Thursday, January 08, 2009

Peace "Process"

A reader intensely knowledgeable about the Middle East writes in response to the Frum/Shrum debate over at The Week:

While half [Shrum's] column defends Israel's right to self defense, the other half is devoted to a fantasy narrative about the peace process.

Shrum writes:

I was told by a knowledgeable, worried Israeli that Arafat believed that—like his father, the former president—Bush 43 would be more pro-Arab than Clinton. The Bush staff sent no signal to disabuse Arafat of that notion or to encourage him to sign the deal. To the contrary, Bush offered the curious public critique that the United States was too involved in the peace process and should step back. Whether this was an early sign of Bush's colossal incompetence or merely an effort to deny Clinton credit for what would have been an historic achievement, I don't know. In any case, Arafat walked away from the deal. The Palestinian leader called Clinton just before the president left office and told him he was a great man. "I am not a great man," Clinton replied. "I am a failure, and you have made me one."

This is just flat wrong. When Camp David 2 was happening, Bush gave an interview to the New York Times endorsing the process. He gave every indication that he would honor any commitment Clinton would have to make to both sides for peace. ... It's true that Richard Perle met with Barak privately, and apparently on his own and not the campaign, and warned him not to accept a deal with Arafat. But since Barak leaked it at the time, it's obvious he was not heeding the advice. Maybe Shrum is referring to post Florida, or the transition when the famous frameworks, parameters etc. were offered by Clinton as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza burned in the second intifadah. But by this point, it was clear that while maybe Israel and Arab technocrats could agree (and did agree at Taba) on a two state-solution, the Palestinian public and its leader, Arafat wanted, celebrated, and declared war. Not just any war, a war of adolescent smart bombs.

This fact is a profound one that is never absorbed by the Clintonistas, even though Clinton blames Arafat for Camp David. The implication is that the peace process which Bush "dropped" ... was fine. When in fact that peace process invested everything in a terrorist who proved he never really reformed. And while people like Daniel Levy or Rob Malley may wish to quibble about the quality of the Israeli offer at Camp David 2, there is no denying that Arafat poisoned his people's media and schools during the entire peace process, preparing Palestinians for the second intifadah, a terror war that started in earnest when Arafat released Hamas operatives from his jails and formed the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Incidentally, Bush did not absorb this fact either. It took until June 2002, as you know, for Bush to finally break with Arafat. But between January 2001 and June 2002, he sent envoys and panels and established diplomatic fora in a pursuit of peace. Shortly after Bush broke with Arafat, he became the first US president to call for a Palestinian state. The problem in many ways has gotten worse. But I don't blame Bush .... If there is a policy error, it was investing the entire Oslo process in Arafat.

01/08 09:12 AM