2010 Complete Election Coverage: Clinton's Middle East message seems to misfire

Currently, we are worried about al Qaeda spreading around the world and about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the key to solving both these problems is Israeli/Palestinian peace. Bin Laden recently reiterated that the root cause of al Qaeda's attacks against us has been our support of the brutal Israeli occupation, and the Iranian president, once again, speaking at the UN, emphad the centrality of Israel's atrocities which prevent world peace.

It is clear that the Israelis and Palestinians can not achieve peace without our help. The charter of Israel's ruling Likud party explicitly opposes a Palestinian state in Palestine, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has no intention of stopping the illegal settlement expansion which inspires such anti-American hatred and violence.

Therefore, it is high time the US puts forth its own peace proposal. As noted in The Iraq Study Group Report, "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." and "The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of 'land for peace.' "

In July 2000, President Clinton brought Palestinian President Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak to Camp David for peace negotiations, but Arafat was not offered a fair deal in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territory including occupied Arab East Jerusalem, the location of Islam's third holiest site (after Mecca and Medina). As reported in Clayton Swisher's book The Truth About Camp David (p.327), Arafat said "If anyone imagines that I might sign away Jerusalem, he is mistaken. I am not only the leader of the Palestinian people; I am also the vice president of the Islamic Conference." "I am only asking that UN Resolution 242 be implemented. I am speaking only about 22 percent of Palestine, Mr President." "Do you want to come to my funeral? I would rather die than agree to Israeli sovereignty aver the Haram al-Sharif." [The 22% refers to the fact that although the UN in 1947 partitioned Palestine roughly equally into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 only accords the Arabs 22% of Palestine, ie the armistice line before the 1967 war. The Israelis ever since have been trying to whittle this 22% down farther through settlement expansion in Palestinian territory.]

After the failure at Camp David, President Clinton offered what has come to be known as the "Clinton Parameters" in December 2000. On territory, the Palestinian state would control 94-96 percent of the West Bank, with a 1-3 percent land swap from Israel proper...On Jerusalem, "Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well." (Swisher p. 396). Arafat had questions about the details but basically accepted the parameters in January 2001. (Swisher p.399-402).

Clinton's ideas were further refined at the peace talks at Taba, Egypt later that month, but by now George Bush was president,with his neocon-dominated administration, and forbade US participation. Nevertheless, the gaps lessened at Taba. (Swisher p. 402). Later, the Geneva Accord, an unofficial virtual peace accord, developed from the Taba talks. (Swisher p. 403)

In 2002, the Saudi Peace Plan was offered, calling for Israel's withdrawal from occupied territory in exchange for peace, diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations with the Arab world. Palestinian President Arafat accepted this plan in 2002. Still on the table as the Arab Peace Initiative, it has been endorsed by the entire Arab/Muslim world, including Iran. As Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal wrote in The New York Times, September 13, 2009, the initiative also calls for "the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent."

Late in President George W. Bush's term, Bush finally saw the light and re-started peace negotiations. Again the two sides came close to peace before Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had to step down due to corruption allegations. As reported in Newsweek June 22, 2009, by Kevin Peraino, "Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a 'humanitarian gesture,' a small number of returnees, although smaller than the Palestinians wanted--a very, very limited number.' "

The Economist ( February 14, 2009) has noted that the outlines of A Palestinian state have been more of less agreed to by sensible Palestinians and Israelis for the past decade: "Israel would return to the armistice line that existed before the 1967 war, with minor adjustments and territorial swaps of equal and quality, and would probably keep the three biggest Jewish settlement blocks that bulge out from the 1967 line. Jerusalem would be tortuously but fastidiously divided, allowing each side to have its capital there, with international oversight of the holy places. Palestinians would have a symbolic right for their refugees to return on the understanding that only a small and carefully calculated proportion of them would actually do so. Palestine would be sovereign but demilitarized, with an international force, perhaps led by NATO, securing its borders, both along the Jordan Valley and maybe between Gaza and Egypt. A road-and-rail link, internationally monitored, might well connect the 50km (30 miles) or so between Gaza and the West Bank."

America should endorse a fair and just plan. As stated in The Economist (September 26, 2009), as the stalemate persists, president Obama "should not blink from the prospect of reducing aid to Israel and rethinking America's knee-jerk backing for it in such forms as the UN..." Compromises over land etc. "will not weaken Israel; rather, a two-state solution is the best guarantee of its future safety." Ours too.