Iran, while political changes in Syria a few years down the road might leave Israel vulnerable to a more determined enemy on the high ground of the Golan. I find Halkin’s argument much more persuasive.
