Back to the Clinton Plan?

This is a little deep in the weeds for me, but former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argues that the correct response to renewed interested in negotiating in some sense on the basis of the 2002 Saudi peace initiative is for the Israelis to go back to the 2000-vintage Clinton plan that Arafat rejected as their negotiating posture. Ben-Ami notes that this whole range of then-Likud politicians who denounced Ehud Barack for even considering such a thing then are now willing to contemplate discussing the Saudi initiative which is less favorable to Israel along several dimensions. As I say, this gets deeper into the weeds than I care to go (there's no reason the USA should care if the parties agree to "a division of the Old City" or else decide for "a special arrangement for that complex area, without a division of sovereignty" as long as they're prepared to agree) but it's interesting reading.

3/21/07 8:07AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

The fundamentalists care very deeply about those issues. Jesus won't come back if Jerusalem is divided.

Posted by: Th on March 21, 2007 08:53 AM

The whole thing to remember about the Clinton Plan and various variants is that it's a plan that the Israelis are prepared to agree to and the Palestinians aren't, for the not very surprising reason that it keeps 100,000s of settlers in the land conquered in 1967, unworkably scattered around Palestinian territories in and around East Jerusalem. So saying, we should go back to the Clinton Plan is the same thing as saying, we should go back to another plan that the Palestinians wont agree to, and which if they are forced to agree to it (under threat of killing a lot more of them) will be permanently unworkable in practice.

You need to get out of thinking that Clinton had a good series of proposals on this matter. He had a settler-based set of proposals, when what is needed is a set of proposals which do not seek to maintain chauvinist settlements in and around Jerusalem. I can't think that MY is really in favour of these settlements, or thinks their maintenance is a US interest, and the obvious thing to do is to require their complete removal.

Posted by: otto on March 21, 2007 08:58 AM

Re otto

Mr. otto repeats the Palestinians' big lie, namely that the final Clinton/Ross plan would leave the West Bank allocated to the Palestinians in the form of isolated cantons. As Dennis Ross has demonstrated on numerous occasions, this claim is total crap and has no basis in reality. The final border proposed by Clinton/Ross would have left the Palestinians with > 95% of the West Bank (including about 2% to be obtained from the current State of Isreal as a part of a land transfer). The settlements to be retained by Israel were contiguous and lay close to the old green line. The West Bank territory proposed to be part of the future Palestinian State was entirely contiguous and bore no resemblance to isolated cantons at all. What the Palestinians do is show the original map proposed by Barak and lyingly claim that it was the map proposed by Clinton/Ross. In my opinion, the proposal was a disaster for the State of Israel and a great favor was performed by Yasir Arafat in rejecting it. The fact is that the only feasible solution for the West Bank is that it be returned to Jordan with the final boundary negotiated between Jordan and Israel. The West Bank is not viable as an independent country.

Posted by: SLC on March 21, 2007 09:31 AM

Slightly OT, but I have a question the "Road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad" crowd ought to ponder: how much is our war costing (just in terms of money) vs. how much would it really cost to fix the Israeli/Palestinian problem?

What do I mean about the cost of fixing the later problem directly? Well, I mean how much would it cost to build a bunch of decent housing for the Palestinians, to impliment enough water works to give too many people living in a frickin' desert enough to drink so the Israelis and Palestinians don't have to fight over water, etc.

A large part of the Palestinian "situation" started before 1967 when Palestinians who left what's now Israel at the time of the partition ended up in an area where there was neither the money nor the interest in settling refugees rather than creating a refugee problem to use as a blugeon against Israel. Now I know that "moderates" like to avoid the 1940s start of this problem -- preferring instead to make the issue one of Israel occupying lands since 1967 (which side-steps the issue of whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, so moderates don't have to worry about being "anti-Semitic" anti-Zionists but they can still blame Israel), but unless we address the camps, etc., that are a well-spring of anger, there will be no end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

But doing so does require money. It requires cooperation from many groups that have various incentives not to see the conflict end or a democratic Arab state, etc. The neo-cons were right about the Mideast problem. But their "solution" of going through Baghdad is more of the same that gave us the problem in the first place. For the cost of this war, couldn't we fund a New Deal like project to develop the West Bank and Gaza Strip and build the Palestinians the infrastructure they need for a viable state and to turn all those refugees into citizens of that state?

So why did the neo-cons go the deadly, costly side-road to Jerusalem? Hmmm ... could it be that certain people make more money on war than on peace? But I guess raising the same questions Ike did in that address nowadays makes you a tinfoil hat wearing paranoiac. And raising the same questions that brought Truman to national prominance nowadays means you hate the troops or something.

And the GOP claims they want to bring back the 1940s/1950s? They seem to be running away from that time, nu?

Posted by: DAS on March 21, 2007 10:17 AM

All your ideal solution requires, SLC, is for the Jordanians to be idiots.

Posted by: William Burns on March 21, 2007 10:32 AM

Re DAS

Mr. DAS raises some interesting questions in his dissertation on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Unfortunately, it describes ancient history and we are now into current events. The fact is, as I have previously asserted on this blog, that Mr. Haniyeh, Mr. Maashal, Mr. Abbas, and Mr. Olmert could sign a peace treaty tomorrow morning and it would have not the slightest effect on what is currently taking place in Iraq. We have there a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims for control of the country and these groups are totally uninterested in what the Israelis and Palestinians do; they have their own fish to fry.

Posted by: SLC on March 21, 2007 10:32 AM

this whole range of then-Likud politicians who denounced Ehud Barack for even considering such a thing then are now willing to contemplate discussing the Saudi initiative which is less favorable to Israel along several dimensions. (Matt)

Israel should have made a two-state deal 15 years ago when its position was strongest. Now its position only gets weaker. The sooner Israel does make a deal, the less it will have to give up. But I doubt it will ever happen, because too many crazies want East Jerusalem too much.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on March 21, 2007 10:33 AM

because too many crazies want East Jerusalem too much. - Gary Sugar

It ain't just the crazies. At the very least the Old City must remain accessible to Jews -- no "ifs" "ands" or "buts". Even many of us who couldn't stand Sharon, were frightened by the "reaction" to his visit to the Temple Mount. Sure, Sharon shouldn't have been able to visit there -- he should have been locked up in jail following a due process of law. But since he wasn't, he had as much right to visit a Jewish Holy Site as any frickin' other Jew. Today it's Sharon who can't visit. Tomorrow it'll be me 'cause my liberal views would offend conservative Muslims?

While Israel's record, frightening for a so-called Jewish State, has been poor at maintaining access to Jewish Holy Sites by Jews (thanks ultra-Orthodox Jews who drive so many Israelis away from Jewish practice ), it least it has a record of access, which is more than the record that happened when, e.g., Jordan occupied East Jerusalem.

I would dare say that anybody who wants the Old City to return to non-Jewish hands without some very strong guarantees of Jewish access to Jewish Holy Sites is the crazy person.

BTW -- what did happen to those Jews kicked out of the Old City when Jordan occupied it? Hmmm? Are they still in refugee camps?

Posted by: DAS on March 21, 2007 10:50 AM

Mr. Haniyeh, Mr. Maashal, Mr. Abbas, and Mr. Olmert could sign a peace treaty tomorrow morning and it would have not the slightest effect on what is currently taking place in Iraq. We have there a civil war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims for control of the country and these groups are totally uninterested in what the Israelis and Palestinians do; they have their own fish to fry. - SLC

Of course. I agree with you here. While I suspect my views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are to the "left" of yours, it is indeed the case that a lot of this "we hate the U.S. 'cause you support Israel against the Palestinians" pseudo-concern among many who claim that is really a lot of crocodile tears and/or is a proxy for something else. That's part of what's right about the neo-con analysis of the situation.

My point was actually even thinking in the first place that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad" was wrong: ignoring how we broke Iraq further, how would "fixing" Iraq help the situation in Israel/Palestine, which is indeed an irritant in the whole of the Middle East? Couldn't we have fixed the situation there for a lot less money (not to mention the cost in war dead) than how much it's costing in Iraq (which costs were predictable by people who had a clue ...)? That's my point: detours are often costly not a preferred strategy!

Anyway, as to it being ancient history -- I don't think we feel that way about our own "ancient history": seems ter me we are just getting over a bout of "remembering the greatest generation". And WWII was slightly before this "ancient history" of which you speak.

Posted by: DAS on March 21, 2007 10:56 AM

All your ideal solution requires, SLC, is for the Jordanians to be idiots.

Absorbing the West Bank is highly risky for Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority already in the East Bank), but then again so is a anarchic, revanchist Islamist Palestinian state on its western flank. No solution is a good one for Jordan, which is why it tacitly supports the status quo of Israeli occupation.

However, a Palestinian-Jordanian federation with Jordanian security control is by far the most likely to result in a stable solution in our lifetimes. Whatever the challenges of establishing Jordanian security control over the West Bank while preserving the delicate internal balance of East Bank Jordan, they are still significantly less than cobbling a functional, peaceful Palestinian state under Hamas and a weakening Fatah. A massive infusion of cash might be sufficient to keep the Jordanian regime afloat long enough to deliver tangible economic benefits and marginalize Palestinian radicals.

Posted by: mhp on March 21, 2007 11:12 AM

SLC: yes, the map everyone has seen is the Barak map (which sliced the West Bank into three separate pieces and maintained settler-only roads across these pieces), because the alleged Clinton/Ross map has never been published. Can you give a link to it? Can you give a reference? If not, why should we take your word? Or Dennis Ross's word?

Ross was publicly beating up the Palestinian side for the last couple of months of Clinton's term. The guy simply didn't appreciate what he was asking for: Sadat is dead. Rabin is dead. If a leader signs a deal that is perceived by hardliners on his own side to be a sellout, they kill him, and this isn't just a Palestinian sickness (ask Rabin's widow). Israeli politicians who signaled that they might accept the Clinton/Ross deal made no mention of any concessions the Israeli side was making with respect to the Barak plan.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 21, 2007 12:26 PM

First, it's not just the Palestinians who dispute Dennis Ross's account, see e.g. Robert Malley (also then of the Clinton administration). Second, cantonization or no cantonization, there were plenty of other big issues:

1) Water rights.

2) Degree of Palestinian sovereignty regarding borders, airspace, military and foreign affairs.

3) 1.5 million+ refugees.

Anyway, the whole thing is a shell game. The only thing the so-called peace process ever did was allow one side to gain strength while the other waited. The more process, the less peace.

Posted by: faux.facsimile on March 21, 2007 01:18 PM

Re Joe Buck

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

I would suggest that Mr. Buck learn how to use a search engine.

Re faux.facsimile

Mr. faux facsimile has correctly identified item #3 on his list. That was the sticking point. The Palestinians demanded that Israel agree to a law of return for some 3,000,000 Palestinians now living in refugee camps. This of course would lead in a short time to the State of Israel going out of business. There is absolutely no way any Israeli Government would accept such a proposition nor is there any pressure sufficient to force them to do so.

Posted by: SLC on March 21, 2007 03:01 PM

There is absolutely no way any Israeli Government would accept such a proposition - SLC

That's actually incorrect. If those 3,000,000 Palestinians converted to Judaism under the supervision of a Rabbi and Beit Din sufficiently recognized as religiously strict enough to please the ultra-Orthodox who have a stranglehold on religious life in Israel, they'd be let in under Israel's existing Law of Return ;)

Posted by: DAS on March 21, 2007 03:07 PM

Re DAS

I guess it's also possible that I would be elected president of the US in 2008. Somehow I don't consider that very likely.

Posted by: SLC on March 21, 2007 03:58 PM

"In my opinion, the proposal was a disaster for the State of Israel and a great favor was performed by Yasir Arafat in rejecting it."

It is the only arrangement (give or take few-percent tweaks) that would have legitimacy in the eyes of the world, and thus the only supportable outcome. Turning Jordan into Transpalestine would end its vital stabilizing influence. The West Bank + Gaza ought to be a viable state with international aid, the large talented expat Palestinian community, and (eventually) close trade ties with Israel.

Posted by: rilkefan on March 21, 2007 04:17 PM

SLC, you're wonderful.

You argue that the settlements are not a problem and that the West Bank is contiguous, then argue that it can't be a state and should be turned to the Jordanians.

Has it occured to you, you bloody genius, that it is exactly the settlements and destruction that Israel has wrought that has made the WB untenable as a state.

Only disgusting Zionist filth in America have the audacitiy to support Israel destroying Palestinian society, and then use that itself as an argument to deny the Palestinians their right.

Posted by: Adam on March 21, 2007 04:21 PM

I genuinely can NOT believe how people still believe the lies that Dennis Ross and his likes have propagated about the "Generour Offer" of Barak.

Here's the botoom line, and I'm really sick of repeating it to juveniles over and over again:

1-The 'Generous Offer' is a load of nonsense fabricated as a ploy to throw the blame on Arafat, and to force him into accepting a lesser deal by making it look like he would be rejecting a 'Generous Offer'.

2- Even at the most 'generous' level, this offer amounted to nothing close to what the Palestinians rightly and justly aspire to.

If any of you morons is willing to live in four separate cantons, surrounded ENTIRELY by Israel (they would've kept the Jordan valley), where they also control all the borders, airspace and water rights, and where every box of tomato being sold will have to have Israeli approval, where watchtowers and racist Jewish-only roads surround every canton, and where movement between the cantons is controlled by Israel, then you're a fucking retard. The Palestinians are not as retarded as you, and they will not accept that.

At its most generous, this offer was still not as good as the apartheid solution that the South Africans tried to enforce on blacks; yet the world mostly (Thatcher, Cheney, Reagan and many others excepted) saluted Mandela when he rejected these proposals, but for some reason decided that Arafat was a terrorist for rejecting them.

Posted by: Adam on March 21, 2007 04:30 PM

"2000-vintage Clinton plan that Arafat rejected"

Uh, Ben-Ami is clearly talking about the Clinton parameters that lead to Taba in '01, which is where the 97% offer with a tit-for-tat swap along the green line was put on the table for the first time. Arafat rejected the earlier Camp David II proposal and its attendant cantons, but Barak bailed out on Taba.

Posted by: buermann on March 21, 2007 10:31 PM

Yeah, here:

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: [I say] in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. ...

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, the Clinton parameters say the following. They say that on the territorial issue, the Palestinians will get 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, plus safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side, within the state of Israel, so we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border.

http://tinyurl.com/3bdnzx

Posted by: buermann on March 21, 2007 10:49 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet