Iraq Study Group on Israel/Palestine
From the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, released today:
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
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 particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.
The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly:
• There is no military solution to this conflict.
• The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being a nation perpetually at war.
• No American administration—Democratic or Republican— will ever abandon Israel.
• Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the ArabIsraeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence on the ground.
• The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of “land for peace.”
• The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace such as Israel has achieved with Egypt and Jordan.
This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments in the region, especially the democratically elected government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas.
There’s more in the full Report, including some quixotic recommendations on Syria (that it persuades Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, that it stops funding and arming Hamas, that it stop murdering Lebanese leaders, that it orders Hamas and Hezbollah to free the IDF soldiers — in return for which it would receive the Golan Heights).
Full report (pdf).
it looks great but is iran mentioned anywhere? just curious. other than that tho it looks pretty solid.
Does Assad want the Golan back so bad that he would do all those things? Does Israel want all those things so bad that it would give back the Golan? And how does Israel give back the Golan and be sure Syria lives up to its part (no, parts) of the deal?
I can think of lots of reasons why Sinai is not a model for a potential Golan deal, but surely one of the most important is that Egypt didn’t have a Hamas or Hezbollah.
Sam,
Yes, Iran is mentioned quite a bit, including their nuclear ambitions, and today Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Group, said, “Iran probably today is the national power that has the single greatest influence inside Iraq.”
I guess that’s Bush’s gift to Israel.
Zed,
You wrote:
Does Assad want the Golan back so bad that he would do all those things? Does Israel want all those things so bad that it would give back the Golan? And how does Israel give back the Golan and be sure Syria lives up to its part (no, parts) of the deal?
Agreed. That’s why that part of the Report is so quixotic.
I kinda find the logic convoluted here. Syria and Iran are supplying weapons that murder our soldiers in Iraq. Therefore…. Syria should get the Golan? Huh? Wouldn’t that just demonstrate to everyone that anti-American violence is the way to get gifts? Also what do Israel or the Palestinians have to do with Shiite/Sunni mass-murder and mayhem in Iraq? It seems like a total muddle to try and staple Israel into it.
“There is no military solution to this conflict.” I don’t really get what that part means. Israel’s been at peace with Syria for about 30 years since 1973–no peace treaty there. Israel and Jordan were at peace long before there was any signed treaty. And the peace treaty with Egypt hasn’t stopped Egypt from pumping up its army and sending weapons over to Hamas. This focus on having signed treaties seems a little obsessive. Paper is obviously going to be meaningless when it’s compared to a country’s true geopolitical interest. Frankly the “no military solution” line also sounds like it wasn’t thought through very well. After all historically most conflicts actually are solved by military means. Can’t our beltway insiders study history?!