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.”
That fabulous Baker boy ping!
Paging Bibi, please pick up the white courtesy phone...now.
He gets it, he's looking for a deal that will put Syrian and Iranian aggression off till we've withdrawn, and hopefully till a new administration is in office. As to trusting them, unlikely. We can bribe them though, give Iran free reign in Iraq, allow them to go nuke and agree to prevent an Israeli strike. For Syria, we can offer influence in Iraq, and more importantly Lebanon. The Syrians likely realize they can't dominate Iraq. For the Kurds, the Kurds, who are they. And for the Saudis, we'll harm Israel a bit.
It's 1938 all over again! Israel's future should be decided at a conference to which Israel is not invited. Baker should be excoriated for suggesting this! Who dragged this lawyer for the Saudis into the discussion? Bush 41? Bush 43 is twice the man Bush 41 was.
in Arlington? or Austin?
Good grief. A new evil emerges on every page. Is this what American Jews wanted to vote for when they helped put the Dems in power?
Not that I think Baker and his damfool circus knows or can find their heads from a hole in the ground, but this article cites more unnamed "officials" than flies on manure.
the administration didn't "float" this - this is what Baker and the committee came up with, its not an administration proposal.
Not surprising for a dyed-in-the-wool Israel hating traitorous globalist.
"Baker should be indicted for this travesty."
He's nothing but a K Street suckup for the Saudis. What a collection of whores in Washington!
You may very well be right.. The capitulation and sellout continues.. Israel is the sacrificial offering..
Israel needs Bibi more than ever, now.
It is an open secret that Baker had sold his soul to the Saudis.
Baker=Backstabber.
The US cannot be a part to selling out Israel with a stab inb the back like this and Baker should be run out of the country for suggesting it.
The plain said truth is that many American liberal Jews are very much anti-Israel.
This is totally depressing. Time to bombard the WH with emails and phone calls.
The sound bite they are playing on radio news is Baker saying" We have to talk to our enemies."
In Hell, Hitler and Tojo must be beside themselves wishing Baker had been around then while they were on a rampage for world domination.
Yes the Iraq study group released their report. The analysis can be summed up in one word.
SURRENDER.
I haven't seen details either, just summaries of the executive summary, but I think it's Baker's idea, not part of the formal report. I've seen the following quote in a couple articles.
“there must be 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.”
which would imply Baker is acting on his own.
I'm curious about the source of the Jewish influence quote as well, sounds like Baker but hard to imagine he's that stupid.
Excerpts at
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=7e9e2dec-3b53-4fb5-92c5-a9341c36c910
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=5914
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06429635.htm
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.