Bloggers Reject Virtual Syrian Israeli Dialogue

SMN, No. 3, June 17, 2010

A new website fostering online dialogue between Syrian and Israeli intellectuals was criticised by a large number of Syrian bloggers, who stated that they were against carrying out discussions with their Israeli counterparts.

The controversy started following an initiative by Camille-Alexandre Otrakji, a Syrian blogger living in Canada, who set up recently a project called One Mideast, identified as a platform for online discussion on the Arab-Israeli peace process.

“The project, which represents the first joint Syrian-Israeli online discussion of its kind, was formed through the efforts of private individuals – bloggers, academics, political analysts, journalists, and professionals – who embarked on producing an extensive list of objections to peace commonly encountered in both Syrian and Israeli societies,” said a statement published on the website on May 17.

In 2008, Israel and Syria held indirect peace talks under Turkish mediation. But negotiations were halted following the Israeli attack on Gaza at the end of that year.

Instead of looking for common ground shared by both sides, the website lays the arguments against peace for both sides and offers Syrians and Israelis the possibility to argue for or against.

In response to the argument that Israel would not withdraw from the Golan Heights – Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967- because of its strategic importance, one commentator wrote, “Maintaining peaceful relationships would be more strategically important.”

Even though the online project did not publish any names of Syrian participants, media articles about it included the names of Syrian bloggers, like Anas Qtiesh, and prominent analysts because One Mideast had linked to their websites.

Many of those mentioned denied their participation in the project.

“Some news mentioned that I am a participant in the One Mideast project. I want to make it clear that I have nothing to do with it and was surprised to see links to my websites on the project’s homepage. I asked for these links to be removed,” Qtiesh wrote on his blog.

In his post, Otrakji was quoted as saying that the project was not seeking normalisation of relations between Syrian and Israel, but was rather a “duel with words” between citizens from both sides of the border. He said that the project was wholly independent and funded by private donations.

He reportedly clarified that the links to Syrian blogs and websites he put on his page did not mean their owners were participating in the project. He explained that all those involved in the discussions remain anonymous.

Another blogger, Abdulsalam Ismael voiced his rejection of the project on his blog, Matchsticks, in a May 23 post. He accused the project of easing the hostility Syrians harbour against Zionism. He said that until the Syrian political leadership decides to sign peace accords with Israel, communicating with Israelis will be rejected and a crime punished by Syrian laws.

Although there is no direct reference in Syrian law to contacting Israelis, there are several articles that stipulate the punishment of individuals who have ties with an enemy state.

Ismael added that even if peace were to be achieved, Syrian people would continue to oppose normalisation of relations with the Israelis.

It is generally a taboo for Syrians to hold any kind of contacts with Israelis. Syrians in general, no matter what their political affiliations, have deep-seated anti-Israeli views.