An amicable relationship between neighbours has to be better than simmering enmity threatening to explode into bloodshed.

So news that Turkey is attempting to broker a detente between Damascus and Tel Aviv allegedly at Israel’s behest is good news. Right?

Not necessarily. For one thing any diehard sceptic who sniffs the air long enough will quickly realise there’s a stench around the timing.

One must surely wonder why Israel is so keen to reel in Syria when for decades of successive governments have shown little appetite for exchanging the occupied Golan Heights for peace.

Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago that Syria was being likened to a “low hanging fruit” ripe for Israel’s picking; naturally with a little help from Washington.

But that was before Damascus got cosy with Tehran, a relationship that enabled it to punch above its economic and military weight by association.

Before then Syria was being mercilessly bullied and blamed for allowing weapons and insurgents to cross into Iraq and for the assassination of Lebanese pro-Western political and media figures, which it officially denies.

It can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Israel has painted the map of Iran with a giant bull’s eye. Belligerent comments from Israeli officials have made their intentions crystal clear: Iran’s nuclear facilities are an existential threat to the Jewish state and have to go.

However, from Israel’s standpoint there are more than a few obstacles in the way, and they are right on its borders, namely the Lebanese opposition group Hezbollah and Syria through which it receives cash and weapons.

The jury is still out as to whether Israel will make good on its threats to strike Iran, but if it is serious then removing Syria from the game with promises of a peace treaty would be a nifty move that would leave Hezbollah high and dry.

It is worth noting, too, that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also been wooing Lebanon and has asked French President Nicolas Sarkozy to act as an intermediary between the two warring states.

It could very well be that members of the Israeli government woke up one morning infused with peace and love. It could also be a trick, designed to isolate Iran and deter Israel’s neighbours from retaliating in the event Iran is attacked.

If that sounds far-fetched a report in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz titled “Former top Israeli diplomat says Syria ready to cut Iran ties” may give this thesis perspective.

The article suggests that Syria wants more than the return of the Golan in exchange for peace. It also wants financial and military backing from the US.

If the report is true, then Damascus is walking a dangerous tightrope between two opposing camps. Certainly, Tehran is rattled by the news that its prime ally is planning to hobnob with its prime foes.

According to the London-based paper Al Sharq Al Awsat the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has characterised the Israel/Syria dialogue as a dereliction of Syria’s duty towards Iran.

Syria risks a worst-case scenario of being dumped by its old friends and new like one of those brides in movies who leave their reliable fiancé for a slick talking glamorous model and then find themselves jilted at the altar.

Even if Olmert genuinely seeks peace with Syria given his personal unpopularity and fragile grip on power due to corruption scandals, he’s hardly the man to succeed where so many others have failed.

But more importantly, the Knesset is pushing through a bill that would give the Israeli people the ultimate say on whether the Golan can be used as a bargaining chip. In other words, there would be a national referendum on this issue.

Israelis would be asked to decide at a time when following the pull-out from Gaza withdrawing from Israeli occupied territory isn’t popular and confidence in any peace process is scant.

Dialogue

In the long run dialogue between Israel and Syria would be desirable but I strongly believe that any peace deal should be comprehensive.

This should include all Arab League members along the lines of the 2002 Saudi Initiative that was first floated in Beirut.

This would not only ensure that Syria wasn’t left out on a limb it would bring stability, economic growth and geo-political clout to the entire region.

It’s understandable that Damascus wants the return of its territory and would like to come in from the cold but President Bashar Al Assad should think long and hard before he decides out with the old and in with the new, especially when the new in this case is known to be duplicitous.

Far better to wait and see. Who knows what opportunities a shift change in Tel Aviv and Washington might bring?