In order to play a reasonably constructive role in the search for a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the United States should approach all new peace talks from the perspective of compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, international law and long-term stability in the region and not succumb to their ideological and geopolitical prejudices. American leaders must also recognize Syria`s enormous progress towards peace with Israel. So far, Washington has not done both. The United States must either play a more responsible mediator role or entrust the task to the United Nations, the European Union or another more objective body. Given that Israel is widely regarded in the United States as a pro-Western democracy and that Syria is a dictatorship that once had close relations with the Soviets, there has been an understandable bias towards Israel in the peace process in the United States. This perspective is compounded by the fact that the Syrians have refused to negotiate most of Israel`s history, financed terrorist groups that have attacked Israeli civilians and sought the destruction of Israel. As a result, few Americans recognize that Syria`s position in the current negotiations is indeed more moderate than that of Israel, with Syria more in line with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 or “country for peace” that the United States promised to base on the talks when they opened in Madrid in 1991. On 12 December, an agreement was reached:  34 opposition groups and individuals allied themselves as a “high negotiating committee”.  These include Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, but also not Syrian Kurds and some moderate members of the Russian-backed opposition.  Two of the 34 members are women, supplemented by a women-only advisory board known as the Women`s Advisory Committee. At the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit, held from 26 to 31 August 2012 in Tehran, Iran, attended by leaders from 120 countries, Iran intended to develop a new peace resolution aimed at resolving the Syrian civil war.  But no consensus was reached between the leaders. Following the Syrian government`s agreement on the 19 December CL plan, the AL sent a surveillance mission to Syria. The violence continued and Saudi Arabia withdrew its observers from the mission and urged Russia, China and all other states to put pressure on Syria to strongly comply with the ACCORD peace plan. The Arab League completed its monitoring mission on 28 January 2012.  1. The state of war between Israel and Syria (the “parties”) is thus put to an end and peace between them is established. The contracting parties maintain normal and peaceful relations in accordance with Article III. On 3 October, the United States announced the suspension of talks with Russia on the implementation of the agreement, marking the end of the ceasefire agreement.  with a view to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the framework of the peace process begun in Madrid on 31 October 1991; These economic difficulties explain why ordinary Syrians hope that peace will improve their living conditions.
The chatter in the circles of the regime in Damascus is that if peace is signed, the Syrian regime would only reclaim the Golan Heights by name and rent it to Russian real estate developers, as they did with the port of Tartus. The United States asserts that it is impartial with Israel and Syria. But even the “middle ground” between the two sides would not be reasonable, since the Syrian demand for a total withdrawal from the Golan is supported by the explicit edifice of a legally binding document on which the peace process is based, while the Israeli demands that Syria has not yet met do not have such a legal basis.