Baker’s twenty

It’s been 20 years since Secretary of State Baker delivered his notorious “Greater Israel” speech to AIPAC.

Looking over the speech now, it preserves a moment in time. It doesn’t seem as shocking now as it did when he delivered. In fact in many ways it seems rather balanced.

Of course, probably part of the problem with the speech was, as then-reporter Thomas Friedman observed:

The Secretary of State’s speech was striking for the unsentimental and unusually blunt tone with which he addressed the Israelis, for the carefully balanced manner in which he called on both sides to make concessions for peace and for the clear endorsement he gave Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza as a basis for breaking the Middle East deadlock.

A lot has changed since then. Israel has ceded territory to the Palestinians and has been rewarded with increased terror. (From Fatah, especially after September, 2000 until Defensive Shielf and from Hamas, especially after the “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005.) But even the baby steps that Baker demanded of the Palestinians, still have not been fulfilled. The continued Palestinian refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state demonstrates that the Palestinian’s covenant effectively remains in force.

For Palestinians, now is the time to speak with one voice for peace. Renounce the ‘policy of phases’ in all languages, not just those addressed to the West. Practise constructive diplomacy, not attempts to distort international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. Amend the covenant. Translate the dialogue of violence in the intifada into a dialogue of politics and diplomacy. Violence will not work. Reach out to Israelis and convince them of your peaceful intentions. You have the most to gain from doing so, and no one else can or will do it for you. Finally, understand that no one is going to deliver Israel for you.

And of course, even now, the Palestinians expect the Americans to deliver Israel for them. And based on this year’s AIPAC conference, the new administration appears quite happy to do so.

Fresno Zionism summarizes Vice President Biden’s speech like this:

His argument is that Iran “exploits” the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts in order to extend its influence into the Sunni world, something which would be otherwise “counter-intuitive”. Biden says that the continuation of the conflicts “strengthens Iran’s position”. The conflicts “give Iran a playing field upon which to extend its influence, sponsor extremist sentiments, inflame public opinion”. So in Biden’s view, ending the conflict would pull the rug out from under Iran.

But he notes:

Iran is not so much making use of the conflict as creating it. Any actual moderate Palestinians have been suppressed in favor of extremists who are either Iranian proxies themselves or take advantage of the climate they have created. This makes it hard — impossible — to end the conflict while Iran pulls the strings.

And Biden wasn’t alone attempting to deliver Israel for the Palestinians. And there’s some history that’s being repeated.

With Biden and Kerry following Baker’s footsteps by putting diplomatic pressure on Israel at the AIPAC conference, it’s interesting to note this observation from the New York Times (via memeorandum):

Speeches are scrutinized closely at Aipac events. As a presidential candidate in June 2008, Barack Obama spoke to Aipac to counter whispers in the American Jewish community that he was insufficiently committed to Israel. Mr. Obama told the group that he regarded them as “friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.”

Mr. Obama went on to win an estimated 78 percent of the Jewish vote, a figure higher than that won four years earlier by Mr. Kerry.

It’s ironic, then, that the fear of those who questioned President Obama’s commitment to American’s ally, Israel, is now being realized.

UPDATE: I should be clear about two things.

Baker’s speech, even if it doesn’t seem so hostile twenty years later, was a big deal at the time and set the tone for the Bush administration’s dealings with Israel.

The other is that politically Israel has changed a lot. Even “right wing” PM Binyamin Netanyahu today is closer in outlook to Peace Now’s position of twenty years ago than he his to Yitzchak Shamir’s. Israeli concessions have irrevocably changed Israel’s political landscape, the same cannot be said of the Palestinians who haven’t had anyone tell them that they have to put aside their dreams of a “greater Palestine.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.