Israeli leader rejects Iraq panel’s ideas

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert disagreed Thursday with assertions by the Iraq Study Group that tie the fate of efforts to stabilize Iraq to progress in resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.

In his first public response to the recommendations of the U.S. bipartisan commission, Olmert said he rejected any “attempt to create a linkage between the Iraqi issue and that of the Middle East.”

“To the best of my understanding, President Bush also has had a different opinion on this for the past years,” he said.

The report devotes several pages to Israel, the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon as integral parts of any regional strategy. In blunt language, the report says the United States would “not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

The panel recommended that the various parties participate in a peace conference that would be similar to the Middle East talks held in Madrid in 1991.

At the time, the U.S. secretary of State was James A. Baker III, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group. Baker is remembered by most Israelis for his often-confrontational relationship with leaders of the Jewish state, and for pushing then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into taking part in the Madrid talks.

Palestinian officials praised the Iraq Study Group’s report as a possible breakthrough, saying it could help revive a peace process that broke down after the outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians in 2000.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the recommendations carried added significance because they came from leading U.S. political figures, not from Europeans or others who had more often taken a critical stance toward Israel.

“To say that the Palestinian question is the crux is significant, and I hope this administration will turn these recommendations to deeds,” Erekat said. “What the United States needs to do is to abandon the policy of what’s possible and go to the policy of what’s needed.”

The commission drew criticism from pro-Israel groups and others who said it was wrong to link the Israeli-Arab conflict with the fate of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

“Because the Iraq Study Group could not come up with concrete recommendations with regard to Iraq, they looked to the Palestinian-Israeli issue or the Israeli-Syrian issue as something to divert attention,” said Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States. He said Israel needed to work hard “not to let the Iraqi issue be diverted into a Palestinian-Israeli venue.”

Some analysts said solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would still leave a region rife with sectarian tensions, most notably between Sunni Muslims, who make up most of the region’s Arab regimes, and Shiite Muslims, led by Iran and newly dominant in Iraq, who have challenged the traditional power balances.

The argument that “if Israel and the Palestinians could work out a solution then the Iranians would all of a sudden become good little boys is nonsense,” Shoval said.

It remains to be seen which recommendations, if any, Bush will accept. But implementing most of the recommendations on the Israeli-Arab conflict would represent a major policy reversal for the Bush administration, which has eschewed talks with Syria and, analysts say, effectively ruled out Israel having direct talks with Damascus.

Aides to Olmert said he was not worried that recommendations by the commission, led by Baker, a Republican, and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat, would produce new American pressure on Israel for talks or concessions. The Bush administration has generally been supportive of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, and most analysts saw little chance that would change.

Last week, Olmert said he was prepared to make concessions if the Palestinians gave up violence and committed themselves to a negotiated settlement. He reiterated Thursday that he was eager to talk with the Palestinians when he deemed conditions ripe.

Some Israeli leaders fear the Jewish state might be forced to pay the price for U.S. efforts to bring order to Iraq and to forge an alliance of Arab regimes to blunt Iran’s aspirations to be a regional broker and a nuclear power.

Olmert has started offering cautious praise for aspects of a peace plan introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002. The plan would end the conflict in return for Israel’s withdrawal to its 1967 borders and a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.

The Iraq Study Group report also calls for a negotiated peace with Syria, which would require an end to its meddling in Lebanon and a halt in its arms shipments to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Hamas militants in the Palestinian territories.

The report envisions an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty under which Israel would give back the Golan Heights region captured during the 1967 Middle East War. An international force, possibly including U.S. troops, could secure the border.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has called for reviving Golan Heights talks that broke down in 2000. Some left-leaning Israelis have urged Olmert to test Assad’s intentions, but the Israeli leader said he would not deal with Syria as long as it backed Hezbollah and served as a headquarters for militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Some Israeli analysts said the U.S. report oversimplifies prospects for a sweeping peace agreement in a region where Olmert’s government is weak and the Palestinian political system is in chaos, and where it would be difficult to get Syria and Iran to help quell civil strife in Iraq without offering hefty concessions.

In addition, they say, the United States lacks the clout it once had in the region.

“The problem with all these recommendations is that they basically say to a bunch of problematic Middle Eastern actors, ‘Do this, this, this and this, and we’ll have peace,’ ” said Yossi Alpher, who edits a website promoting dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. “There’s no compelling formula here for anything, quite frankly.”

ellingwood@latimes.com