Israel Matzav

Raw Diehl

In this morning's Washington Post, columnist Jackson Diehl suggests how Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and American President George Bush might help each other:

The alternative is for Bush and Olmert to dust themselves off, put their heads together and do what comes naturally to both of them -- that is, something bold. What's needed is a game-changing initiative that would break the momentum of Iran and its allies, and energize demoralized Arab moderates -- like Ariel Sharon's 2003 proposal to withdraw from Gaza or Bush's June 2002 endorsement of a Palestinian state.

What's possible? From the American point of view, the obvious answer is a major Israeli effort to encourage the formation of a responsible Palestinian government. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate, has been negotiating with the militant Hamas movement for months about a "unity" coalition made up of technocrats. Israeli officials tend to dismiss the effort as doomed. But what if Olmert were to spell out an aggressive Israeli plan to work with such a government? The plan could start with restoring the Palestinian tax funds that Israel collects but has impounded, and move on quickly to the release of Palestinian prisoners and talks about a negotiated version of the West Bank withdrawal Olmert proposed.

Why this would boost Olmert's popularity is beyond me; Olmert is unpopular here precisely because Israelis realize that his convergence consolidation realignment surrender, expulsion and national suicide plan would endanger Israel's security - and that Olmert has no other plans.

Diehl then goes on to suggest how Olmert might help Bush on the Syrian front:

Among some senior Israeli officials a different but even bolder idea is being quietly kicked around: the opening of a dialogue with Syria. The idea is to flip Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; to induce him to drop his alliance with Iran and join the moderate Sunni alliance that is quietly lining up against Tehran. The Bush administration is loath to talk to Assad, partly because previous efforts have failed and partly because of what he wants from the United States, which is acquiescence to renewed Syrian suzerainty over Lebanon.

Israel cares less about who rules Lebanon. And it has something Assad wants at least as much: the Golan Heights. The Syrian president has been saying for months that he is ready to open talks about a swap of the territory for peace, a deal that his father came within inches of closing 6 1/2 years ago. Until recently Israel had little incentive to make that bargain with Bashar Assad. But the rise of the Iranian threat in the past year has changed the calculus for at least some of Olmert's advisers.

Note that Diehl does not even raise the issue of how Bush might help Olmert Israel. Nothing about developing a plan to deal with Iran when (not if, but when - and the sooner the better as far as dealing with it goes) sanctions don't work (essentially now). Nothing about trying to induce the 'Palestinians' to abandon terror (Diehl even parrots the party line that the Holocaust-denying, terror promoting Abu Mazen is a 'moderate'). Just what we can do for you.

Soccer Dad summed up the one-sided Diehl's suggestions on Syria quite well this morning:

Now this is a very sly way of explaining what happened 6 1/2 years ago. As I recall Diehl's own paper reported that Assad Sr. was leery of deal with Israel because Israel would want normalization with Syria. Apparently like getting back its soldiers alive, Israel having normal relations with its northern neighbor after ceding to it strategic territory is an unreasonable demand. I'm still not sure what Assad Sr. did to get this deal done. I do remember that President Clinton went to Geneva to present PM Barak's offer that included Israel withdrawing from all of the Golan except for a few meters along the coast of the Sea of Galilee, but even that wasn't enough for Assad who refused to budge.

In other words it wasn't that Israel and Syria were deeply involved in negotiations that just missed because of some mis-dotted i's and miscrossed t's. No, it didn't work because Israel failed to meet 100% of Syrian demands. It's funny how everywhere else peace is the result of compromise and negotiations, but for Israel it requires following the absolute demands of its enemies. In other words, for Israel peace sounds a lot like unconditional surrender rather than the end of a process of reconcilliation.

...

So does Diehl really expect that an Israeli proposal to withdraw fully and completely from the Golan will somehow cause Syria to moderate and pull it out of Iran's orbit. The evidence from the past suggests that a withdrawal from the Golan would serve to tell Iran and Syria that this past summer's war did its job and wore Israel down. It would make even more resolute in their mischief making. Just as the withdrawal from Gaza did to the Palestinians.

Four more days to Krauthammer. /sigh

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:43 PM