This Week’s Podcast: Aaron David Miller on Mid-East Peace
EmailIn this week’s ABC News Shuffle Podcast — offered on abcnews.com and on iTunes and produced by Huma Khan — we chat with the ubiquitous Aaron David Miller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar, former adviser to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli Negotiations, and author of "The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace."
You can listen to the Podcast HERE.
One of the many interesting analyses that Miller shared: his belief that President Barack Obama’s administration will find more success in a peace treaty between Israel and Syria than he will in any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I do not believe on the Palestinian-Israel track, there is a conflict-ending agreement — and I’ll choose my words very carefully here — a conflict-ending agreement that could lead to a peace treaty," Miller said. "There’s certainly no such agreement right now. There is, however, another peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state which is much more doable and could be achieved in the next three years, and that is an agreement between Israel and Syria.
"And while Obama cannot ignore the Israeli-Palestinian situation because it’s at the heart of the conflict, if he can’t resolve it, then he needs to look for other opportunities and Israel-Syria is a huge opportunity, that’s where I would go," Miller said. "Two states — issues are clear cut, they’re not religious, fewer settlers on the Golan Heights and it seems to me as a real opportunity."
Listen to the podcast HERE.
– jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Near term, you got to deal with the settlements, checkpoints, and the blockade of the Palestinian territories. If you don’t, peace is an illusion.
Posted by: Huh | January 23, 2009, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
Very informative, thanks Jake.
I hope that Mr. Miller’s views are heard in the White House.
It seems to me it is possible that a modus vivendi type treaty with Syria on the Golan is possible – but is it worth it to Israel unless Syria disengages itself and its intelligence apparatus from being the middleman between Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas?
And why should the US support it unless it not only includes Syria’s Iran terror
nexus but its “other” connections with Al Qaeda and PKK. In short Syria seems to maintain its importance by being the “clearinghouse” for a rather wide gamut of Islamist and Anti-Zionist terror while maintaining a stable dictatorship with no particular jihadist tinge and backing away conventionally from conflict in both Lebanon and Israel (even when bombed by the latter and accused of assasination by the former)
The other criticism of the transactional approach is as Miller even admitted, that a new humanitarian effort will in effect let Hamas off the hook from changing. I would say NO, NO unless we have an airtight way of having reliable Egyptian Jordanian and yes Fatah controls OVER what happens to that aid. Gaza must CHANGE – it should not be a prison camp, a lunatic asylum run by the inmates is an even better analogy.
Posted by: robert b | January 23, 2009, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
did ya hear – Obama drew his “first blood” today in Pakistan. 20 dead in a new missile attack on a Waziri village.
The job is Commander in chief not Lawyer in chief.
Obama should use that same toughmindedness against jihadists WHEREEVER – Gaza, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Posted by: robert b | January 23, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Tell Israel you CAN NOT defend yourself against every day attacks.
I wonder how long that will work here???
Posted by: Lizzie | January 23, 2009, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
Given the drone strike in Pakistan that he ordered, Obama is revealing himself to be quite the warmonger. I didn’t vote for him, but I approve! I love how he’s embraced the whole neocon notion of attacking countries that didn’t attack us. And don’t worry, President Obama. If you happen to kill scores of women and children while pursuing terrorists, you won’t be called a war criminal by the left. That only applied to Bush. Good hunting!
Posted by: Kevin D | January 23, 2009, 11:09 pm 11:09 pm
Thank you for clarifying that I have wasted my time. I will no longer do that. Over and Out.
Posted by: Anna Nimity | January 24, 2009, 1:09 am 1:09 am
robert b- You’re earlier remark, which was edited out, bordered on sociopathy. I’m referring to your statement of Obama losing his virginity with the drone episode in Pakistan. It was deeply offensive, no matter what your political ideology may be. But I also feel sorry for you, because you’ve so obviously internalized a system which has no respect for human life.
Posted by: kathy | January 24, 2009, 1:36 am 1:36 am
I feel I should clarify the sentence about “internalizing a system which has no respect for life.” I wasn’t referring to the military itself, but to some of the more questionable facets of the military -like “black ops” or clandestine operations where morality is non-existent to its goals. I was also referring to the practice of dehumanizing Iraqis in basic training during the present Iraq War, which proved to be detrimental to the effort when civilians were assaulted without discrimination. I also want to stress that the sexualizing of the Pakistani drone attack that was done yesterday by Robert was an insult not only to women, but to the president and the military as a whole.
Posted by: kathy | January 24, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Any policeman or member of Armed Services knows exactly what it means – taking a life the first time makes you scared, exhiliarated (at survival?), even sick – but that’s what you’re trained to do to protect your society. That’s what a pilot … or rather an officer trained as a pilot did in a room somewhere in the desert in the Southwest when AWACs, satellite and drone(s) plotted a trajectory for a missile that killed at least 20 in 2 villages.
The root of the decision and responsibility rests squarely on none other than our Commander in Chief, how ever little time he has been in office
(quick test – he gets a intelligence briefing today – imminent terror. What does he do – shut the airports, man the skies, close the subways, execute Patriot Act Defcon 4 – huh, time and policy and people in place, NOW you understand, huh?).
Apparently I am not knowledgeable enough to gauge the differences between the Marxist linguistic gobbledygook of Chomsky which I criticized the previous commenter to what should be termed feminist progressive positivism (note the use of “chimera” as a sociological term from earlier (Gibbs, 1/22) and today’s sexualized…internalization of ..non-existent moralism) whatever that might mean.)
Posted by: robert b | January 24, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Robert- Your last paragraph makes no sense. Again, your censored remark on Obama was highly offensive.
Posted by: kathy | January 24, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm