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.”
Maybe once he leaves the GOP base can once again unite to a conservative agenda.
That's the same thing I've been thinking about for weeks.
It is very big indeed for you to admit this. Thanks.
Hopefully they will, to refute it. That's their problem now...stone silence. Silence appears as acceptance or agreement.
Don't laugh too loud. Neville Chamberlain was a hero after the Munich Pact. He was cheered when he came home.
Civ IV uses his "peace in our time" quotation.
"Only Nixon could go to China." Look what that got us.
"Only Bush could capture Iraq and lose the war." This is so bad and it keeps getting more rotten.
The USSR would have collapsed regardless of who was occupying the White House at the time. Bush Sr. raised income taxes after pledging not to. Then, as an election year stunt, reduced withholding without actually bothering to cut taxes thereby screwing millions.
He unilaterally removed shipboard tactical nuclear weapons, and started the "peace dividend" military drawdown that continued under Clinton and which we're still feeling the effects of today.
Not to mention signing the ADA into law.
Just from a crassly political point of view--exactly what reward in this political life can any Repub pol expect for supporting Israel? Be crass, now, and coldblooded for a moment.
Being pro-Israel doesn't get a Repub very far--and look at Soros/Lamont and the Lieberman experience with the Democrats. I don't see many Israel allies in the landscape anywhere. From a coldly political point of view, what politicias should stick his neck out for Israel? How has this come to be?
There are several new Democrat Jews in the 2007 House. Do you think they will be pro-Israel? Should Israel take their support for granted? I don't, but I'm waiting to see.
The left has done a brilliant triangulation with the conservative evangelical Christians by exposing the embarrassment that the bluebloods feel at their presence at the political table. (Kuo may be a self-serving twerp, but his criticisms have resonance.) There were many Republicans who disdained the evangelicals, and this couldn't go on forever without alienating a significant constituency. Now there's that purpose-driven guy who's being courted by some very unembarrassed Democrats. That's enough to chip a significant support away from Israel.
If Condi were pro-Israel there wouldn't be any political reward for being so. That's just the truth.
We have seen our last pro-Israel administration.
Not in this life. I value my soul over the short time I'll be on this earth.
Maybe they should build a few more nukes, and Jericho-II missiles to screw them onto.
From his most recent, and earlier, pronouncements, Ahmadidijad wants to wipe Us
Maybe you are right, I just hope he picks it up. Considering the present situation, if someone like BiBi does not, the last person in Israel can turn out the lights before he/she walks into the sea.
I know that seems flippant, but it seems to me that Israel is getting the short end of the stick on this present surrendering (Iraq Surrender Group) to raghedia. Why does Israel always get the short end of the stick?
I am not a Jew, just a Catholic, and not a very good one, but I have to say that Israel must now consider standing alone.
Historically, it reminds me of Europe, 1938-39. I hope I am wrong.
The Israelis would get something too, "The Shaft". After which they'd use those big phallic symbols they've got out in the Desert. Then Damascus and Tehran, among other places, would get another treat, glowing in the dark.
Stuff and nonsense.
He'll have a longer life expectancy taking on Europe. He ain't ready to play with the big dog. When we get hit, one whiff that it came from him will be the end of Iran.
Israels fiscal lobby has been waining for years against Sunni Arab League and U.N.....decline increases as Persians sit at the table.
Israel is being made to see its place at the table
Some scenario will occur in the future...much like the mixed signals Saddam got concerning Kuwait.
Islam will make a run for Jerusalem.
Bleached Bones lying in the Sun on the Mountains of Israel as the Prophecy goes...will occur.
My moneys on Israel for the Win : )
May be that they have no idea. Could get very interesting once the foretold history comes true.
Wow.
41 should blubber away. He is shameful.
So, in other words, this is an excellent opportunity to strengthen our bitter enemies and screw our good friends.
Such a deal!
Today's leaders have no balls. We need someone with a backbone right now. America is in danger if we continue down this course.
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.