In this vein, it is not surprising at all that Syria is flirting with both sides of the fence: their dictatorial minority government has to balance between maintaining stability (which involves a degree of compromise with public opinion, i.e. a strong Arabist stance) and leading the country to prosperity – or at least, to relations with Western capitalist countries. The Israeli-Palestinian question is a good cop out for the Syrian government to eschew democracy, but that does not diminish the connection between gov’t and people in this issue: if the gov’t does not deliver on representing the Arabs *in their own terms,* there will be social unrest in Syria. Look at Egypt if you need another example.

However you spin it, Syrians – and Arabs in general – want to have their dignity, just like everybody else. To keep dignity, they need to remain useful and have bargaining power. This means that they are playing two games at the moment, and it will probably end awkwardly for the Syrian government. I am not saying I support their stance, but I understand where they are coming from. Syria is not interested in being handed a peace settlement by Israel, and until Israel takes Syrian interests *seriously* – the Golan – I assure you that weapons will continue to pass into Lebanon and Iraq.