The Syrian Image Machine Cranks Up : Assad’s decision to let Syrian Jews go is one thing, his terrorist policies are another

No ordinary citizen of President Hafez Assad’s Syria is really free. A pervasive secret police presence fosters a climate of fear, with torture and official murder routinely used as instruments of control. Assad is a bitter rival of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, but they are alike in justifying any means to hold on to their power.

For decades, the 4,500 members of Syria’s Jewish community have faced especially onerous restrictions, including tight limitations on foreign travel.

The regime’s rationale was that if they were free to travel, the Jews would move to Israel, with which Syria proclaims itself to be in a state of war. Those Syrian Jews who were allowed to go abroad had to leave behind at least one family member as a hostage.

This week, Syria said that it plans to change its longtime policy. Jews will be allowed to freely dispose of their property and will be granted the same travel rights that other Syrians have. Emigration is still banned, but Syrian Jews able to leave the country are likely to find opportunities not to return.

The Bush Administration has claimed some credit for encouraging Damascus’ decision. The question that hangs in the air is what reward Assad may expect to receive for his gesture. It’s known that he’s particularly eager to be dropped from the State Department’s list of countries that sponsor terrorism. Certainly for now that would be unwarranted, because no evidence exists that Syria has in fact abandoned its backing of international terrorism.

More immediately, Assad may be seeking a general polishing of his image in the Western World, now that the patronage of the Soviet Union has been lost. Syria’s somewhat surly participation in the U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace talks, which have resumed in Washington amid signs that substantive progress may be possible, has been one indication of such a tactical shift.

The right response to Syria’s new policy is to welcome it for acknowledging, decades late, that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right, the allowing of which should not merit any special praise or reward.