Former President Bill Clinton defended his attempt to secure a two-state solution between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, ending in failure June 3, 2000. Instead of celebrating a new Palestinian state, Arafat launched the second Intifada or uprising Sept 28, 2000, all because the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount. Arafat’s Intifada outlived his Nov. 11, 2004 death, lasting until Feb. 8, 2005, gaining Palestinians nothing but more misery and destruction. Arafat’s refusal to cut a deal with Clinton spoke volumes about the key façade of Palestinians: That they’re distinguished from their terrorist brothers, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other group. Generations of State Department officials pretended that Arafat’s Fatah movement, PLO or today’s Palestinian Authority were not terrorists.
Arafat rejected Clinton’s peace plan in 2000 because it didn’t include the Palestinians “right-of-return” to Israel proper, not the so-called “occupied” territories. Palestinians insist that Israel occupies Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Golan Heights. State Department officials know that Palestinians held no sovereign land before the 1967 Six Day War. When the war ended June 11, 1967, Israel annexed Egypt’s Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, Jordan’s East Jerusalem and West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights. Palestinians claim Israel’s spoils as their own land but, factually speaking, they held no sovereign territory before the 1967 War. Twenty years earlier, the British held sovereign territory—not Palestinians—known as the “British Mandate of Palestine.” Taken from Ottoman Turks’ sovereignty in 1920, today’s Arabs calling themselves Palestinians never held sovereignty.
Clinton’s failures negotiating a peace deal with Palestinians stemmed from Arafat’s duplicity, pretending that the PLO was independent from Hamas, a State Department-recognized terror group committed to destroying Israel. Pretending that Arafat’s PLO was separate from Hamas was false assumption for U.S.-brokered peace negotiations between Israel and the PLO. At a rally May 13 in Ewing Township, New Jersey, Bill got into a heated debate with a participant. “She said neutrality is not an option,” said Clinton prompting boos from the audience. “Depends on whether you care what happens to the Palestinians as opposed to the Hamas government and the people with guided missiles,” said Bill, reflecting old school thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bill Clinton hammered Israel into making dangerous concessions for a peace treaty.
Giving a clue how Hillary would treat Israel, she mirrors the same obsolete thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians danced the streets after Sept. 11, where a new president, George W. Bush, began to see the real picture: Israel was the only true U.S. ally in the Middle East. Unlike Clinton demanding Israel make concessions for peace, Bush changed directions. He cut off ties with the PLO, knowing Arafat’s long history of terrorism. Bush concluded that land-for-peace concessions to Palestinians compromised U.S. and Israeli national security. Sept. 11 changed the U.S. negotiating posture with Palestinians. When President Barack Obama took over Jan. 20, 2009, he returned to the pre-Sept. 11 mind-set, trying, but failing, to impose a peace deal built on Israeli concessions in 2014. When the deal collapsed in July 2014, U.S.-Israeli relations hit a new low.
Hillary offers nothing new when it comes to Mideat peacemaking. Bush realized that more important than a peace deal was a secure Israel for U.S. military activities. While Secretary of State [Jan. 1, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013], Hillary also had a difficult time getting along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Spoiled by Bush’s unconditional backing, Netanyahu couldn’t return to a pre-Sept. 11 Mideast peace formula. “There’s nobody who’s blameless in the Middle East, but we cannot really ever make a fundamental difference in the Middle Eat unless the Israelis think we care whether they live or die. If they do, we have a chance to keep pushing for peace,” said Bill, insisting Hillary thinks the same way. Neither Bill nor Hillary get why Bush ended contact with the PLO because of their seamless relations with Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups.
However hard Bill Clinton worked toward a peace deal, there’s far more in the Middle East than the Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, especially the war in Syria. PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, like Arafat in 2000, rejected Obama’s peace plan in July 2014, rejecting one-year worth of Secretary of State John Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy. Whether admitted to or not, Abbas rejected Kerry’s peace plan because there’s no provision to return Palestinians into the Israeli state. Pretending to be independent of Hamas, Abbas rejected Kerry’s plan because Hamas still holds out hope to Palestinians it can destroy Israel. Whether building more tunnels or firing rockets, Palestinians promise to destroy Israel and return Palestinians to their old homeland. Keeping that fantasy alive keeps the illusion to Palestinians living under Hamas and PLO that their unending misery is worth the price.
