The U.S. should shift its main foreign policy focus in the Middle East to curtailing Iran's nuclear program and promoting peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, analysts at the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations proposed.
The report, "Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President," called on the new administration to support conciliation between Fatah, the Palestinian group with which Israel has negotiated, and Hamas, which controls Gaza and has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. That new U.S. strategy would diminish the Islamists' incentive to undermine peace negotiations with Israel and force Hamas either to accept a peace agreement that supports Palestinian rights or lose the backing of the Palestinian public, said Shibley Telhami of Brookings.
(AP)
New Mideast Peace Plan? -James Klurfeld [pictured at right]
I've seen this movie before: A new administration is about to take office and a prestigious think tank issues a report saying that nothing is more important than trying to put the pieces together in the Mideast, especially on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Sorry, but this time around I'm skeptical.
Where I become doubtful is when the report says there's a unique chance to engineer an agreement between Syria and Israel, which, if it could be done, would alter the strategic balance in the region. Ever since I first started to cover these topics in the mid-1970s, I've heard that the Syria track is ripe for an agreement with Israel. The problem is that neither Assad has been willing to actually make a deal with Israel when push came to shove. Why is this time different from all other times?
(Newsday)
Missing the Mission of Public Diplomacy -Robert Satloff [pictured below]
In the post-9/11 era, the purpose of public diplomacy is not some amorphous
desire to have America better understood or even the more pointed objective of winning the support of international public opinion for U.S. foreign policy. Today, that mission is how to identify, nurture and support mainstream Muslims in the ideological and political contest against radical Islamism and how to win backing for such efforts from nations and peoples in non-Muslim societies around the world.
Alas, there is none of this in the Brookings report - no discussion of radical Islamism; no discussion of the ideological contest that undergirds the "war on terror;" no discussion of the role that mainstream Muslims play on the front lines of this battle; and no discussion of the vital role that innovative public diplomacy can play in helping our allies defeat these enemies of peace and freedom.
The writer is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
(Middle East Strategy at Harvard)
The report, "Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President," called on the new administration to support conciliation between Fatah, the Palestinian group with which Israel has negotiated, and Hamas, which controls Gaza and has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. That new U.S. strategy would diminish the Islamists' incentive to undermine peace negotiations with Israel and force Hamas either to accept a peace agreement that supports Palestinian rights or lose the backing of the Palestinian public, said Shibley Telhami of Brookings.
(AP)
New Mideast Peace Plan? -James Klurfeld [pictured at right]
I've seen this movie before: A new administration is about to take office and a prestigious think tank issues a report saying that nothing is more important than trying to put the pieces together in the Mideast, especially on the Arab-Israeli dispute. Sorry, but this time around I'm skeptical.
Where I become doubtful is when the report says there's a unique chance to engineer an agreement between Syria and Israel, which, if it could be done, would alter the strategic balance in the region. Ever since I first started to cover these topics in the mid-1970s, I've heard that the Syria track is ripe for an agreement with Israel. The problem is that neither Assad has been willing to actually make a deal with Israel when push came to shove. Why is this time different from all other times?
(Newsday)
Missing the Mission of Public Diplomacy -Robert Satloff [pictured below]
In the post-9/11 era, the purpose of public diplomacy is not some amorphous
desire to have America better understood or even the more pointed objective of winning the support of international public opinion for U.S. foreign policy. Today, that mission is how to identify, nurture and support mainstream Muslims in the ideological and political contest against radical Islamism and how to win backing for such efforts from nations and peoples in non-Muslim societies around the world.Alas, there is none of this in the Brookings report - no discussion of radical Islamism; no discussion of the ideological contest that undergirds the "war on terror;" no discussion of the role that mainstream Muslims play on the front lines of this battle; and no discussion of the vital role that innovative public diplomacy can play in helping our allies defeat these enemies of peace and freedom.
The writer is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
(Middle East Strategy at Harvard)
No comments:
Post a Comment