 |
Morris Amitay , a Washington attorney, is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (www.washingtonpac.com).
|
|
|
|
By Morris Amitay
January 11, 2007
 Bookmark to del.icio.us
The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) have been justifiably derided by many experts more eloquent than myself. But one adjective used to describe this shoddy effort that stood out for me was "fatuous", defined by Webster's as "foolishly stupid".
Actually, the portions dealing with the region go beyond foolish stupidity and could be viewed as being closer to appeasement of sworn enemies of the U.S., and indicating malice toward Israel. The Report could also serve as an example of Churchill's definition of a second marriage -- "the triumph of hope over experience". Or, as one pundit put it "the victory of assertion over analysis". Surely our experience with Iran and Syria should have taught us what a fool's game it must be to rely on one's enemy to save you. Under the heading "Throw the Iraq Report in the Trash," Max Boot aptly described it as "an anticlimactic combination of banalities, leavened with generous dollops of wishful thinking,". He was being too kind.
Then again, what should we have expected from a group clearly dominated by James Baker, assisted by his trusted lieutenant and former ambassador to Syria, Ed Djerejian - and staffed by a collection of "experts" many of whom are charitably known as "Arabists". Among them were such notable "lovers of Zion" as Charles Freeman, Bill Quandt, and Shibley Telhami -- a host of lesser-known lights whose biases are a matter of record. With such a combination of Neville Chamberlain look-alikes and "blame Israel first" adherents, their assertion that settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (on Arab terms) would help solve our problems in Iraq was predetermined. Did they really believe that Sunnis and Shi'ites there would stop killing each other if the Palestinians had a state of their own?
Thankfully, the ISG's other basic premise, that Syria and Iran could somehow be induced to help us out of our predicament sufficiently strained the credulity of a host of commentators. Instead of being punished for their subversion of neighboring states, Iran and Syria were to be rewarded by the legitimization of their terrorist-aiding regimes.
There is certainly something wrong with this picture unless you adhere to the "stability uber alles" line peddled by the so-called "realists". Is it really believable that the U.S. and Iran have common interests in Iraq -- or anywhere else for that matter? How realistic is it that the Report's call on Israel for immediate negotiations with a terrorist-supporting regime like Syria could lead to the return of the strategically vital Golan Heights? And even assuming the Israelis agreed to it -- what could Syria actually do to help us in Iraq? For friends of Israel this recommendation was what rankled most since it demonstrated an utter disregard for Israel's security. Essentially it represents a betrayal of a reliable, democratic ally, in order to curry favor with a foe of both Israel and the United States. By calling on Israel to return the Golan Heights, Baker revealed the depths to which he has sunk in his insensitivity to the welfare of the Jewish State.
A disturbing aspect of Baker's primacy in creating this Report is his long-standing relationships with the Saudis, including lucrative financial ties. But conceding the point that Baker isn't in it for the money -- of which he has plenty -- what could be his motivation? It is easy to imagine that he always considered himself much smarter than the Presidents he advised. This is underscored by his insistence that, since all the issues in the ISG Report are "inextricably linked", all of the Report's 79 recommendations must be implemented as a whole. The arrogance displayed here can be matched only by the size of Baker's ego, and the naiveté and lack of expertise of almost all of his fellow commissioners who dutifully attached their names (and reputations) to the more egregarious portions of the Report.
Animus toward Israel aside, Baker has not only lived up to his reputation as a cynical wheeler-dealer, but has undermined fundamental American policy to bring greater freedom and democracy to a region where both are sorely lacking. Baker obviously has no use for the principles and goals enunciated by President Bush, nor cares one whit for the millions of Muslims ruled by ruthless dictators. To its credit, the Administration appears to be shying away from the engagement with Iran and Syria that the report advocates.
If Israel's supporters were to select their own "axis of evil," here in our own country, I suspect James A. Baker would receive a fair number of nominations. Baker's name will always be associated with his infamous statement at a Bush I cabinet meeting: "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."
Fortunately, we as Americans can proudly state: "F--- Jim Baker, we didn't vote for him anyway".
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
