In the midst of the latest kerfufle and distraction by folks who not actually campaign spokemen, it is worth pointing out that at Rev. Warren Saddlebackevent, McCain cited, Gen Petraeus and John Lewis and Meg Whitman as the three wisest people in his life.
So maybe when John Lewis speaks, being one of the three wises people in John McCain's life, according to John McCain, maybe John McCain should listen.
]]>
the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972)
says that he is
amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.
and adds that
Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.
Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.
he closes with another blast from the past:
I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.
I guess coming from him this is stronger than my unpublished letter:
The whole thing is nonsense.
Obama has no connection to Ayers.
Obama did nothing.
Obama and Ayers were both on the board of some do-goodnik organization, each appointed by other third party folks.
Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama.
Obama never sought his support.McCain however was in effect holding fundraisers for Keating, and is connected to the Annenberg foundation that funded the same organization that Ayers and Obama worked for.
Unlike Obama, McCain actively sought the support of terrorist and criminal G. Gordon Liddy or served on the board of the neo-Nazi US Council of World Freedom.
Unlike Obama, Palin actively sought support of treasonous and violent (revised per comment: founder killed in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad, while collaborating with Iran) Alaska Independence Party.
------------------------------------------------
For those who did not see them, here is the NY Times front page article that looked into the "connection" and was actually pretty good on calling it b.s. (other than the fact that article was even done; at least third time NY Times has done an Ayers piece, compared to none on McCain's and Palin's terrorist ties). And here is the pathetic "balanced" with false equivalency NY Times editorial that followed.
cross-posted at Daily Kos where it's on the Rec llist.
]]>The truth is that this is not a new proposal and is already part of the rescue plan that was signed into law. It was Obama, not McCain who called for this move two weeks ago.
Obama may not have come back strong enough on this during the actual debate, but the fact are:
1. A provision for this is already in the bail-out package:
Rescue bill includes authority for the Treasury Department to buy “residential or commercial mortgages. ” [Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Public Law No: 110-343, 10/3/08]
2. Obama called for this weeks ago:
Obama Said “We Should Consider Giving The Government The Authority To Purchase Mortgages Directly Instead Of Simply Purchasing Mortgage-Backed Securities.” Obama said, “For example, we should consider giving the government the authority to purchase mortgages directly instead of simply purchasing mortgage- backed securities. In the past, such an approach has allowed taxpayers to profit as the housing market recovered. This is not simply a question of looking out for homeowners; it’s doubtful that the economy as a whole can recover without the restoration of our housing sector, including a rebound in the home values that have suffered dramatically in recent months.” [Press Conference, 9/24/08]
Obama Said He Would “Encourage Treasury To Study The Option Of Buying Individual Mortgages.” Obama said, “We also must do more than this rescue package does to help homeowners stay in their homes. I will continue to advocate bankruptcy reforms to help families stay in their homes and encourage Treasury to study the option of buying individual mortgages like we did successfully in the 1930s.” [Press Release, 10/1/08]
3. Perhaps McCain heard about stronger versions of such a FDR style mortgage conversions from Clinton's Global Initiative in cosmopolitan New York a few weeks ago, or maybe from Hillary Clinton's article in the Wall Street Journal
Because Democrats have actually wanted something better and stronger then what made it into the compromise bill that passed.
What McCain has called and pretended is new and more populist is in fact weaker then what the Senate Democrats wanted, and no more then what is already in the legislation.
Indeed, today McCain advisor Charlie Black, actually acknowledges that McCain took the idea from Hillary Clinton.
Even though it goes against everything McCain and the rest of the Republicans have opposed until know:
4. This whole issue was predictable insofar as it was in follow-up to Palin's botching of the McCain position during her debate with Biden last week:
The Alaska governor incorrectly made it sound like McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage payment terms on first homes.
He doesn't.
The McCain campaign confirms to ABC News that Palin misstated McCain's position.
"No, that is what is called the cramdowns, which is so objectionable that Obama didn't even want it jammed into the stabilization bill," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers when asked if McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to re-adjust the interest rate and principal to help people stay in their homes.
As Dana Goldtein points out on Tapped:
Is McCain's proposal as strong [as the Clinton and Senate Democratic propsosal]? No. A key weakness of the package that passed Congress is that it leaves too vague how the Federal Housing Authority and Treasury Secretary should go about the large scale refinancing of sub-primes. Democrats had proposed that bankruptcy judges be given such powers, but that provision was lost during negotiations. McCain's proposal is simply not as specific as it needs to be, as it does not create a structure through which refinancing can easily take place. Alongside the "Main Street/Wall Street" juxtaposition, this appears to be another clear rheotrical appropriation by McCain of a Democratic idea.]]>
He was still married to Carol, the wife who stuck with him when he was a POW, who was raising his children. She was in a car accident and partially disabled and had gained weight.
So he had an affair. With Cindy. While still married to Carol. Eventually he married into Cindy's money, into her connections, and into the state of Arizona... and the rest is history.
Of course McCain is actually in office and running for higher office.
I wonder if John McCain's adultry will be mentioned in the news today or over the next few days...?
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/25/mccains-brain-unfit-for-command-or-merely-incontinent/
]]>Meanwhile it is also important to go into details on Condi Rice's big lie the day before regarding who refuses to talk with whom and why between the Bush/Cheney/Rove adminstration and Iran.
1. Barak and Barack on Jerusalem:
Various http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm ways of dividing and sharing East Jerusalem and the Old City were acceptable http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 during the <a href="Camp'>http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm">Camp David 2</a> and <a href="Tabahttp://www.mideastweb.org/taba.htm">Taba</a> talks with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
Alas, Barack Obama "sorta/kinda/but maybe not really" went one (or half a) phrase unnecessarily too far in his speech to AIPAC yesterday, when in referring to Jerusalem he said that it "must remain undivided." Since an Israeli Prime Minister had already indicated ways that Jerusalem can be split and/or shared this should have been an unnecessary extra pander by Obama to the AIPAC crowd.
However two mitigating points can be made:
One is the fact that this is just a campaign speech and does not really commit anybody (U.S., Israel, Palestinians) to anything to be negotiated in the future.
In addition, as no less than James Zogby of the Arab American Institute <a href="points'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-at-aipac-some-doubt_b_105272.html">points out</a>:
"it has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided" as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.) – possible way around the language”
Where Obama got it right was in calling out both sides for the need to make serious concessions. And that "Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
In other words, no chopped up Bantustans with residual Israeli settlements and roadblocks (literal and figurative).
While a slight, but frankly expected, disappointment from the more progressive Israeli and Arab peace camps, Obama’s speech was far better then any of his predecessors, better then Clinton, and of course <a href="way'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/mccain-at-aipac-2002-fant_b_104919.html">way better then McCain's</a>.
While I have been critical of Obama on domestic policy from a left/progressive/economic populist perspective (he is too moderate; and indeed Clinton was arguably more progressive -- just not believable -- in her campaign rhetoric then Obama), he has consistently offered a far better vision on international and security affairs. Hopefully in office he will not be too hamstrung by feeling a need to appease the right. In this case, looking closely at who his actual Jewish middle east advisors are, one gets the sense that they are the sort who would fit in well with serious pro-real-peace crowd over at http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/ IPF or http://www.jstreet.org/ J-Street.
Ironicially but usefully the http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990490.html Bush
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also distanced the U.S. government from Obama's remarks, saying any final decisions on the toughest issues in the peace talks were for Israel and the Palestinians to make on their own. "It is for the parties to resolve these issues. And we are going to continue to do what we believe is right in terms of... helping to bring about peace, without respect to presidential politics," McCormack said
.</blockquote>
In addition Arab leaders, from Abbas to Hamas, also were critical of Obama particularly over the Jersusalem unidivided comment.
So, Obama got what he needed which is to be attacked from the left, not only the by the Arab world, but even by the Bush administration.
Dare I say, "Mission accomplished."
In addition to the gratuitous Jerusalem-phrase that Obama included, there is also a term that he left out but should have included. What Obama shoulda called for was two state solution with an Israel that is secure, internationally recognized, Jerusalem capital, etc. and also Jewish and democratic. The "democratic" is important:
First of all, that's little "d" democratic, but it would have been a good laugh line.
More importantly it is diplomatic code for Israel has to get out of the west bank, get out of the settlements, allow for a real indepdendent Palestinian state with minimal inclusion of any Palestinians in Israel... "let their people go." For the American Jewish (and Israeli) righties it is a reminder of why folks like Olmert and Sharon changed course and started to realize the need for two state solution and giving up Gaza and the West Bank, which is the so called Demographic problem. Either the Palestians get their own country, or they are soon a majority in "greater Israel." If Israel is to be a democracy and have a Jewish majority it cannot disenfranchise the Palestinians and keep them from having their own country.
Of course that other <a href="Barakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak#Military_service">Barak</a> guy must be a lefty-pinko-DFH.
2. Disastrous Bush Adminstration Refusal to Talk With Iran in 2003
Meanwhile, relatively un-noticed was Codi Rice’s blustering hardline speech to AIPAC the day before, where in she made this outright <a href="liehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04diplo.html">lie</a>:
<blockquote>“We would be willing to meet with them but not while they continue to inch toward nuclear weapons under the cover of talks,” she told the group, a pro-Israel lobby known by its acronym, Aipac. “The real question isn’t why won’t the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won’t Iran talk to us.”
</blockquote>
In fact, one of the major underreported disasters of Bush/Cheney/Rove non-diplomacy was the outright rejection, without investigation, of the <a href="Iranian'>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/133940/525">Iranian diplomatic</a> overture in May 2003.
I am surprised that Obama or his surrogates have not explicitely cited this episode.
This was before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president. Specifically it was when the relatively more moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami was still president, and was seeking, with the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to settle all the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear development and support for terrorism and peace-with-Israel rejectionists and even making peace with Israel. The failure of this initiative contributed to the fall of Khatami and the Iranian moderates and the rise of hardliners such as Ahmadinejad.
This was actually reported intermittently in the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, NPR, etc. Yet it seems to be the sort of story that once duly reported, then disappears down the memory hole and out of collective consciousness, rather than being an ongoing part of the Iran story.
Former Bush administration Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council; Former Middle East specialist at the CIA and Department of State Flynt Leverett has spoken repeatedly about this episode. So has former Bush administration State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.
Please see the following links for more details:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32672
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33303
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001953.php
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001952.php
It should also be rememberd that <a href="again'>http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33070">again in 2005</a> Iran made overtures of wanting to talk seriously with the U.S. and it was the Bush administration that refused to even try to engage.
Fortunately, not only Obama, but also <a href="most'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078">most Americans</a> want to talk with Iran.
But meanwhile:
1. Rice lied.
2. The Iranian overture in May 2003 should not be forgotten.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<strong>Update:</strong>
]]>
Meanwhile it is also important to go into details on Condi Rice's big lie the day before regarding who refuses to talk with whom and why between the Bush/Cheney/Rove adminstration and Iran.
1. Barak and Barack on Jerusalem:
Various http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm ways of dividing and sharing East Jerusalem and the Old City were <a href="acceptablehttp://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm">acceptable</a> to then <a href="Israelihttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=130193&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0">Israeli</a> Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 during the <a href="Camp'>http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm">Camp David 2</a> and <a href="Tabahttp://www.mideastweb.org/taba.htm">Taba</a> talks with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
Alas, Barack Obama "sorta/kinda/but maybe not really" went one (or half a) phrase unnecessarily too far in his speech to AIPAC yesterday, when in referring to Jerusalem he said that it "must remain undivided." Since an Israeli Prime Minister had already indicated ways that Jerusalem can be split and/or shared this should have been an unnecessary extra pander by Obama to the AIPAC crowd.
However two mitigating points can be made:
One is the fact that this is just a campaign speech and does not really commit anybody (U.S., Israel, Palestinians) to anything to be negotiated in the future.
In addition, as no less than James Zogby of the Arab American Institute <a href="points'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-at-aipac-some-doubt_b_105272.html">points out</a>:
"it has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided" as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.) – possible way around the language”
Where Obama got it right was in calling out both sides for the need to make serious concessions. And that "Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
In other words, no chopped up Bantustans with residual Israeli settlements and roadblocks (literal and figurative).
While a slight, but frankly expected, disappointment from the more progressive Israeli and Arab peace camps, Obama’s speech was far better then any of his predecessors, better then Clinton, and of course <a href="way'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/mccain-at-aipac-2002-fant_b_104919.html">way better then McCain's</a>.
While I have been critical of Obama on domestic policy from a left/progressive/economic populist perspective (he is too moderate; and indeed Clinton was arguably more progressive -- just not believable -- in her campaign rhetoric then Obama), he has consistently offered a far better vision on international and security affairs. Hopefully in office he will not be too hamstrung by feeling a need to appease the right. In this case, looking closely at who his actual Jewish middle east advisors are, one gets the sense that they are the sort who would fit in well with serious pro-real-peace crowd over at http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/ IPF or http://www.jstreet.org/ J-Street.
Ironicially but usefully the http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990490.html Bush
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also distanced the U.S. government from Obama's remarks, saying any final decisions on the toughest issues in the peace talks were for Israel and the Palestinians to make on their own. "It is for the parties to resolve these issues. And we are going to continue to do what we believe is right in terms of... helping to bring about peace, without respect to presidential politics," McCormack said
.</blockquote>
In addition Arab leaders, from Abbas to Hamas, also were critical of Obama particularly over the Jersusalem unidivided comment.
So, Obama got what he needed which is to be attacked from the left, not only the by the Arab world, but even by the Bush administration.
Dare I say, "Mission accomplished."
In addition to the gratuitous Jerusalem-phrase that Obama included, there is also a term that he left out but should have included. What Obama shoulda called for was two state solution with an Israel that is secure, internationally recognized, Jerusalem capital, etc. and also Jewish and democratic. The "democratic" is important:
First of all, that's little "d" democratic, but it would have been a good laugh line.
More importantly it is diplomatic code for Israel has to get out of the west bank, get out of the settlements, allow for a real indepdendent Palestinian state with minimal inclusion of any Palestinians in Israel... "let their people go." For the American Jewish (and Israeli) righties it is a reminder of why folks like Olmert and Sharon changed course and started to realize the need for two state solution and giving up Gaza and the West Bank, which is the so called Demographic problem. Either the Palestians get their own country, or they are soon a majority in "greater Israel." If Israel is to be a democracy and have a Jewish majority it cannot disenfranchise the Palestinians and keep them from having their own country.
Of course that other <a href="Barakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak#Military_service">Barak</a> guy must be a lefty-pinko-DFH.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<strong>2. Disastrous Bush Adminstration Refusal to Talk With Iran in 2003</strong>
Meanwhile, relatively un-noticed was Codi Rice’s blustering hardline speech to AIPAC the day before, where in she made this outright <a href="liehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04diplo.html">lie</a>:
<blockquote>“We would be willing to meet with them but not while they continue to inch toward nuclear weapons under the cover of talks,” she told the group, a pro-Israel lobby known by its acronym, Aipac. “The real question isn’t why won’t the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won’t Iran talk to us.”
</blockquote>
In fact, one of the major underreported disasters of Bush/Cheney/Rove non-diplomacy was the outright rejection, without investigation, of the <a href="Iranian'>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/133940/525">Iranian diplomatic</a> overture in May 2003.
I am surprised that Obama or his surrogates have not explicitely cited this episode.
This was before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president. Specifically it was when the relatively more moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami was still president, and was seeking, with the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to settle all the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear development and support for terrorism and peace-with-Israel rejectionists and even making peace with Israel. The failure of this initiative contributed to the fall of Khatami and the Iranian moderates and the rise of hardliners such as Ahmadinejad.
This was actually reported intermittently in the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, NPR, etc. Yet it seems to be the sort of story that once duly reported, then disappears down the memory hole and out of collective consciousness, rather than being an ongoing part of the Iran story.
Former Bush administration Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council; Former Middle East specialist at the CIA and Department of State Flynt Leverett has spoken repeatedly about this episode. So has former Bush administration State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.
Please see the following links for more details:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32672
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33303
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001953.php
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001952.php
It should also be rememberd that <a href="again'>http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33070">again in 2005</a> Iran made overtures of wanting to talk seriously with the U.S. and it was the Bush administration that refused to even try to engage.
Fortunately, not only Obama, but also <a href="most'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078">most Americans</a> want to talk with Iran.
But meanwhile:
1. Rice lied.
2. The Iranian overture in May 2003 should not be forgotten.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<strong>Update:</strong>
]]>
1b.He must NOT pick a misogynist anti-female male such as Jim Webb, or others who are anti-choice. That will give women excuse to stay home or even vote for McCain, especially if McCain selects a woman (even if that woman is anti-choice).
2. Very scary for Democrats if McCain picks a woman. That is the only McCain VP choice that makes a difference. It could actually swing some of the supposedly outraged Clintonista white women to McCain, despite his and his partyâs immensely anti-female personality and policies (anti-choice, anti-equal pay, misogynist horndog (called wife c*&t, cheated multiple time on fist wife, etc.) militarism, etc).
3. If Obama loses with Clinton having undercut him, there is no way she get the nomination in 2012. There will be new people running, including new women, and Clinton (both of them) will be remembered as having destroyed the Democratic party and the country.
There are <a href="official announcements from both capitals today of what has been known about for months. Israel and Syria are having serious negotiations to settle their differences. As I will explain below this is both real and very important.
Syria is of course one of the countries that borders Israel and has rejected the existence of Israel since the United Nations and internationally accepted declarations in 1947-48. Peace has been made with Egypt and Jordan. In addition to huge issue of how to establish the just and necessary (but never before existing) Palestinian State, of the countries that border Israel countries only Syria and Lebanon (which most believe will quickly follow or be directly part of any Syrian settlement) remain.
After repeated attacks from the strategic Golan Heights, Israel seized and occupied the area since 1967. Syria wants its land back. Israel wants peace and recognition with Syria, no attacks by anybody across the northern border, and for Syria to stop promoting fighting between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the Palestinians (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, others). Syria has made clear over the years that it can effectively block peacemaking with others, until it gets what it wants.
Most observers feel that compared to the Palestinians, in principle this is a relatively easy peace deal to make. It is "just" land (and access to water). There is no religious element, no major cities, and just much smaller settlements and populations involved. But see below for more details on the issues.
The prior round of official talks stalled at the end of the Clinton administration. These talks actually occurred just prior to failed Camp David talks with Arafat, when both Israel and Syria hesitated tantalizingly close to agreement.
As a side note, AIPAC right wing dead-enders actually played a role in undercutting the official Israeli government position here in the U.S. Israel want U.S. troops as part of a monitoring force along the demilitarized border area. Even though AIPAC claims its role is to support and lobby for the official Israeli government position here in the U.S., they showed their hand as really supporting the unilateralist partisan Likud/Neocon/Republican line. AIPAC argued against the official Israeli position at the time, getting its congressional allies to argue against such a peace agreement, arguing against any role for U.S. troops, saying they would be in danger or potential hostages.
There had been unofficial talks last year, before then Lebanon/Hezbollah war, that came up with a clever way to bridge the difference between Syria getting all of its land back and Israel needing to keep a verifiable safe border, by making some of the land a demilitarized nature park.
In the current Israeli coalition government, the junior partner Labor party (which is led again by Barak who had been the Prime Minister at the time of the 2000 talks and who is now Defense Minister) and Foreign Minister Livni from the senior Kadima party had been wanting to have these talks for years, since even before the last war with Lebanon.
The embattled Prime Minister Olmert had been resisting such talks, and until <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984337.html">now the Bush administration had been also arguing against any talks, taking a harder line against Syria then Israel. Indeed, there were times when it seemed the Bush administration was the main factor holding Israel back from talking with Syria. Presumably we can read this a relatively victory for Rice and the realists over Cheney and unilateral fantasists. However there are <a href="still doubts about whether the current Bush administration can and will play a positive role.
As always, Israeli domestic politics is part of this (no doubt there are political differences within the Syrian government too, but since it is a military dictatorship we don't know as much about them). Foreign Minister Livni wants to take over from Olmert. Olmert is still low in the polls from both his failures in the war with Lebanon and because he is crook who is continually under investigation for financial shenanigans, bribery and misuse of campaign funds (the fifth such investigation is headlining know). He keeps propping himself up with the tantalizing possibility of peace talks, whether this is with the Palestinians or now Syria. The implication is always that if he goes, then the Israeli government goes through a period of instability when it cannot hold serious peace talks. Interesting from an Israeli domestic perspective is that, although the Syrian announcement is from their Foreign Minister's office, the Israeli's announcment comes from the Prime Minster's office. Olmert clearly wants tied to him directly and bypassing his intra-party rival Foreign Minister Livni.
Meanwhile talks with the Palestinians are necessary and yet seen by many as impossible so long as their government is so divided with Fatah ruling in the west bank and Hamas in Gaza. And with Syria's history of being able to veto any such talks until it gets what it wants, Israeli peace with Syria may be a condition for making peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
So, back to present:
Back channel talks have been going in with Turkey as the intermediary. Turkey has played a wonderful role for years, as a Muslim country that is part of NATO and with a government friendly with Israel. Official negotiators from Israel and Syria have been in Ankara talking with Turkish go between, and possibly with each other. It was announced that they will proceed officially and openly now. Which means that there is some agreed upon framework. One stumbling block in the past has been Syria's insistence on starting talks where they left off in 2000. Israel said anything agreed to then does not count since there was no final agreement. That seems to be the sort of diplomatic nonsense that is easy to get past once both sides actually want to.
Akiva Elder, Haaretz's senior diplomatic correspondent, nicely summarizes the various specific issues to be negotiated:
WHERE IS THE BORDER: The gap between the Syrian and Israeli positions lies in Damascus' demand for an Israeli withdrawal to the July 4, 1967 lines and Jerusalem's stance that any withdrawal must be to the international border.
On the ground, this gap is just several hundred meters, but the sticking point is Syria's demand for land reaching the north-eastern shore of the Kinneret. Unofficial contacts between the two sides via a Swiss channel, which lasted until summer 2006 and were driven by former Foreign Ministry director general Alon Liel, resulted in an agreement that the disputed area between the 1967 lines and the international border would be part of a "peace park" that would cover the entire Golan Heights. The Syrians agreed that Israelis would be able to visit the park during the day without any entry requirements.
[snip]
WATER RESOURCES: Syria, which suffers from water shortages, recently told former U.S. president Jimmy Carter that it is willing to commit that it will not draw water from the Kinneret, but expects financial assistance for desalination plants and a commitment from Turkey that it will supply Syria with water.
EVACUATION OF SETTLEMENTS: In previous contacts between Israel and Syria, a rift emerged between the sides over a timetable for the removal of Israeli communities on the Golan Heights. Israel requested a 15-year period to evacuate settlements, while Syria envisioned a period of ten years for removal of these communities.
SYRIA'S TIES TO IRAN, HEZBOLLAH AND RADICAL PALESTINIAN GROUPS, INCLUDING HAMAS: Israel insisted that Syria commits in advance to sever ties with these parties, while Damascus maintained that this issue should be on the negotiating table with all other issues. In effect, Syria has rejected any preconditions in the talks.
AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT: Syria is standing by its request for U.S. involvement in the negotiations, and wants the U.S. to change its attitude to Damascus and President Bush's inclusion of Syria in the "axis of evil."
DEMILITARIZATION OF SYRIAN TERRITORY EAST OF THE AGREED BORDER: Syria previously demanded that Israel also create a demilitarized zone; an agreement on the extent of the two zones has not yet been reached.
NORMALIZATION OF TIES: Syria backed an Arab League resolution decision first adopted in 2002 at the Beirut conference to normalize ties with Israel in return for a complete withdrawal from all Arab lands captured in 1967. It is unclear if Syria would agree to the normalization requested by Israel before it cedes the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
GOLAN HEIGHTS: The Golan Heights Law which passed in 1981 confirmed Israel's annexation of the Golan. This law could now make it difficult for the government to get the Knesset's approval for settlement evacuation or withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Back in their day, both Rabin and Ehud Barak promised to bring any agreement to a referendum.
There are <a href="official'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985721.html">official announcements</a> from both capitals today of what has been <a href="known'>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/21/93927/774">known about for months</a>: Israel and Syria are having serious negotiations to settle their differences. As I will explain below this is both real and very important.
Syria is of course one of the countries that borders Israel and has rejected the existence of Israel since the United Nations and internationally accepted declarations in 1947-48. Peace has been made with Egypt and Jordan. In addition to huge issue of how to establish the just and necessary (but never before existing) Palestinian State, of the countries that border Israel countries only Syria and Lebanon (which most believe will quickly follow or be directly part of any Syrian settlement) remain.
After repeated attacks from the strategic Golan Heights, Israel seized and occupied the area since 1967. Syria wants its land back. Israel wants peace and recognition with Syria, no attacks by anybody across the northern border, and for Syria to stop promoting fighting between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbollah) and the Palestinians (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, others). Syria has made clear over the years that it can effectively block peacemaking with others, until it gets what it wants.
Most observers feel that compared to the Palestinians, in principle this is a relatively easy peace deal to make. It is "just" land (and access to water). There is no religious element, no major cities, and just much smaller settlements and populations involved. But see below for more details on the issues.
The prior round of official talks stalled at the end of the Clinton administration. These talks actually occurred just prior to failed Camp David talks with Arafat, when both Israel and Syria hesitated tantalizingly close to agreement.
As a side note, AIPAC right wing dead-enders actually played a role in undercutting the official Israeli government position here in the U.S. Israel want U.S. troops as part of a monitoring force along the demilitarized border area. Even though AIPAC claims its role is to support and lobby for the official Israeli government position here in the U.S., they showed their hand as really supporting the unilateralist partisan Likud/Neocon/Republican line. AIPAC argued against the official Israeli position at the time, getting its congressional allies to argue against such a peace agreement, arguing against any role for U.S. troops, saying they would be in danger or potential hostages.
There had been <a href="unofficial'>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/16/91037/7574">unofficial talks last year</a>, before then Lebanon/Hezbollah war, that came up with a clever way to bridge the difference between Syria getting all of its land back and Israel needing to keep a verifiable safe border, by making some of the land a demilitarized nature park.
In the current Israeli coalition government, the junior partner Labor party (which is led again by Barak who had been the Prime Minister at the time of the 2000 talks and who is now Defense Minister) and Foreign Minister Livni from the senior Kadima party had been wanting to have these talks for years, since even before the last war with Lebanon.
The embattled Prime Minister Olmert had been resisting such talks, and until <a href="nowhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984337.html">now</a> the Bush administration had been also arguing against any talks, taking a harder line against Syria then Israel. Indeed, there were times when it seemed the Bush administration was the main factor holding Israel back from talking with Syria. Presumably we can read this a relatively victory for Rice and the realists over Cheney and unilateral fantasists. However there are <a href="still'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985748.html">still doubts</a> about whether the current Bush administration can and will play a positive role.
As always, <a href="Israeli'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985727.html">Israeli domestic politics</a> is <a href="parthttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984387.html">part</a> of this (no doubt there are political differences within the Syrian government too, but since it is a military dictatorship we don't know as much about them). Foreign Minister Livni wants to take over from Olmert. Olmert is still low in the polls from both his failures in the war with Lebanon and because he is crook who is continually under investigation for financial shenanigans, bribery and misuse of campaign funds (the fifth such investigation is headlining know). He keeps propping himself up with the tantalizing possibility of peace talks, whether this is with the Palestinians or now Syria. The implication is always that if he goes, then the Israeli government goes through a period of instability when it cannot hold serious peace talks. Interesting from an Israeli domestic perspective is that, although the Syrian announcement is from their Foreign Minister's office, the Israeli's announcment comes from the Prime Minster's office. Olmert clearly wants tied to him directly and bypassing his intra-party rival Foreign Minister Livni.
Meanwhile talks with the Palestinians are necessary and yet seen by many as impossible so long as their government is so divided with Fatah ruling in the west bank and Hamas in Gaza. And with Syria's history of being able to veto any such talks until it gets what it wants, Israeli peace with Syria may be a condition for making peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
So, back to present:
Back channel talks have been going in with Turkey as the intermediary. Turkey has played a wonderful role for years, as a Muslim country that is part of NATO and with a government friendly with Israel. Official negotiators from Israel and Syria have been in Ankara talking with Turkish go between, and possibly with each other. It was announced that they will proceed officially and openly now. Which means that there is some agreed upon framework. One stumbling block in the past has been Syria’s insistence on starting talks where they left off in 2000. Israel said anything agreed to then does not count since there was no final agreement. That seems to be the sort of diplomatic nonsense that is easy to get past once both sides actually want to.
Akiva Elder, Haaretz's senior diplomatic correspondent, nicely <a href="summarizeshttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985745.html">summarizes</a> the various specific issues to be negotiated:
<blockquote>
<strong>[WHERE IS THE BORDER]:</strong> The gap between the Syrian and Israeli positions lies in Damascus' demand for an Israeli withdrawal to the July 4, 1967 lines and Jerusalem's stance that any withdrawal must be to the international border.
On the ground, this gap is just several hundred meters, but the sticking point is Syria's demand for land reaching the north-eastern shore of the Kinneret. Unofficial contacts between the two sides via a Swiss channel, which lasted until summer 2006 and were driven by former Foreign Ministry director general Alon Liel, resulted in an agreement that the disputed area between the 1967 lines and the international border would be part of a "peace park" that would cover the entire Golan Heights. The Syrians agreed that Israelis would be able to visit the park during the day without any entry requirements.
[snip]
<strong>WATER RESOURCES:</strong> Syria, which suffers from water shortages, recently told former U.S. president Jimmy Carter that it is willing to commit that it will not draw water from the Kinneret, but expects financial assistance for desalination plants and a commitment from Turkey that it will supply Syria with water.
<strong>EVACUATION OF SETTLEMENTS:</strong> In previous contacts between Israel and Syria, a rift emerged between the sides over a timetable for the removal of Israeli communities on the Golan Heights. Israel requested a 15-year period to evacuate settlements, while Syria envisioned a period of ten years for removal of these communities.
<strong>SYRIA'S TIES TO IRAN, HEZBOLLAH AND RADICAL PALESTINIAN GROUPS, INCLUDING HAMAS:</strong> Israel insisted that Syria commits in advance to sever ties with these parties, while Damascus maintained that this issue should be on the negotiating table with all other issues. In effect, Syria has rejected any preconditions in the talks.
<strong>AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT:</strong> Syria is standing by its request for U.S. involvement in the negotiations, and wants the U.S. to change its attitude to Damascus and President Bush's inclusion of Syria in the "axis of evil."
<strong>DEMILITARIZATION OF SYRIAN TERRITORY EAST OF THE AGREED BORDER:</strong> Syria previously demanded that Israel also create a demilitarized zone; an agreement on the extent of the two zones has not yet been reached.
<strong>NORMALIZATION OF TIES:</strong> Syria backed an Arab League resolution decision first adopted in 2002 at the Beirut conference to normalize ties with Israel in return for a complete withdrawal from all Arab lands captured in 1967. It is unclear if Syria would agree to the normalization requested by Israel before it cedes the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
<strong>GOLAN HEIGHTS:</strong> The Golan Heights Law which passed in 1981 confirmed Israel's annexation of the Golan. This law could now make it difficult for the government to get the Knesset's approval for settlement evacuation or withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Back in their day, both Rabin and Ehud Barak promised to bring any agreement to a referendum.
</blockquote>