Nov 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Syria First
Aaron David Miller makes the case for a “Syria first” approach to Middle East peace. I think there are some reasonable elements to that, and it would help lay the groundwork for the kind of approach to Iran the president-elect says he wants to pursue. But I don’t think US policymakers can afford to think that the Palestinian issue can just fester indefinitely merely because it’s not convenient to deal with.
43 Responses to “Syria First”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
It’s festered for 60 years. What’s 60 more?
November 26th, 2008 at 10:42 am
There are obvious local wrinkles, such as the forthcoming Israeli election (Feb 10), which means that it’ll be at least a couple of months, given horse-trading and extortion by the smaller parties, before the US knows who’ll be around… well, until one of the small parties has a hissy-fit and new elections are called.
Still, Obama obviously has a preference for who he’d like as Israeli PM, even as Bibi rips off his website, and he’s presumably smart enough to realise than any policy moves on the region will be second- and third-guessed in the context of the campaign.
Now, it would be nice if Israel didn’t have a de facto veto over every aspect of US regional policy, but we are where we are. My gut feeling is that there’s a generational shift in progress in Israel too. Not enough to give up the Golan, though, which is why I think Miller is overambitious here: that only comes with security plus time.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:43 am
If an Israeli/Palestinian deal is not possible, why expend President Elect Osamas’ credibility on a failed attempt to achieve it. Unlike armchair kibitzers Yglesias and DTM who have no experience in dealing with the principals involved in the issue, Mr. Miller has had long experience in the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations and knows the players well. If he says that a settlement can’t be achieved now, I’ll take his word for it over the likes of Brzezinski and Scowcroft.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I think that the idea of needing a foreign policy success early on is a good one. The US has a huge image rebuilding task ahead, and this might be a good place to start. Not exactly low-hanging fruit, but definitely lower than Israel/Palestine.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
SLC: since you’re readying a jar of Vaseline for a ‘Hama Rules’ snuffporn session, your opinion on this is worth less than a pile of dogshit.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I have made that argument before. I think it would make a lot of sense if Obama focused on Syria at first because the odds of reaching some kind of peace are much better than trying to reach a deal right away on the Israel-Palestine conflict or on Iran. He could then build on that success to reach a deal with Iran and maybe in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But I doubt Obama will go this way, I have the impression that he will attempt to go for the home run and try to reach a comprehensive deal on the region (the Arab Peace Initiative plan).
But then again, all those plans amount to nothing until we know who wins in February in Israel.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Pursuing an Isreal-Syria deal makes a lot of sense.
Re; Palestinians: Who would the Isreali’s do a a deal
with?
The Palestians are in the middle of a civil war; any deal
with the Fataf factions is not going to bring an end to
that or be acceptable to Hamas.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Require Israel to unilaterally remove all the settlers on the lands conquered in 1967, first, then negotiations with all and sundry can plausibly begin.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Re otto
Mr. otto is totally full of shit. The sticking point between Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders is the demand of the former that persons living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel, a stance that Mr. otto is on record as supporting. Removing settlers and withdrawal to the 1967 Green line will not lead to an agreement.
Re pseudonymous in nc
Mr. pseudonymous can take his fucking comment and shove it up his fucking ass, after his gentleman friend removes his dick.
Re DTM
Excuse me, I posted a comment stating the impossibility of an agreement between Israel and Palestine before Mr. Millers’ oped was published. The fact is that, unlike Mr. DTM, Mr. Miller has expertise in this area and knows the players well. So who should President Elect Osama listen to, the man with experience or the armchair kibitzer?
Re Don
Mr. Don makes a good point. Even if Palestinian President Abbas wanted to make a deal, he would be totally unable to enforce it. On the other hand, Mr. Haniyeh has no interest in making a deal, unless the Government of Israel would agree to go out of business; in that case, he would be delighted to make a deal.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Note that Syria just gave its highest honor to Samir Kuntar for bashing a four year old girl’s head in. Charming country. Easy to work with…
November 26th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Probably not a fun place to have a pub crawl in, but they’ve got a pretty simple interest as far as Israel is concerned. Give them Sheba Farms and some cash, in return for them dialing back support for Hezbollah; and throw in some security guarantees regarding regime change that depend on them playing nice with Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon.
That’s probably not a bad basis for starting talks. It might not go anywhere, but if it doesn’t then the worst that you get is the status quo, which by the standards of the Middle East, isn’t that bad.
I seriously doubt that there is a non-negotiable Palestinian stance on repatriation is that all refugees must be allowed their right of return, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Show up, make them an offer of the 1967 West Bank, East Jerusalem as home base but under with an international police, and a pile of cash. Maybe they say yes, maybe they say no, maybe they start negotiating; but just because people are talking stupid in press releases and speaches doesn’t mean that that is their absolute bottom line. Both the Israeli’s and Palestinian’s BATNAs pretty much suck ass, so as long as you don’t have a complete nutter running the joint, there is an incentive to get a good deal done. And for the record, even on team Hamas, I don’t think you get to be at the top of the food chain by being a complete nutter. The nutters are the ones who are willing to try and set up a mortar within line of sight of a Israeli main battle tank. Those guys don’t last long.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I seriously doubt that there is a non-negotiable Palestinian stance on repatriation is that all refugees must be allowed their right of return, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
And yet, that’s what the Palestinian Authority’s media has been telling its Arabic audience the entire time. That there is a non-negotiable stance on exactly that.
Show up, make them an offer of the 1967 West Bank, East Jerusalem as home base but under with an international police, and a pile of cash.
An international police like Unifil? Any other bright ideas?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Re daveNYC
It would be a big mistake to characterize the Hamas folks as nutters. Within their world view, their demands are perfectly rational. Their position is that the State of Israel is an imperialistic implant in the Middle East and is thus not legitimate. Therefore, no compromise leading to a final settlement is possible with them as their bottom line demand is that the State of Israel go someplace else. Since the Government of Israel has no intention of going anywhere else, there is nothing to negotiate. These are serious people with a serious agenda and, IMHO, cannot be bought off.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Aaaron Miller is a Jewish neocon, skip the lite. His pov should be given all the great weight of Joe Lieberman’s latest pronouncement on *The War On Terror. As the Baker-Hamilton U.S. Study Group and Jordan’s King Abdullah pointed out – the #1 Priority is to effectuate a just and sustainable resolution to Israel/Palestine.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The PLO eventually gave up on the idea that Israel had to be destroyed. It might still be in their charter, but all political parties have crazy stuff in their platforms that will never come about. I don’t see a reason why elements of Hamas, at least the ones in Gaza, where they have some skin in the game, wouldn’t be interested in some form of a deal. Right now, if Hamas busts out the rocket attacks, then Israel seals the borders and lays the military smackdown. Unfortunately, if Hamas behaves themselves (relatively speaking), Israel seals the boarders and lays the military smackdown (although at a slightly quieter volume). There’s no upside for anyone in Gaza regardless of their behavior. That’s not even getting into the fact that the situation in the West Bank hasn’t changed, even though the Fatah government, as far as I’ve read, has been pretty well behaved.
Israel’s unwillingness to push back against expanding settlements or illegal outposts is sending the message that no matter what the Palestinians will get screwed.
If Israel doesn’t want to deal (that is talk, not necessarily have a settlement) with Hamas, then they’re free (although short sighted IMO) to do so. To refuse to deal with Fatah in any meaningful manner, indicates to me that they’re either uninterested in any deal, or that they’re unwilling to pay the political price that a deal would involve. If it’s the political price that is the problem, then that means that both sides of the conflict are being controlled by their extremist elements.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Again, DaveNYC, that is NOT what the PLO says in its media in Arabic.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
So? What are they doing about it? Politicians pounding out their usual talking points for PR purposes. BFD. What’s your plan then? Continue to blockade Gaza and expand the settlements? The eventual end game of that scenario is immoral and/or impractical, resulting in another blockaded Gaza type region or two, or just straight up ethnic cleansing.
Since when did “never again” become “never again (to us)”?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Re Trevor
Mr. Trevors’ idea of a just and lasting settlement of the Israel/Palestinian dispute is like that proposed by Hamas, namely that the State of Israel go somewhere else.
Re daveNYC
Mr. daveNYC continues to treat the folks running Hamas as if they were not serious people who say what they mean and mean what they say. That notion is seriously in error. When they say that they will never accept the State of Israel, I take them at their word. I think they mean it and I don’t think they can be bought off. Their position is that they can outlast the Israelis, just as their antecedents outlasted the Crusaders and they are willing to undergo any deprivation in the pursuit of that goal. They couldn’t care less how many Palestinians may be killed in the pursuit. In fact, their position is the more the merrier as it attracts sympathetic responses from people like Mr. Don Williams and the other Israel bashers on this blog.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
So, DaveNYC, after spending 33 years promising the residents of the West Bank and Gaza that on independence, the PLO would use those areas as a launching pad for attacks on what remains of Israel, those residents will expect follow-through. And they do.
At a bare minimum, before taking this kind of risk, the Israelis have every right to demand that the PLO backtrack on this promise. In Arabic.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Matt: “it would help lay the groundwork for the kind of approach to Iran the president-elect says he wants to pursue”
Matt once again completely ignores Obama’s stated “approach” – “aggressive sanctions” and a “blockade of Iran’s refined petroleum imports” – otherwise known as an act of war.
Not to mention Obama’s stated goals in Iran – “no centrifuges” – exactly the same goal as one George W. Bush.
And no, Obama has explicitly NOT taken military action “off the table”, contrary to Matt’s earlier assertions, and exactly like one George W. Bush.
Nor will Obama go to the UN for sanctions for that military action – exactly like one George W. Bush.
Matt is one fucking ignorant, conceited, and very lame wannabe foreign policy pundit – who apparently also can’t read as well as can’t think.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Re Richard Steven Hack
Mr. Yglesias may not be the sharpest tool in the box but he’s light years ahead of Mr. Hack. Unlike Mr. Hack, he hasn’t held up any banks and he hasn’t spent 9 years in the slammer.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Given the current Nazi Israel siege of Gaza – bringing up “Syria First” would be as if during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – Himmler was taken seriously by saying we needed to ” tackle the Maltese monarchy ascension first”. Or, because SLC has designated the Palestinians as “filthy shvatz goyim who need to be exterminated” – you all go along with that as that’s the Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller “centrist position”.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:17 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 5:13 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:06 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra