|
MJ’s post has almost said it all, but let’s just recap why the ISG recommendations on the broader Middle East context not only add up to good policy, but why a Dem embrace of these recommendations also makes good politics.
On the policy substance, the ISG report finally reconnects the dots in the Middle East. Re-stabilizing both Iraq and the region requires involving and engaging with all of the relevant regional actors. The Baker-Hamilton Commission get it—engagement is not endorsement and one’s adversaries can sometimes be more effectively cajoled into changing course across a table rather than via the barrel of a gun. Re-stabilizing Iraq will require involving all its neighbors. Involving all its neighbors mean engaging with the surrounding Sunni Arab states, including Syria, and with Iran. Getting them actively on board involves going back to pro-active American conflict resolution efforts on the Israeli-Arab front, which also will have the effect of reestablishing US credibility and neutralizing the Israeli-Palestinian issue as a rallying cry and mobilizing tool for extremists. And if anyone cries abandonment of our ally Israel, quote them back this line from the ISG report: “the US does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict… there is no military solution to this conflict… the vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being a nation perpetually at war.”
So in policy terms, the call for a renewed effort to reach a comprehensive solution on the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese tracks scores a trifecta in serving Israeli, American and regional stabilization interests. It would make sense outside of the context of Iraq, but the linkage to Iraq should not be denied, as the various Middle East issues do not exist as a series of free-floating isolated bubbles. Dems will do a disservice to their own and their constituents’ intelligence if they deny the interrelatedness of the issues.
And here’s why it makes good politics: if Dems misread the map, there will be a growing rift between two constituencies in the Democratic camp—the foreign policy progressives/pro-peace camp, and the Jewish community that voted 87% Democrat in the recent midterms. Dems do not have to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to Israel policy in order to maintain Jewish support. Dems can support the call for a renewed Israeli-Arab peace effort and be doing the right thing by both of these constituencies.
Support for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group on the regional question should become the litmus test for determining who genuinely wants an Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors, a Middle East in which pragmatists can be on the ascendancy and extremists reduced to their more natural and manageable dimensions and in which the US can once again assert constructive leadership. The Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now, amongst others, have already come out in support of the ISG recommendations as they pertain to the Israel-Arab conflict. Not pursuing the new diplomatic offensive recommended in the pages of the report would be a mistake of historic proportions.
Daniel Levy is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation. This article first appeared on TPMcafe.com. |
Taking Note
