TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/060589/06058900.045

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 6KB | 100 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.