Sunday, February 04, 2007

James Baker's Iraq Report Wasn't Supposed To Mention Israel

The Forward reveals
Several advisers to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group were surprised and upset by the decision of panel leaders to argue that American success in Iraq depends in part on progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...since they had been told not to address the matter in their recommendations. “They kept on telling us it is a sensitive issue and that it has too many political implications,” one of the experts said.
Instead, the staffers who added the portion of the self-serving report connecting the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq were two men--Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria and Israel and Christopher Kojm--with connections with James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Another example of the games played with the report is that while Israeli officials were not interviewed for the report, almost all Arab ambassadors in the United States were.

As for James Baker himself--when he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this past Tuesday, he defended making the connection between the Israeli-Arab conflict and Iraq:

The former secretary of state said: “Some have asked us: What does the Arab-Israeli conflict have to do with the war in Iraq? Why make one problem harder by taking on two? The answer is simple. It is difficult to establish regional stability in the Middle East without addressing the Arab-Israeli issue. We want other countries, especially the Sunni Arab countries, to help us. When we go to talk to them about Iraq, they will want to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
Why is Baker's logic all wrong? The answer is equally simple. Since the Arabs will not help unless the Arab-Israeli conflict is solved, it stands to reason that the Arabs will not help unless the Arab-Israeli conflict is solved to their satisfaction, which means sacrificing Israel.

From past experience we know this is a detail that does not bother Baker at all.

Technorati Tag: and and .

No comments: