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.”
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
This certainly makes sense. Why should Israel be invited to a conference determining her future.
As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure
Those diabolical Jews. If the quote is true, Baker is to be congratulated for again raising the specter of Republican antisemitism. Evangelicals will have to content themselves to being part of the larger Amen Corner conspiracy, not included here.
At least when Hillary goes to war, she goes to win.
Bush Sr presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberated Kuwait, defeated Sadaam, and unified Germany in NATO, to name just a few. His disaster was political.
Baker represents "republicans" as a whole now? what about the Dems, they support complete surrender against islam and in iraq, yet I don't see you calling them anti-semites?
Warning, Warning, Warning.
Baker is working for the Saudis, on this and everything else.
This conference is a Saudi design from the get go.
The "conference" would be brought togther by the US, as a creation of a US "foreign policy initiative".
As Baker has said, Israel is to be excluded from the "conference".
In spite of US objectives in putting the "conference" together and in spite of an initial agenda based on those objectives - all related to Iraq mostly, the US will:
1. Be unable to control the agenda,
2. Unable to control the "conclusions and recommendations" of the "invited participants"
3. Unable to prevent the Saudis and the Iranians from subverting the entire affair into one in which the sponsor of the "conference", the U.S., is asked to sign on to the "results" of the agenda, which will be:
"Dismantle Israel and we will stop the terrorists"
It is set up and Baker knows it.
Txsleuth: This stinks out loud.Williams: This thing really is an outrage.
If the Jews are part of a worldwide conspiracy and if Israel is an illegitimate state, it makes perfect sense.
Jimmy Carter wouldn't be bold enough to make a proposal like this, Buchanan or Duke would, but he'd be on board.
A shame it comes from the lips of a prominent Republican.
It's an article proposing things that are not consistent policy that is completely based on supposed leaks by unnamed officials "familiar" which what is going on.
When you have a report based on unnamed sources that appears a bit outrageous, it almost always is.
The closest they get to substantiating anything in the article is a couple quotes by Gates that could easily be taken out of context.
The article amounts to gossip at best.
If they're on board do we indict Condoleezza Rice, Nicholas Burns and John Negroponte too.
The Dems are going to LOVE this circus.
I think I am just about tired of traitors and backstabbers.
When the next terrorist strike hits us, I believe the US will become an all out civil war zone.
Just before the United States entered WWI on the side of the Allies it was given a copy of the Zimmerman Note or Telegraph. This note proposed:
"Zimmermann's message included proposals for German support of a Mexican offensive on the southwestern United States in the event the United States attacked Germany. The telegram made it clear Germany did not want the United States involved in the war, stating the belief that Britain would be forced to surrender soon. The Japanese government would also join this new alliance in a possible conflict in the Americas. Germany, for its part, would provide financial assistance and the restoration of the former Mexican provinces of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado- all American States."
It caused an uproar in the US and coupled with the loss of US citizens at sea due to Imperial German submarine attacks on Allied shipping, lead to US entry in 1917. (BTW, Wilson who ran on the slogan, "He kept us out of war," lied and people died), argued that it was a causus belli before his address to Congress seeking a declaration of war.
Fast forward to present day. The Baker-Hamilton Commission offers the following advice to the President of the United States:
In order to get Syria to cease allowing the flow of men and arms into Iraq (a concession BTW that they are directly involved in current attempts to destabilize the situation there) the administration is to make a:
"... renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and Syria."
What this means it that an attempt will be made to bribe Syria to stop the flow of men and money into Iraq by giving it Lebanon and the Golan Heights. If the US adopts such a position are we no better than Imperial Germany was at the onset of WWI in offering Mexico (Syria) concessions in the US (Israel) to gain an advantage.
It is stipulated that Israel has atomic weaponry. If we go along with this madness they may end up using them against us.
Believe me, it ain't just you!
It's riduclous, and a sell-out. We are shafting our friends and allies to appease our enemies. If any of this is acted upon, the lesson the world will learn is that it's more dangerous to be a friend of the United States than it is to be an enemy.
You know what makes me angry? Here at UT they're building the James Baker Center for Public Policy. Tore up valuable parking space to do it, too. It makes me want to spit every time I walk by the place.
This is pure nuts. Surely this "plan" is a misunderstanding? What do they think they will get from all the Arab and Persian countries if they discuss Israeli territory? I hope this article turns out to be bogus. If not, then we are well and truly sold down the river by our gub'mint. And I include "conservatives", liberals, R's, D's and botched jokes.
The Baker Doctrine: F*** your friends to please your enemies.
Give this two weeks and we may hear this ... I dearly hope.
I am just speechless.
What is it about the State Department that turns its appointees and staff into fools, cowards, and traitors?
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.