TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/060589/06058900.045

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 5.8 KB | 113 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 32

MIDDLE EAST

Straight Talk from the U.S.


Baker unveils a plan for peace and gets heat for evenhandedness

By Christopher Ogden


    In the semantics of Arab-Israeli diplomacy, where
"evenhanded" and "honest broker" have often meant quite the
opposite, last week's curtain-raising U.S. initiative promised
an overdue turn to reality. Secretary of State James Baker, in
presenting the Bush Administration's first blueprint for the
peace process, did not announce a shift in American policy. But
he did offer no-frills clarity and a finely balanced call for
concessions from both sides. In a sharp and wise departure from
Reagan-era practice, his speech to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the most influential pro-Israel
lobby, eliminated the sugarcoated reassurances that
traditionally soften American urgings to Israel.

    The pragmatic Secretary first won ovations from his
audience by urging Arabs to take concrete steps toward
accommodation with Israel, including transforming the violence
of the intifadeh into political dialogue. "End the economic
boycott. Stop the challenges to Israel's standing in
international organizations," Baker implored. "Repudiate the
odious line that Zionism is racism." Calling for serious
political dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, Baker
asked both sides to consider every idea as "a dealmaker, not a
deal breaker."

    But the raucous applause from the audience of 1,200 at a
Washington hotel turned to stony silence seconds later when,
with precise evenhandedness, the Secretary specified what the
Bush Administration wanted from Israel. "Now is the time to lay
aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater
Israel," Baker urged. Security interests could be satisfied, he
said, by a settlement based on U.N. Resolution 242, which
requires secure and recognized borders for Israel. For a change,
Baker presented Israel with a U.S. wish list: "Forswear
annexation. Stop settlement activity. Allow (Palestinian)
schools to reopen. Reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors
who deserve political rights."

    Baker arrived and departed to standing ovations, and his
27-minute address was interrupted 22 times by applause, but in
no time, the White House and State Department switchboards were
flooded with calls complaining about the stark tone,
specificity and "excessive balance" of the proposals.

    Not everyone was dismayed. Palestine Liberation
Organization spokesman Ahmed Abdel Rahman called the comments
"a big step forward." More significantly, key American-Jewish
community leaders also praised Baker's directness. "It was a
fair speech that touched every base," said Thomas A. Dine,
executive director of AIPAC, even as some of his members branded
the initiative "hostile." Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, former
president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations, said the Secretary "deserves to be
commended, not criticized." Pointing out that the tougher
demands had been made on the Arabs, Schindler asked, "Is it
better to hear sweet nothings or honest talk about what has to
be done on both sides?"

    Sweet nothings might have been the preference of Israeli
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who was visiting London when word
of Baker's speech reached him. "It was useless that Baker raised
this now, useless," he said. "We cannot accept what he said
about a greater Israel or the settlement problem." Defense
Minister Yitzhak Rabin, visiting Washington, charged the U.S.
with inappropriately trying to define a final settlement while
all sides still wrestled with preliminary negotiations on West
Bank and Gaza elections. "The less we deal with the idea of a
permanent solution, the better," grumped Rabin.

    In Israel, Baker's comments fueled the fire already burning
at the extreme right wing of Shamir's Likud Party. The
government's hard-core hawks are apoplectic with Shamir for
proposing elections in which Palestinians would chose
representatives to negotiate a transitional period of self-rule.
Despite the vagueness of the proposal, which the Cabinet
endorsed by a vote of 20 to 6 earlier this month, they fear that
their hard-lining leader is careering down the slippery slope
toward an independent Palestinian state. Thirty Knesset hawks
denounced the election plan as a "submission to terror." Trade
and Industry Minister Ariel Sharon warned that the plan would
"bring us closer to war" and announced his intention to
challenge Shamir at a Likud Party convention in late June.

    Shamir has attempted to mollify his right-wing critics with
rhetoric ("We will not give the Arabs one inch of land") and by
increasing pressure on the Palestinians. Rabin is now nearly
doubling the number of Israeli troops in the occupied
territories. The government is also cracking down on the freedom
of Palestinians who live in the territories but work in Israel,
issuing a new requirement for work permits. This renewed
toughness by Israel is being matched by an escalation in the
intifadeh that has already led to greater bloodshed. Israeli
troops came under fire in three separate incidents last week,
only days after a soldier and three West Bank Palestinians died
in the first full-scale fire fight of the uprising.

    If Shamir does bow to pressure from the right, he risks
losing support from the freshly engaged U.S. Responding flexibly
to Baker, on the other hand, could cause a revolt within Likud.
The predicament, unfortunately, gives a seasoned politician like
Shamir a relatively easy out: he can complain about the
pressures from both sides -- and do nothing. With tensions
soaring in the territories, that could be the most dangerous
course of all.