In September 1993, Yasir Arafat told one of recent history’s most significant lies. At the time, Arafat still resided where he certainly belonged: on the State Department’s terrorism list. But the date of the White House ceremony announcing the signing of the declaration of principles was nearing, and the Clinton administration had given up its earlier resistance to asking Yitzhak Rabin to shake the bloodstained hand of the committed murderer on the White House lawn so everyone could have their “historic” moment in the sun.
So Arafat wrote a letter. He would–scout’s honor–end his campaign to annihilate the Jewish people. “Our lawyers judged this written renunciation as sufficient grounds for the president to take Arafat and the PLO off the State Department’s terrorism list,” wrote Martin Indyk in his memoir of the Clinton administration’s Middle East diplomacy. The rest, as they say, is history.
I recount this story not to take a gratuitous swipe at the naïveté of the Clinton administration nor at the cavalier way Israeli security concerns were put in a box in the White House attic so Clinton could mug for the cameras. The point is that allowing Arafat to hijack and destroy the chances for peace cannot be so easily undone, even if we’ve learned something from these mistakes.
Aaron David Miller, a member of the Clinton team, is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a regular columnist for Foreign Policy, and has used his perch to attempt to atone for the mistakes of the Clinton administration. It is an honorable and laudable act. And yesterday at the center, Miller moderated an interesting discussion between former Shin Bet director Ami Ayalon and former Obama campaign adviser Robert Malley. The event was ostensibly about how the old negotiations paradigm has become somewhat useless and the value of unilateralism in moving forward.
Malley described a strategy of “parallel unilateral steps.” Ayalon mostly agreed, but insisted “this is a friendly unilateralism, not an antagonistic unilateralism.” Neither, however, went on to describe in any great detail what your friendly neighborhood unilateralism would look like in practice. And Malley restated Miller’s own thesis, suggesting that it was difficult to understand how giving up the fiction of a bilateral peace process could possibly be more damaging than maintaining it, at this point.
But there are two problems here. First, Ayalon readily admitted that “we know the parameters” of a final deal, and those would be “the Clinton parameters… and all that was discussed in the last 20 years.” Because the “last 20 years” have been used by the Palestinian leadership to broadcast as loudly and as often as possible that they utterly reject this idea, it’s hard to imagine why Ayalon still thinks this is a workable plan. But his opening seems to be that Israel should conform to those parameters with or without Palestinian cooperation.
This may or may not be worth exploring–I’ve written about “coordinated unilateralism” before, though I’m not sure changing the tactics while keeping the same parameters of a final-status agreement is practical.
But Ayalon does have one revolutionary idea, and it’s one he has been drawing attention to recently. That idea is: treat Israeli settlers like human beings. As Ayalon wrote in the New York Times in April: “We have learned that we must be candid about our proposed plan, discuss the settlers’ concerns and above all not demonize them. They are the ones who would pay the price of being uprooted from their homes and also from their deeply felt mission of settling the land.”
Ayalon repeated this thesis yesterday. This is important, because among mainstream media outlets and left-of-center journalists you will not find such empathy toward the settlers. Nor will you find nuance or complexity.
For his part, Malley wants the settlers at the table too. This is in part because Malley wants everyone at the table–he’s long been a proponent of negotiating with Hamas. But that just makes those who would exclude the settlers look that much more ridiculous. (Among leftists, the idea that you would talk to Hamas but not Orthodox Jews makes perfect sense–which helps explain the marginalization of the Israeli left.)
But this raises an important question: Are you bringing settlers to the table as props, to display your empathy and humanity and ask them to sit there quietly as you pat them on the head? Or are you bringing them to the table to include them in negotiations? Malley, Ayalon, and Miller are all men of the left, so it’s encouraging to hear them talk like this, but the panel was not exactly balanced. And history is, once again, an obstacle–disrespect of the settlers and the whitewashing of violent Palestinian rejectionism have become ingrained elements of the peace process.
During the presentation, Ayalon said he believes “there is no peace without partners.” If that’s true, then based on the behavior of Israel’s “partner,” there is no peace.
Very few people seem to remember that while the West Bank Jewish settlements are CALLED illegal it is questionable whether they really are in international law: the West Bank was part of the League of Nations' Mandate that designated Palestine the Jewish National Home and charged the British to promote "close settlement" of Jews within its bounds. The 1947-67 occupation by Jordan was recognized as illegal. There are no legally binding Resolutions by the U.N. Security Council stating that Jewish settlement of the West Bank is illegal. Although the British abandoned their responsibilities, the Mandate still exists legally (it's the basis for UNRWA) so the legality of Jewish settlement in the West Bank appears unchanged.
I know a lot of people believe that Aaron Miller has changed. I think he's being cynical. Maybe I'm not as generous as I ought to be. His change has come after it was Dennis Ross who was appointed to the administration instead of him. Has Miller really changed? Or is he just cynically taking contrary positions? Remember he is the guy who thought taking Yasser Arafat on a guided tour of the Holocaust Museum was a good idea. nYou are right about Ayalon. I continue to be bugged about everyone who has a new idea for Israeli concessions no matter how they're wrapped. However Ayalon and his co-authors clearly are taking pains not to demonize Jews living in Judea and Samaria; the same can't be said for much of the "pro-Peace" Left.
Israel started murdering Palestinian children so Arafat had to respond.
OK you want to foam at the mouth and lapse into absolutely illogical incoherence but shouldn't this be occurring in an UrgentCare facility where you can get the attention you require? What is this babble? Arafat had to respond when? And Israel "started murdering Palestinian children" at what time? Does any of this have to do with anything any voice is commenting on outside your own head? Pre-Oslo Arafat wasn't responding to anything. Where is your sechel? He had been kicked out of Jordan and then kicked out of Lebanon and was idling away his days in Tunisia. Ort do you men when he decided to start shooting up Jewish kids in Maalot in the 70's? No you don't mean anything so why bother?
You forgot all about the UN Rep who went to the Palestinians to document "Israeli murder" of Pal children – rock-throwing children – who had a rain of pal bullets shoot up her car with her, a driver, and others in it – as they tried to prove the "Israelis" shot her down, too! And when she survived without a serious scratch while all others in the car died, then she saw the car, riddled with bullet holes where she was sitting – and saw the miracle of her survival – and the INDEPENDENT FORENSIC TEAM showed her the RUSSIAN MADE PAL BULLETS – she scooted out of the region tout de suite (that's French for "faster than a shooting star") and NEVER supported Pals again – absolutely terrorized that they tried to kill her in order to blame the pals. About the same time, some of the dead pal children were captured by the UN and they too proved to have been shot in the back by Pals instead of by Israeli soldiers – that is why the Muslims always refuse autopsies. NOT because of false fears of "mutilating" the dead. n nTHAT is when the killing of PAL children stopped. They knew they were not fooling even the their most hard-shelled supporters anymore – and at that time, the average age of ALL Pals put together was only 16 yrs of age, due to their own suicide attacks program, not because of Israeli aggression!
very rarely do i read something here that's more stupid, ugly and untrue than the stuff I used to read here from Greenwald, Jennifer Rubin, and Jamie Kirchick, but you really take things too far. n nit wouldn't be amiss to have that comment expunged fro the page….. on grounds of aggravated stupidity with intent.
The Nobel committee did the same. They condoned terrorism when they gave the prize to a murderer. nThe left is interested in any ways that can undermine Israel and the Jews. nThe Muslims (including the one in former Palestine) hope that the west will get tired of backing-up Israel and the Jews. They have the left to help them.
and they have the Netanyahu government doing their utmost to supply just cause for the West to tire of backing up Israel….. get rid of Netanyahu, get Lieberman out of office and on trial (finally) and a get in a government that won't ruin Israeli's moral basis and alienate its allies by supporting the settlers and funding the Ultras and the Muslims hopes of seeing Israel destroyed take a significant hit.
The State Department’s greatest mistake regarding Arafat was not to take him off the terrorist list when he promised to stop promoting terrorism, but to fail to put him back on the list when he launched yet another war involving terrorist tactics. Clinton failed in leaving it for the next administration. Bush II failed far more seriously in failing to do anything to punish Arafat, and instead beginning to directly fund the PLO. Obama has failed as badly as Bush II in failing to recognize the problem and in promoting funding of the PLO against the wishes of the few in Congress who used procedural measures to try to cut it off.
Romney shows no sign of changing from Obama’s position. Johnson may cut funding to the PLO only because he opposes foreign aid in general, not because he knows anything about foreign policy. If change is going to come in this area, it needs to come from Congress and ultimately from the people. For that to happen, the people need to be informed.
The bottom line is still the same old same old – Israel must lay down and die for Communist Pride in a Middle East "Peace Deal". n nThe Living God of Abraham has another idea: the Book of Obadiah. 21 verses all together, Verse 10 refers to the violence of Esau's descendants against Israel – that word for "VIOLENCE" is the ancient word spelled in Modern English as "HAMAS" – which means Injustice, Violence, Destruction, Stealing, and Death with False Accusations. nStrong's Concordance Reference # H2555. nThe word is far older than the regathering of Israel in 1948, much less this terrorist group. nSo they knew what they were doing when they picked "HAMAS" as their name. It stands as much for INJUSTICE as it does for VIOLENCE. They know what they are – trying to steal the inheritance of the God of Abraham from the Rightful Heirs – THIEVES! Murderous thieves, and nothing more.
to Contentions administrators, must we suffer this nasty maniac, "Israeli100"? He adds nothing to the conversation. If he could provide some verified or verifiable data, times, places or numbers, one might be able to discuss with him. But he is clearly a bigot in bad faith, forever insulting others. I highly doubt that he is an Israeli but if he is what I have already said would still apply.
Who is Seth Mandel and how can he be so ignorant as to think that Israel's security concerns weren't advanced by getting the PLO to formally renounce terror …despite the lack of sincerity and delay in living up to the pledge, Israel has been greatly benefitted. n nSo FOS.