The Real Fumble in Damascus

[Zenlitened]

The Real Fumble in Damascus

New York Times Editorial
April7, 2007

There is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead. But the Bush administration has far more appetite for scoring political points than figuring out whether talking to Syria might help contain the bloodletting in Iraq or revive efforts to negotiate peace.

So long as Mr. Bush continues to shun high-level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbor of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration’s failed policies.

Ms. Pelosi and the five Democrats and one Republican who accompanied her are scarcely the first to raise such questions during the three years that Mr. Bush has instructed his top envoys — and reportedly Israel as well — to avoid negotiations with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Plenty of other Republicans and Democrats have been taking similar trips and offering similar advice. They were ignored, but spared the White House’s ridicule.

In the administration’s perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place. As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, Congressional representatives of both parties, this page, and many others have pointed out, Washington should be eager to raise just those issues, along with the possibility of a land-for-peace deal with Israel, directly with Syrian leaders.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/opinion/07sat1.html

(edit typo)

[frogcycle]

1. bush has the intellectual and emotional development of a two-year-old

he cannot comprehend these simple concepts
he thinks if he holds his breath the world will change to his liking

[patrice]

2. Unfortunately, I think it isn't just 2-year-olds. This is the most common

approach to parenting in the U.S., hence Bush's resonance with his base. I taught high school for 9 years; people seemed to think all they had to do for/with problem teens was/is "tough love". And the validity of taking that approach was/is in direct proportion to its uniformity and resistance to change.

And people wonder why suicide is so common amongst America's young.

[regnaD kciN]

3. How is this different from our approach to the Middle East over the past three decades...?

In the administration’s perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues — Syria’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq — have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place.

Throughout our attempts at "peacemaking" in the Middle East (even after the much-touted Oslo accords -- which, it should be noted, the U.S. played virtually no role in achieving, although it did all it could to claim credit and control the process that followed), the standard approach the U.S. has taken is to demand, as preconditions, that the Arab side concede in advance on most of the matters that would rightly be the subject of such talks. For example, a universal demand has been that all Palestinian factions recognize the rightful existence of the State of Israel, while the latter and its U.S. patron steadfastly refuse to return the condition by recognizing the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own. That, it would be explained, might only be negotiated much later, during "final status" talks. In other words, give us everything we want right now, and we'll think about giving you part of what you want later...and if you don't agree, it proves you're not serious about peace, and we can therefore ignore you and/or treat you as an enemy until you "cry 'uncle'."