There were those who hailed Baker's willingness to confront Israel at its annual lovefest. (These remarks were the most quoted though he also said:

For many Israelis it will not be easy to enter a negotiating process whose successful outcome will in all probability involve territorial withdrawal and the emergence of a new political reality. For Palestinians, such an outcome will mean an end to the illusion of control over all of Palestine, and it will mean full recognition of Israel as a neighbour and partner in trade and in human contact.

Let the Arab world take concrete steps towards accommodation with Israel, not in place of the peace process, but as a catalyst for it.

And so we would say, "End the economic boycott. Stop the challenges to Israel's standing in international organizations. Repudiate the odious line that 'Zionism is racism."'

Surely, though, he knew which line would get repeated and the effect it would have on the Shamir government.)

Though in the speech Baker said, "And I believe that the best way to be productive is through consultation rather than confrontation" the term of the first President Bush was marked by confrontation with Israel rather than consultation. And it wasn't just when Yitzchak Shamir was Prime Minister. When Israel expelled some four hundred members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad after the kidnapping and killing of soldier Nissim Toledano, the United States signed onto a Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli action.

The Clinton administration's approach was decidedly different. It was generally co-operative and friendly when Israel had a Prime Minister in charge. But when Binyamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister it was exceedingly hostile to him. Seemingly the president's motivation was a desire to be a peace maker and Netanyahu kept on bringing up instances of Palestinian violations bad faith. Netanyahu wouldn't shut up, so he was inconvenient to the president's ambitions.

(Some time back The Town Crier asked: "when was the last time and U.S. president went for a stroll with a foreign leader, holding hands?" My answer is here. I know they're not holding hands in this picture but there were other pictures where they were: President Clinton, PM Peres, President Mubarak, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat. It was at the "Summit of the peacemakers" a blatant attempt to boost PM Peres's sagging electoral fortunes and whitewash Arafat's complicity in the 1996 terror. The only reason that Assad wasn't there is that he apparently had too much pride to even pretend that he was interested in peace. It's not that Clinton didn't want to wash the blood from his hands too.)

But the greatest damage that Clinton did was elevating Yasser Arafat's status in the world. By making Arafat the most received head of state in the White House he effectively made Arafat a moderate no matter how immoderate his behavior. All of his bad faith was whitewashed so that Clinton could achieve his Nobel Peace Prize.

Now this week two momentous events occur for the Middle East. There's the AIPAC conference during which President Bush receives Mahmoud Abbas. Until now the President's record on Israel had been mixed but generally good. After all those years of whitewashing Arafat it was good to hear:

I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.

Not only did the President utter these words they marked his policy from the start of his administration until Arafat's death - he refused to meet with Arafat.
In April of last year he met with PM Sharon and stated his belief that Israel should not have to return to its 1967 borders.
However his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas represented a significant step backwards. Despite the claims of an editorial in the Washington Post:

U.S. Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, who has been monitoring the Palestinian security efforts, delivered a mostly positive assessment to the White House, countering an Israeli campaign to portray Mr. Abbas as having failed to act.

(A quick perusal of the Post's archive shows no report to this effect.) there is ample evidence that after clamping down on inciting preachers, the antisemitic screeds have returned to Friday sermons, and most of the antiterrorist efforts have come from Israel not from Abbas. So Abbas has done nothing and President Bush seeks to reward him. That's not good for peace.
Worse, President Bush has brought 1949 up for discussion and:

Therefore, Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion. The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. As we make progress toward security, and in accordance with the road map, Israeli forces should withdraw to their positions on September the 28th, 2000.

Israel has adjusted the route of the fence in accordance to a (flawed) High Court of Justice decision for just this purpose. Bush fails to acknowledge that. At its heart, Palestinian nationalism is grievance dressed up national aspirations. When Israel has preemptively sought to reduce a grievance, President Bush's obligation is to acknowledge Israeli efforts not further feed the Palestinian grievances.
For now Mahmoud Abbas's sole qualification as a moderate is that he isn't Yasser Arafat. President Bush has an obligation to Israel (and to his own antiterror efforts) to make sure that Abbas is a lot more than that. Whitewashing Palesitnian perfidies didn't bring peace during President Clinton's terms in office it won't now either.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.