The following is an article I wrote for the American Foreign Policy Council.  It was originally published here at the Jerusalem Post.

As the new president-elect begins to weigh the carrots and sticks he can employ when dealing with the Middle East, he will run into the question of how to handle Syria.  Bashar al-Asad was the first to reach out with a telegram to Mr. Obama on November 7 that “expressed hope for constructive dialogue so that the difficulties can be overcome which have hampered the advance of peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.”

The list of these “difficulties” is indeed long.  The regime in Damascus supports terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas, continues to destabilize Lebanon, strives to become a nuclear power, and is politically and tactically wedded to Iran – and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Back in June, when shortly after the secret talks between Syria and Israel became known, two contrasting opinions were shared on the prospects of peacemaking.  Since MEO seeks to foster debate on the Middle East, below the two articles are shared.  The first is by David Schenker, the Director of the Program on Arab Politics from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Responding to his article is Joshua Landis, the Director of the Center for Peace Studies and host of the blog, Syria Comment.

Bradley Burston of Israel's daily newspaper, Haaretz, wrote this article about Israel's prisoner swap with Hizballah including Samir Kuntar.  It is well-worth the read.  The original can be viewed at Haaretz.

The pleasure that Hezbollah takes in torture

By, Bradley Burston

July 15, 2008

Torture takes many forms. We take it and we hand it out, we live with it and we live with ourselves knowing that we may be subjecting our loved ones to it, that our loved ones may be engaging in it, that innocent people on every side may be torture's direct victims.

By, Patrick Seale

May 2, 2008

A faintly hopeful aspect of the current frost between Syria and Israel is that Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems determined to bring the two countries to the negotiating table. Turkey has emerged over the past year as the principle, indeed the only serious, broker between these bitter enemies.

What links together the conflicts in the Middle East?  Isn't it, afterall, possible to feel especially fascinated by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, feel obligated to resolve it, believe that it should not be difficult to solve given the public parameters, and not believe it is linked to all other conflicts in the Middle East?

For some reason when the West discusses the Middle East all conflicts are seen as linked together so that the resolution of one will ease the prospects for reconciliation for another.  Conversely, one  conflict that remains unresolved inhibits the solution of another.  This thinking gave birth to the 1990s idea of "Comprehensive Peace."  That is an all-encompassing peace that satisfies all parties. 

Of course, each Middle Eastern state or actor has a different set of interests so the theory of a comprehensive peace means that specific people or governments will be representing the "greater interest."  This is problematic because what is good for the Syrians is not necessarily good for the Palestinians, and the Iranians share a different worldview from Iraq, and so on.

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) wrote an op-ed piece in the June 5, 2008 edition of The Wall Street Journal entitled, "It's Time to Talk to Syria." They demonstrate how reading the facts incorrectly, concluding the impossible is possible, and prescribing poor policy, can indeed be a bipartisan effort.

More disturbing is that Kerry - the former 2004 presidential hopeful - and Hagel both serve on the Senate's committee on Foreign Relations, and Hagel is also on the committee on Select Intelligence.  Their conclusions are neither intelligent nor practical.

---