Iraq and the Arab-Israel Question
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published December 15, 2006, 3:20 pm in Military / Foreign policy.
The second part of the Iraq Study Group Report (ISGR) begins with "The External Approach: Building an International Consensus." This section is primarily about extending diplomatic relations with countries in the Middle East. It recommends a New Diplomatic Offensive, which is a strange term--offensive--that says that all countries in the region must come together to help Iraq to "support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq," "promote economic assistance, commerce, trade, political support, and, if possible, millitary assistance for the Iraqi government from non-neighboring Muslim nations," "support national reconliation in Iraq," "validate Iraq's legitimacy," and "assist the Iraqi government in achieving certain security, political, and economic milestones" (pages 45-46). This is a summation of ten points, which basically repeat these key ones.
Basically, the idea is this: the main problem with establishing stability in Iraq is that the country is beset with sectarianism--the problem with national reconciliation as the Iraq Study Group calls it. Therefore, Iraq needs the help of each of its neighboring states to help quell this problem. It suggests many times that it is in the interest of all neighboring states to help Iraq, and it provides possible incentives, especially for Iran and Syria. It says that Iran help the Shia population stop violence, and Saudi Arabia, for example, can persuade the Sunnis to take part in the Iraqi government.
None of this is really new.
What I like most about this section of the report is this: "To put it simply, all key issues in teh Middle East--the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism--are inextricably linked." Now that's new. It suggests that these things are not in isolation, and in some ways, this is what G.W. Bush has been saying all along: the war in Iraq is another front in the war on terror. The two are not separable. I might not have said that in 2002, but I agree that he is right at this point. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground, at least to some extent. Whether it was before is definitely debatable. I remember one time hearing some liberal commentator say that if al Qaeda had weapons of mass destruction, the first country they would have used it on would be Hussein's Iraq because that country had reneged on its Muslim foundations. Now that the country is in turmoil, however, it seems up for grabs whether that will remain true, so extremists are fighting to have their way.
Nevertheless, the way the ISGR links every situation in the Middle East is really intriguing, including the entire section on the Arab-Israeli conflict, termed "The Wider Regional Context." It puts it rather bluntly: "The United States will not be ablet o achieve its goals in teh Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflct. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Iraeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palsestine" (page 54). Later, the document says that "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'" (55). 242 is the one that called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," which is the 1967 Six Day War. 338 simply called for a ceasefire and implementation of 242 after the 1973 conflict.
The ISGR also discusses the Syrian/Lebanese problem and calls for joint discussions concerning that and the Israel/Palestinian problem. But let's ignore the Syrian/Lebanese problem (the fact that Syria supports Hamas and Hezbollah in a myriad of ways) for a minute. The fact that the ISGR calls for the resolution of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 242 is a huge step. The effect of this is saying that Israel must give up all of the occupied territories and return to pre-1967 borders. What? An American President/Administration/Congress is supposed to support that? That's what it says.
Notice that it says nothing about the greater details, such as the Palestinian "right of return." That isn't even mentioned, and perhaps the omission is the ISG's suggestions that it isn't a valid point. Also not mentioned is question of Israel's wall or the division of Jerusalem. Fine, fine. That isn't the ISG's main point, anyway. But these are questions that must be dealt with if there is to any true peace in that region. UNSCR 242 is just the beginning of negotiations, and that's all the ISG is really going for. Let whatever negotiations happen that need to happen to secure peace. Don't stipulate the details, but let the countries work that out.
Later, the document says that negotiations with Palestinians should only include those "who acknowledge Israel's right to exist" (56). Dang right. That's what is wrong with trying to negotiate with countries like Iran concerning the problem. Iran suggests that it does not think Israel has the right to exist, which makes its acquiring nuclear weapons even more dangerous. But now that Israel has suggested that it has nuclear weapons, it might be even. The point is that there is no negotiating when one party doesn't think the other party is even a valid entity. Remember the Saddam Hussein or Milosevic trials? Their entire tirades were that the trials themselves didn't have the right to exist when they were in fact trying them. That argument just doesn't work, so don't bother with it. Any country and any person who wants peace in the Middle East must accept Israel as a fact. No denying that it's, well, here to stay.
So what is most remarkable about the ISGR is the fact that it calls for renewed interest in a resolution to the Israel/Palestine situation. It's been a while since real negotiations took place (six years, I think), and it's high time that we got the show on the road again. And let's do it right this time. The Palestinians need to give up some, and Israel needs to give up some. And the U.S. as well as the U.N. needs to right there with them, helping them negotiate and then making sure they stick to it.
I love the way that is tied to the Iraq situation, even though the tie is a bit tenuous in the ISGR. Still, I'm glad it's there.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 93 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment