Posted on 12/06/2006 12:43:40 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.
The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.
“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”
Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.
“Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."
Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.
“He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit—that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks,” another official familiar with Mr. Cheney’s visit said. “Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis’ attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.”
Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.
“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”
Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party’s leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.
“Everybody has fallen in line,” the official said. “Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq.”
For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.
“We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions,” Mr. Bush said. “I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world.”
Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress—convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections—have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.
“I would look at an entirely new strategy,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”
In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.
“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”
But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.
“Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”
It would make perfect sense to a socialist. Which makes this all the more weird.
Very true. But the Administration should have distanced itself from it and condemned it as soon as it became public.
Israel doesn't need help, particularly to defend themselves against Syria. There's no reason to send American troops to Israel. Except to act as a buffer protecting Syria against Israeli retaliation against shelling from the Golan.
This is pure garbage. I'm sick about it.
Is that ever true. We make the mistake of permitting an enemy to underestimate our will. Not for the first time either.
Israel won't let herself get sold down the river. And American support for Israel is broad based. And not represented by James Baker.
But Baker also wants the right of return? My friend has deul citizenship and thinks none of this will really happen, but he's a lib and I think he's a fool. And yes, he voted Dem.
The only purpose for American troop as a buffer is to die, allegedly giving a reason for the US to enter the conflict.
Howver, given our current level of craveness, I doubt that any level of murder will cause an appropriate response.
And the Israelis would be FOOLS to trust us.
“Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process on each of my trips I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It is the first thing that Arabs--Arab governments—the first thing that Palestinians in the territories—whose situation is really quite desperate—the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don’t think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace."
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker – May 22, 1991
It's seems it always the Israelis fault to James Baker.
It doesn't matter how many Qassam rockets are fired at Israel. How many time Israeli sovereignty is violated by the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas. How many murders the Palestinians commit. It's the Israeli's fault, so sayeth James Baker.
I'm disgusted.
Baker will get the U.S. Judged, he needs to be silenced immdiately.
That's the way I see it as well.
we had a strategy - it didn't work. we gave iraq a democracy and thought they were going to be able to ramp up the institutions needed to sustain it in a 12-18 month time period, especially regarding security.
it didn't work out. now, we are in the "re-plan" phase, and that re-plan may take many forms.
I presume so, but there's no leverage there. Bakers idea of a conference without Israel to avoid Jewish influence won't happen. Hopefully the discussion is limited to a few articles and the internet.
It's more than asinine because they'll come out of the conference with a new Road Map and a laundry list of action items Israel will have to take to mollify the pals.
Memo to Washington: Blackmail never ends.
has there been a statement yet from the administration regarding the Israel, in the context of this report?
Israel would have little problem in a confrontation with Syria (and Greater Syria, aka Lebanon). There'd be no reason for US participation. The role would be the same as UNIFIL in Lebanon, potentially to stand in the way of an Israeli advance. Note the proposal would require Syrian approval, which means approval of the mission as well.
With Olmert in the lead? He had his chance to hand hezbollah their ass on a platter not too long and didn't do it.
And American support for Israel is broad based. And not represented by James Baker.
For Israel's survival and our nation's soul, I pray you're right.
This is a trial balloon, to gauge just how broad and how deep is support for Israel in the US. Many eyes will be watching.
James Baker: A throwback to the Nazi and Communist he is totally anti-American and his Iraq Committee should be called Surrender Monkeys and anti-American SCUM.
What the heck? They already built one at Rice what does he need one at UT for? And I thought the Johnson Library was all about that.
True, but Olmert is Israel's problem, so I'd view it as their choice, rather than being "sold down the river".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.