31 readers online now

Related Topics

 

Latest Articles

 

ADVERTISEMENTS



Premium Links
by Wikio

Computers
Electronics
Communication
Appliances

What Went Wrong with James A. Baker, III?

by Daniel Pipes
Tue, 5 Dec 2006

updated Fri, 8 Dec 2006

Print Send Comment RSS Share:    

James A. Baker, III

Back in his glory days as secretary of state, James A. Baker, III, was widely seen as hostile to Israel, a charge I defended him from, once in the Washington Post ("This Administration is Good for Israel") and once in Commentary magazine ("Bush, Clinton, and the Jews").

A report in Insight magazine today, "Baker wants Israel excluded from regional conference," caught my eye, however. Here are some excerpts:

The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel. The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.

"As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure," an official said. "This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month." Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. …

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights. "Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis," the official said. "The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians."

Comment: If this report is accurate, Baker has latterly confirmed the hostility he was accused of 15 years ago? What happened? Being tone-deaf, as he was then, is one thing. Throwing a close ally to the wolves, quite another. (December 5, 2006)

Dec. 12, 2006 update: I offer my take today on the Iraq Study Group Report at "James Baker's Terrible Iraq Report."

Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Arab-Israeli debate in the U.S., US policy

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/714/fe00c/242

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Title By Date

Destruction of Israel in the works? [75 words]

Ben Ness 

Apr 10, 2007 21:30

Justified to be named Daniel [102 words]

Van Dola 

Jan 27, 2007 12:57

Why wasn't there an infantryman on the Iraq Study Group? [357 words]

Tertium Quid 

Dec 19, 2006 11:05

Baker's hostility to Israel [30 words]

Ben 

Dec 19, 2006 00:51

The Baked Ham Report [56 words]

Bruce Josloff 

Dec 18, 2006 23:22

Duh! Centuries of tribal and religious hatred in the Middle East that has nothing to do with Isreal [352 words]

Myopia Avenger 

Dec 18, 2006 21:15

prediction, hope springs eternal [246 words]

linda 

Dec 18, 2006 19:57

Dumped again
[w/response] [208 words]

Katherine McLean 

Dec 18, 2006 17:47

What Went Wrong wtih James Baker, III? Baker is still Baker [136 words]

Lisa Michelson 

Dec 18, 2006 15:19

Baker's Always Been An Ass, but we have bigger worries [36 words]

Esther 

Dec 18, 2006 15:14

Baker. [33 words]

steven L 

Dec 18, 2006 14:29

reasonable proposal [59 words]

Uillis 

Dec 18, 2006 14:13

JAMES BAKER & OUR GOVERNMENT [59 words]

Suzanne 

Dec 18, 2006 14:09

not surprised, but not disappointed [200 words]

PETER SILVER 

Dec 18, 2006 12:59

  Wedding without the bride [23 words]

R V 

Jan 3, 2007 18:07

The Lunacy of our Government! [98 words]

Al Roth 

Dec 18, 2006 12:50

money talks, big money yells [8 words]

Regan Huffman 

Dec 18, 2006 12:48

What happened to James Baker [210 words]

Ernie Lofthouse 

Dec 14, 2006 22:05

  How can anyone??? [104 words]

Ted McLean 

Dec 18, 2006 13:59

  I agree with Ernie Lofthouse [147 words]

Muriel Efron 

Dec 18, 2006 14:38

  Machiavelli [17 words]

P. Sydney Herbert 

Dec 18, 2006 16:43

  Re: Dumped again [37 words]

Katherine 

Dec 19, 2006 14:19

More of the Same [100 words]

Abu Sahajj 

Dec 13, 2006 01:25

  For Abu Sahajj and "more of the same"? Really? [194 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 13, 2006 18:02

  For Abu Sahajj and his poor Arabic part deux! [119 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 14, 2006 07:17

  Wa Salaam Wa Zinn Wa Chomsky Wa Juan Cole [142 words]

Jeff Burke 

Dec 14, 2006 13:28

  Dhimmi no more... dhimmi forever... [133 words]

Abu Sahajj 

Dec 14, 2006 14:38

  Dhimmi no more ... [20 words]

Abu Sahajj 

Dec 14, 2006 15:53

  For Abu Sahajj and his poor Arabic part trois! [68 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 15, 2006 18:16

  For sahajj and his poor Arabic part quatre! [41 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 15, 2006 18:22

  Dummy no more... [19 words]

Abu Sahajj 

Dec 17, 2006 00:06

  For Abu Sahajj and his bogus Egyptian Arabic! [48 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 17, 2006 17:42

  The End [236 words]

Hakim Abdullah 

Dec 18, 2006 18:14

  For Hakim and who is really abu sahajj? and will I be proud of myself? and the answer is yes! [194 words]

dhimmi no more 

Dec 19, 2006 06:20

  Islamism defeated? [14 words]

R V 

Jan 3, 2007 18:05

  For RV Islam and communism [33 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 4, 2007 06:07

  I would like to know more. [7 words]

R V 

Jan 7, 2007 01:27

  Fotr RV islam and communism [228 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 7, 2007 15:56

  Let's change the tone a bit [72 words]

R V 

Jan 9, 2007 19:02

  For RV and the religion of peace! [607 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 10, 2007 07:25

  Funny indeed [91 words]

R V 

Jan 10, 2007 19:50

  For RV and bad ideas [63 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 13, 2007 08:34

  The Marketplace of Ideas [11 words]

R V 

Jan 15, 2007 00:56

  For RV Islam and the market place of ideas [24 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 15, 2007 22:17

  Theory to practice [19 words]

R V 

Jan 16, 2007 20:36

  For RV and the market place of ideas [5 words]

dhimmi no more 

Jan 18, 2007 06:42

Baker Commission Report [158 words]

Mitzi Alvin 

Dec 12, 2006 16:47

sitting... waiting.... [133 words]

Donald O 

Dec 11, 2006 21:48

Baker wants to reverse cause and effect. [333 words]

MelM 

Dec 10, 2006 22:41

What do you mean "what happened to him?" He's the same as ever. He suffers from the same disease as... [72 words]

J.S. 

Dec 9, 2006 23:30

wolves? [68 words]

paul murphy 

Dec 9, 2006 20:45

  Surely a foreign country [28 words]

R V 

Jan 3, 2007 17:50

Who pays for the caviar on Mr Baker's table? [66 words]

skeptic 

Dec 9, 2006 14:06

Why the Baker-Hamilton Commission? [55 words]

Carter 

Dec 9, 2006 12:58

  Baker and Iraq [65 words]

Samuel Stephens 

Dec 11, 2006 21:03

Conference with or without Israel will be meaningless and fruitless. [261 words]

Romesh Chander 

Dec 9, 2006 12:50

James Baker - Founding father of Islamist terror army [216 words]

Anil Kaul 

Dec 9, 2006 02:29

betrayal of Israel [41 words]

Clifford Ishii 

Dec 8, 2006 23:34

Baker has Nothing to give away [21 words]

Reality Check 

Dec 8, 2006 22:03

Iraq Surrender Group - What is the average age of those geriatrics? [19 words]

Jeff Burke 

Dec 8, 2006 21:07

Yikes! [195 words]

Peter J. Herz 

Dec 8, 2006 20:51

James A. Baker's folly [167 words]

Infidel 

Dec 8, 2006 16:02

no one to trust [79 words]

nathan 

Dec 8, 2006 15:04

  James Baker 3.0 is as he always was [219 words]

Jeff Burke 

Dec 8, 2006 21:02

Question
[w/response] [12 words]

Alex 

Dec 8, 2006 13:58

Comment on this weblog entry

Name
Email Address (optional)

Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.

Top 25 recent comments
Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

ADVERTISEMENTS