Josh Rogin’s interview with former Secretary of State James Baker is teased at the top of ForeignPolicy.com’s home page with the headline: “The Realists Strike Back.” The Star Wars reference is appropriate, because it seems Baker is having his Admiral Ackbar moment.
The purpose of the interview is Baker’s response to recent reporting by Rogin on the prominence of some foreign policy “realists” in Mitt Romney’s transition team and the discomfort that is causing among other foreign policy advisers. In the interview, Baker explains that he deserves to be mentioned alongside Henry Kissinger, because Baker believes himself to be among the greatest statesmen this country has ever known. Where did he get this idea? From Thomas Friedman. But a glance at the Friedman column in question singing Baker’s praises makes one thing clear that Baker seems not to have noticed in time: It’s a trap!
Here is what Friedman writes about Baker:
The three U.S. statesmen who have done the most to make Israel more secure and accepted in the region all told blunt truths to every Israeli or Arab leader: Jimmy Carter, who helped forge a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt; Henry Kissinger, who built the post-1973 war disengagement agreements with Syria, Israel and Egypt; and James Baker, who engineered the Madrid peace conference. All of them knew that to make progress in this region you have to get in the face of both sides. They both need the excuse at times that “the Americans made me do it,” because their own politics are too knotted to move on their own.
As this is the paragraph that mentioned Baker, he should have read it prior to endorsing its message. There’s the moral equivalence that has become a trademark of Friedman’s, and the outlandish claim about Israel’s security and place in the region.
Even if you grant that Carter should get a great deal of credit for the 1979 peace deal–and you shouldn’t, because Carter opposed it, tried to stall and prevent it, and then finally jumped aboard when he could no longer hope to torpedo it–you’d still have to be delusional to believe what was written there. Friedman’s no history buff of course, but he should be familiar with Harry Truman, whose early recognition of the Jewish state was critical to its acceptance and survival in its early days.
Kissinger does belong in that group–but so does his boss, Richard Nixon, who worked with Kissinger to plan and implement Operation Nickel Grass to keep Israel supplied and armed during the Yom Kippur War.
There are others, of course; George W. Bush’s support for Israel during the Intifada, Reagan’s support for Menachem Begin–against the wishes of much of his cabinet–during the first Lebanon war, etc. But the point is that if Baker only read the paragraph mentioning him he should still have known not to brag about it.
But the reason it’s a trap is because of what was written before that paragraph. Here are some choice quotes from it:
- “Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway”
- “They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas”
- “In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to ‘out-pro-Israel’ the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel”
- “State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are ‘an obstacle to peace’ — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel”
- “the main Israel lobby, AIPAC, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are ‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel’ and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not”
You get the point: Most of the column was about the nefarious presence of Jewish money in the election. This is the flag Baker is now running around Washington waving at reporters to prove he’s a statesman. Something tells me it won’t help.
FYI: In 1952 James Baker wrote his senior thesis "Two Sides of the Conflict: Bevin vs. Bevan." Essentially Baker argued that it was wrong for President Truman to recognize the new State of Israel. Unsurprisingly, Baker supported the position of the antisemitic Ernest Bevin. Richard Crossman, a fellow Labour Party member of parliament characterized Bevin's outlook during the last days of the British Mandate for Palestine as "corresponding roughly with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". nBaker belonged to a fraternity that barred Jewish members. nLittle wonder that Jack Kemp would later report that Baker said "F..k the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway."
When he was a student and played quarterback at then predominantly Jewish Fairfax High School in the West Hollywood, "Borscht Belt" in the late 40s, early 50s, Jack Kemp also belonged to a club, the Cardinals, that excluded Jews. He only developed his affinity for Israel and Jews when he went in to politics and realized not only on what side our political bread is buttered but who runs the dairy.
According to some sources, A. Haig was the real savior of Israel.
Baker shares the attitude of most democrats, including a very high unwarranted opinion of himself.
Baker's ego got in the way of his eyeballs. n nThe guy makes me sick. I am so glad he's too old and feeble to be much interest to anyone anymore.
America’s Intransigent Secretary of State n nI came of voting age in time to cast my ballot for Richard Nixon in 1972. Thereafter, I voted Republican every election until the present, with one exception. I voted for Bill Clinton in November, 1992. But why? n nBarely four months after assuming office, George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State, James A. Baker III, on May 22, 1989, addressed the annual AIPAC conference in Washington, DC insisting that Israel should abandon its ‘expansionist policies’ once and for all. And it didn’t take long for Baker to find a once-in a-lifetime opportunity upon which to act out his new vision for Israel. Shuttling between Israel and the Arab countries building a coalition for the August 1990 – February 1991 Gulf War, Baker made a boatload of promises to deal with Israel’s historical intransigence (as he himself put it) if the Arab leaders would but support America’s efforts in defeating Saddam Hussein. n nAs promised following America’s victory, Baker arrived in Israel with his ‘Land-for-Peace’ proposals. Although the Likud government led by Yitzchak Shamir strongly resisted the Bush-Baker initiative to negotiate with the Palestinians in exchange for withdrawal from strategically vital territory held by Israel, Shamir had another – and for the time being – even greater problem. n nJust prior to the start of the Gulf War and faced with a huge influx of Jewish refugees from the collapsing Soviet Union, (eventually totaling over one million) Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, in May, 1990, had requested of the United States $10 billion in loan guarantees to absorb the immigrants on humanitarian grounds. Baker, no friend of Israel in general or the Likud in particular, saw an opportunity to leverage Israel’s needs in favor of the Baker-Bush goal of negotiating the establishment of a Palestinian state and the removal of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank. To further his Land-for-Peace plan, Baker organized the October, 1991 Madrid Conference and – with the aid of opposition leader Shimon Peres – strong-armed Israel into participation. n nNot only did Baker’s Land-for-Peace formula become the new Middle East peace mantra and force an international viewpoint presenting Israel as the only party resisting “Peace,” but Madrid was an epochal game changer. It led directly to the Oslo Accords and other initiatives that in turn resulted in the international recognition of Yasser Arafat’s murderous PLO as the ‘sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’ and Yasser Arafat’s return from exile in Tunisia to freedom in Gaza. From Gaza, Arafat and his proxy groups not only continued but increased their terrorist actions against Israel and Western Interests. n nI recall following the course of Secretary of State Baker’s diplomacy accompanied by his frequent pronouncements that Israel was the ‘obstacle to peace’. “Intransigence” was his oft-repeated term describing Israel’s objections to the Land-for-Peace formula. I noted in Baker’s speeches that there even seemed to be a problem pronouncing the name ‘Israel’ without sneering. As I see it, Secretary of State James A. Baker III did not employ the power and prestige of the United States as a ‘partner for peace’ but as a one-sided antagonist against Israel’s sovereignty and security interests. n nWith the advantage of nearly twenty-four years of hindsight, I think Baker did more to contribute to the process of weakening Israel’s security than the PLO could ever have hoped for. n nIf there is one post WWII American statesman that sums up all that has been wrong with the US government’s treatment of Israel, it would be James Addison Baker III. n nSo, now you know why I voted “against” George H. W. Bush in November, 1992. n