[WCUSP] "Baker's Cake"-Uri Averny on Baker vs The Lobby

[KATHARLOW at aol.com]

"Since 1967 and the beginning of the occupation,  several American 
Secretaries of State have submitted plans to end  
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All these plans  met the same fate: they 
were torn up and thrown in the  trash.

"The same sequence of events has been repeated time  after time: In 
Jerusalem, hysteria sets in. The Foreign Office  
stands up on its hind legs and swears to defeat the evil design. The media  
unanimously condemns the wicked plot. The 
Secretary of State of the day is  pilloried as an anti-Semite. The Israeli 
lobby in Washington mobilizes for total  
war....

"For example: the Rogers Plan of Richard Nixon's first  Secretary of State, 
William Rogers. In the early 70s he  
submitted a detailed peace plan, the principal point of which was the  
withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 borders,
with, at most, "insubstantial  alterations".

"What happened to the  plan?

"In face of the onslaught of "the Friends of  Israel" in Washington, Nixon 
buckled under, as have all presidents 
since  Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man of principle who did not need the Jewish 
votes. No  president will quarrel with the 
government of Israel if he wants to be  re-elected, or - like Bush now - to 
end his term in office with dignity and  
pass the presidency to another member of his party. Any senator or  
congressman who takes a stand that the Israeli 
embassy does not like, is  committing Harakiri, Washington-style."


For more than 20 years, Israeli  journalist Uri Avnery has been observing and 
commenting on the ability of the  Jewish lobby to determine US policy 
regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Here he spells it out again in commenting 
on the Baker-Hamilton Report. Note:  Baker was backed in the actions Avnery 
describes by Pres. George Bush St., who  also refused to knuckle under to the 
lobby and paid a political price for it.  

Uri Avnery
9.12.06

Baker's Cake

NO  ONE likes to admit a mistake. Me neither. But honesty leaves me no  
choice.

A few days after the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11,  2001, I 
happened to go on a lecture tour in the US.

My message was  optimistic. I expected some good to come out of the tragedy. 
I reasoned that the  atrocity had exposed 
the intensity of the hatred for the US that is  spreading throughout the 
world, and especially the Muslim world. It 
would be  logical not only to fight against the mosquitoes, but to drain the 
swamp. Since  the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict was one of the breeding grounds of the  hatred - if not the main one 
- the US would make a major effort to 
achieve  peace between the two peoples.

That was what cold logic indicated. But  this is not what happened. What 
happened was the very opposite.

American  policy was not led by cold logic. Instead of drying one swamp, it 
created a  second swamp. Instead of 
pushing the Israelis and Palestinians towards  peace, it invaded Iraq. Not 
only did the hatred against America not 
die  down, it flared up even higher. I hoped that this danger would override 
even the  oil interests and the desire 
to station an American garrison in the center  of the Middle East.

Thus I committed the very mistake that I have warned  others against many 
times: to assume that what is logical will 
actually  happen. A rational person should not ignore the irrational in 
politics. In other  words, it is irrational to 
exclude the irrational.

George W. Bush is  an irrational person, perhaps the very personification of 
irrationality. Instead  of drawing the 
logical conclusion from what had happened and acting  accordingly, he set off 
in the opposite direction. Since 
then he has just  insisted on "staying the course".

Enter James  Baker.


SINCE I am already in a confessional mood, I have to  admit that I like James 
Baker.

I know that this will  shock some of my good friends. "Baker?!" they will cry 
out, "The consigliere of  the Bush 
family? The man who helped George W steal the 2000 elections? The  Rightist?"

Yes, yes, the very same Baker. I like him for his cold  logic, his forthright 
and blunt style, his habit of saying 
what he thinks  without embellishment, his courage. I prefer this style to 
the  sanctimonious hypocrisy of other leaders, 
who try to hide their real  intentions. I would be happy any time to swap 
Olmert for Baker, and throw in  Amir Peretz for free.

But that is a matter of taste. More important is  the fact that in all the 
last 40 years, James Baker was the only  
leader in America who had the guts to stand up and act against Israel's  
malignant disease: the settlements. When 
he was the Secretary of State, he  simply informed the Israeli government 
that he would deduct the sums expended  
on the settlements from the money Israel was getting from the US. Threatened  
and made good on his threat.

Baker thus confronted the  "pro-Israeli" lobby in the US, both the Jewish and 
the Christian. Such  
courage is rare in the United States, as it is rare in  Israel.


THIS WEEK the Iraq Study Group, led by Baker,  published its report.

It confirms all the bleak forecasts voiced  by many throughout the world - 
myself included - before Bush & Co.  
launched the bloody Iraqi adventure. In his dry and incisive style, Baker  
says that the US cannot win there. In 
so many words he tells the American  public: Let's get out of there, before 
the last American soldier has to scramble  
into the last helicopter from the roof of the American embassy, as happened  
in Vietnam.

Baker calls for the end of the Bush approach and  offers a new and 
thought-out strategy of his own. Actually, it is an  
elegant way of extricating America from Iraq, without it looking like a  
complete rout. The main proposals: an 
American dialogue with Iran and Syria,  an international conference, the 
withdrawal of the American combat brigades,  
leaving behind only instructors. The committee that he headed was  
bi-partisan, composed half and half of 
Republicans and  Democrats.


FOR ISRAELIS, the most interesting part of the  report is, of course, the one 
that concerns us directly. It interests  
me especially - how could it be otherwise? - because it repeats, almost word  
for word, the things I said 
immediately after September 11, both in my  articles at home and in my 
lectures in the US.

True, Baker is saying them  four years later. In these four years, thousands 
of American soldiers and tens  of thousands 
of Iraqi civilians have died for nothing. But, to use the image  again, when 
a giant ship like the United States turns 
around, it  make a very big circle, and it takes a lot of time. We, in the 
small speed-boat  called Israel, could do 
it much quicker - if we had the good sense to do  it.

Baker says simply: In order to stop the war in Iraq and start a  
reconciliation with the Arab world, the US must 
bring about the end of the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He does not say 
explicitly that peace  must be imposed on 
Israel, but that is the obvious implication.

In  his own clear words: "The United States will not be able to achieve its  
goals in the Middle East unless the United 
States deals directly with the  Arab-Israeli conflict."

His committee proposes the  immediate start of negotiations between Israel 
and "President Mahmoud Abbas", in  order to 
implement the two-state solution. The "sustainable negotiations"  must 
address the "key final status issues of 
borders, settlements,  Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of  
conflict."

The use of the title "President" for Abu  Mazen and, even more so, the use of 
the term "right of return" has alarmed  
the whole political class in Israel. Even in the Oslo agreement,  the section 
dealing with the "final status" 
issues mentions only "refugees".  Baker, as is his wont, called the spade a 
spade.

At the same time, he  proposes a stick and carrot approach to achieve peace 
between Israel and  Syria. The US needs 
this peace in order to draw Syria into its  camp. The stick, from the Israeli 
point of view, would be the return of the  
Golan Heights. The carrot would be the stationing of American soldiers on  
the border, so that Israel's security 
would be guaranteed by the US. In  return, he demands that Syria stop, inter 
alia, its aid to  Hizbullah.

After Gulf War I, Baker - the same Baker - got all the  parties to the 
conflict to come to an international 
conference in Madrid.  For that purpose, he twisted the arm of then Prime 
Minister Itzhak Shamir, whose  entire 
philosophy consisted of two letters and one exclamation mark:  "No!" and 
whose slogan was: "The Arabs are the same 
Arabs, and the  sea is the same sea" - alluding to the popular Israeli 
conviction that the Arabs  all want to throw 
Israel into the sea.

Baker brought Shamir to  Madrid, his arms and legs in irons, and made sure he 
did not escape.  Shamir was compelled to 
sit at the table with representatives of the  Palestinian people, who had 
never been allowed to attend an 
international  conference before. The conference itself had no tangible 
results,  but  there is no doubt that it was a 
vital step in the process that  brought about the Oslo agreement and, more 
difficult than anything else, the  
mutual recognition of the State of Israel and the Palestinian  people.

Now Baker is suggesting something similar. He proposes an  international 
conference, and cites Madrid as a model. The  
conclusion is clear.


HOWEVER, THIS baker can only offer a  recipe for the cake. The question is 
whether President Bush will use 
the  recipe and bake the cake.

Since 1967 and the  beginning of the occupation, several American Secretaries 
of State have  submitted plans to end 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All  these plans met the same fate: they 
were torn up and thrown in  the trash.

The same sequence of events has been repeated time  after time: In Jerusalem, 
hysteria sets in. The Foreign Office  
stands up on its hind legs and swears to defeat the evil design. The media  
unanimously condemns the wicked plot. The 
Secretary of State of the day is  pilloried as an anti-Semite. The Israeli 
lobby in Washington mobilizes for total  
war.

For example: the Rogers Plan of Richard Nixon's  first Secretary of State, 
William Rogers. In the early 70s he  
submitted a detailed peace plan, the principal point of which was the  
withdrawal of Israel to the 1967 borders,
with, at most, "insubstantial  alterations".

What happened to the  plan?

In face of the onslaught of "the Friends of  Israel" in Washington, Nixon 
buckled under, as have all presidents 
since  Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man of principle who did not need the Jewish 
votes. No  president will quarrel with the 
government of Israel if he wants to be  re-elected, or - like Bush now - to 
end his term in office with dignity and  
pass the presidency to another member of his party. Any senator or  
congressman who takes a stand that the Israeli 
embassy does not like, is  committing Harakiri, Washington-style.

The fate of the  peace plans of successive Secretaries of State confirms, on 
the face of it, the  thesis of the two 
professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, that caused  a great stir 
earlier this year. According to them, whenever 
there is a clash  in Washington between the national interests of the United 
States and the  national interests 
of Israel, it is the Israeli interests which win.  


WILL THIS happen this time,  too?

Baker has presented his plan at a time when  the US is facing disaster in 
Iraq. President Bush is bankrupt, his 
party has  lost control of Congress and may soon lose the White House. The  
neo-conservatives, most of them Jews and 
all of them supporters of the  Israeli extreme Right, who were in control of 
American foreign policy, are being  
removed one by one, and this week yet another, the American ambassador to  
the United Nations, was kicked out. 
Therefore, it is possible that this time  the President may listen to expert 
advice.

But that is  in serious doubt. The Democratic Party is subject to the 
"pro-Israeli" lobby no  less than the 
Republican Party, and perhaps even more. The new congress was  indeed elected 
under the banner of opposition to the 
continuation of the war  in Iraq, but its members are not jihadi suicide 
bombers. They depend on the  "pro-Israeli" 
lobby. To paraphrase Shamir: "The plan is the same  plan, and the trash bin 
is the same trash bin."  

In  Jerusalem, the first reaction to the report was total rejection, 
expressing  a complete confidence in the ability 
of the lobby to choke it at  birth. "Nothing has changed," Olmert declared. 
"There is no one to talk  with," - 
immediately echoed by the mouth and pen brigade in the media. "We  cannot 
talk with them as long as the terrorism 
goes on," a famous expert  declared on TV. That's like saying: "One cannot 
talk about ending the war as  long as 
the enemy is shooting at our troops."

On the Mearsheimer-Walt  thesis I wrote that "the dog is wagging the tail and 
the tail is wagging the  dog." It will 
be interesting to see which will wag which this time:  the dog its tail or 
the tail its dog. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/wcusp_wilpf.org/attachments/20061210/3f544769/attachment.html