James Baker on Israel

I've always thought James Baker III was a fairly reasonable person - not a conservative ideologue but reasonable and smart nonetheless. So The New York Times > Opinion > his op-ed in the New York Times today is a bit of a disappointment.

Although I agree with his contention that the United States must open multiple fronts on its goal to spread democracy across the Middle East (i.e. Iraq, PA, Iran, etc.), I strongly disagree with his perscription for negotiations.

First, to suggest that the the Clinton agreement would be a good starting place is simply irresponsible. That agreement was possibly the worst thing for both states as it would displace thousands of Jews who would not likely leave their homes. It would also divide the holy city of Jerusalem.

Second, I dislike his quick dismissal of the one state solution. I have talked about this quite a bit in the past little while. I do not see why the Swiss model of federalism cannot work for the area. A weak federal government that does almost nothing other than guarantee individual rights and provide armed forced, and strong provincial government that can take whatever religious bend they would like.