First, from the Los Angeles Times:

JERUSALEM — 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."

Anytime I hear something like that, I start to get chills. "Linkage" between Israel and the Iraq war is the same premise of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists: "It's Israel's fault we're in Iraq." It's been proven by numerous sources that the problem that the Arab world has with America is far more multifaceted than simply "supporting Israel", and Iraq was the project of something far larger. Even Hamas has diversity of opinion regarding Israel.

But it goes further:

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 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.

Olmert noted Damascus is not about to stop supporting extremists.

Condoleeza Rice also supported the proposal, as did National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

As did Yossi Sarid, the Israeli left-wing MK.

Baker also proposed that the US host a peace summit in which Arab nations would be invited to participate, but from which Israel would be excluded. And here's where it starts to get ugly:

A source in the US government said, "As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the US to strike a deal without Jewish pressure. This has become the hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month."

Not without Israeli pressure, without Jewish pressure. I don't know who said unnamed source is, but I can't help but feel that this is feeling is resident also in James Baker.

My rav feels that a Democratic or non-Bush-esque win in 2008 would signal harm for Israel, and indeed, Ehud Olmert seems to echo this sentiment:

Olmert said at an annual meeting of Israeli journalists in Tel Aviv, "To the best of my knowledge, President Bush, throughout the recent years, has also had a different opinion on this matter."

Olmert added: "I think it is clear to most Americans that the problems in Iraq, serious as they are, are entirely independent of the controversies between us and the Palestinians, and in any event no one needs to nudge Israel forward with peace initiatives. I think the whole world agrees that we are the ones that initiate movement forward in what we hope will become a peace process between us and the Palestinians."

While I think the Olmert administration has been a complete disaster, I can't help but be inclined to agree with him. Forgetting the strategic necessity inherent in the Golan -- it is the only buffer zone around Israel's main water supply, let's consider this:

Even if we will say that Syria is justified in supporting Hezbollah as a civil service organization, and that they don't need to disarm (I can't believe I'm saying it either, this is completely hypothetical), Islamic Jihad? They are an armed wing of Hamas, an armed wing who has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombing. This organization, being again, an armed faction, does not have a peaceful purpose. Hamas runs schools, these people buy guns and manufacture rockets. How can they justify this -- and then say that this is not even on the bargaining table in a treaty which would entitle them to such a significant portion of a sovereign country?

Hasn't the world seen enough forcible transfer of individuals?

My major problem isn't with Iran -- Ahmadenijad needs to be out of office, but Iran's governmental landscape is not nearly as problematic as Syria's. While Iran is paying Hezbollah's bills, Syria is providing the infrastructure and doing the dirty work. They are much more intrinsically linked to the terror organizations which kill innocent people than rich-great-uncle Iran. Iran, as one columnist noted in the Jerusalem Post, " is producing many bombs - not just one," something our new Defense Secretary Gates admitted to, and "since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb," we should be asking ourselves "what Iran needs all those other bombs for." If Iran is producing "many bombs" it is not feasible that they themselves will use all of them.

And they've got everyone who humanity would rather NOT see have bombs on their payroll.

This proposal is extremely slanted and leaves Israel virtually defenseless -- as 1967 borders have already been termed "indefensible" by the Israeli Defense Forces. (Unless this is all a guise to get US troops in Israel and Syria as well.)

This can not go on. Israel can not have its land sliced up in meetings it is not privy to. Negotiations for peace must involve all concerned parties, Israel included. Syria can not continue to pay for explosive belts, and -- conversely -- Israel can not be expected not to give up something. But, Olmert already showed favor for a Saudi peace proposal which involved retreating to "1967-like" borders. So it's not as if Israel isn't already at the negotiating table.

Chatati. My rabbi was 100% right, even though he's on the right. Write your elected representative an Email and/or call them and let them know -- secret summits and arbitrary divisions are not negotiations.