Middle East Straight Talk from the U.S.

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.

With reporting by Jon D. Hull/Jerusalem