Desperate for peace: Clinton's Mideast legacy

Whatever President Bill Clinton's, LAW '73, interests in the Middle East may be, they can't be peace. Throughout his two terms, his policy has been to loyally support Israel—with four billion dollars of annual aid, loads of weapons, and his veto power in the international political arena wantonly exercised in Israel's interest.

CRISTINA SOSA AND HYURA CHOI/YH

Israel's disproportionate and excessive use of force against Palestinian civilians in its suppression of the Intifada and its failure to adhere to international laws are being unequivocally reported on and condemned by Amnesty International, U.S.A. Physicians for Human Rights, and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, among many others.

Yet the Clinton administration abstains from mild Security Council resolutions condemning Israel and vetoes the more detailed ones. In fact, a week after the start of the Intifada, the U.S. government approved the Israeli request for a huge purchase of military helicopters. Three weeks later, it approved $1.98 billion in military aid to Israel.

The Clinton administration's blind support of Israel has created an imbalance of power between the Palestinian and Israeli negotiating teams, which is destructive to prospects for peace. The U.S. is effectively giving Israel the option of not facing the consequences of its policies on the three million people under its occupation. Unconditional protection from the U.S. is giving Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak the apparent authority to ignore the basic human rights recognized by the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the U.N., and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as he draws "red lines" on the Palestinian right of return and on the aspirations of over four million Palestinian refugees.

From its high pedestal, Israel can remain detached before the current Palestinian uprising. Israel remains unaccountable for the 25,000 trees it has uprooted, the 5,000 dunums of land it has bulldozed, the 400 (at least) homes it has damaged, the devastation its sieges and closures have brought to the Palestinian economy, the 200 Palestinians it currently detains, the 11,000 people it has injured, and the 350 people it has killed in the past four months. It has little motivation to cooperate constructively with the Palestinian negotiating team towards a just and durable peace agreement because current U.S. policy guarantees it enough money and arms to get away with anything. The U.S. does have the potential to be an honest broker of a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement and have a beneficial presence in the region. However, this cannot be possible as long as it continues to reaffirm its support for Israel, politically and materially. Now under the equally pro-Israel George W. Bush, DC '68, regime, it is time for this country to stop answering to its colonial aims and to the pressure of shortsighted special interest groups. Only then can it help bring about peace. Hanan Karam is a member of the Arab Students Association.

By Aaron Faust

No American president has worked harder or invested more personal capital into certain aspects of Middle East diplomacy than William Jefferson Clinton, LAW '73. Unfortunately, in his tenure as president, Clinton's policies invariably led to the antithesis of what he hoped to achieve.

During Clinton's years in office, he undermined America's national interests in the Middle East by weakening the quantitative military edge of Israel, its most trusted ally, while at the same time allowing rogue nations in the region to improve their military might. These actions, or in many cases, inactions, have pushed the region closer to war than it has been since 1991. What Clinton failed—or refused—to realize, wass that the Middle East, like much of the rest of the world, continues to be about power politics, and not about Camp David II.

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the relatively unfavorable (from the Palestinian perspective) Oslo Accords in 1993 on account of his, and the Arab world's, weakness at the time. Now, however, he will not sign the most generous peace agreement Israel has ever offered because he sits in a position of relative strength. By unleashing a wave of violence on Israel, much of which is attributable to his own henchmen, Arafat has successfully brought international sentiment back to the Palestinians.

Moreover, Arafat's main benefactor, Iraq, is back, having just held a military parade in which it showcased a surprisingly large war machine. The Iraqi army just finished extensive maneuvers on the Jordanian border and is itching to go to war with Israel. Throughout his term, Clinton's policy towards Iraq has been deplorable. Trade sanctions and bombing—Clinton's policy in a nutshell—did not hinder Iraq from rearming itself or from continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Over the summer, Iran successfully tested a ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and other points in the Middle East. Last month, Iran came out with a statement saying that any Israeli attack against either Syria or Lebanon would be met with a "surprising and stunning" response, heightening tensions further. Iran felt bold enough to make such a statement because a Clinton policy toward Iran was virtually non-existent during his two terms.

Under Clinton's watch, the U.S. sold arms to Egypt, in effect giving it the most powerful army in the Middle East today. This came despite the daily diatribes against America and Israel that saturate Egypt's "free press." Remember that Egypt signed its peace agreement with Israel only after losing two humiliating wars, after which its ruler was assassinated. Don't think Arafat ever forgot that during Clinton's beloved "peace process."

By Charles Hill

The positions put forward by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton, LAW '73, over the past year and a half have brought a sudden and portentous end to what has been called "the peace process," a more than three-decade-long effort to gain agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. The string of diplomatic failures amounts to the virtually complete collapse of the Israeli negotiating position. Every "red line" asserted over the years by Israel—from security needs on the Golan and in the Jordan Valley, to settlements, to the establishment of a Palestinian state, to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount—has been crossed and, in effect, abandoned. Israeli and American assertions that such proposals, if not accepted, will be taken "off the table" are naïve; once given away, such positions cannot be reclaimed.

Today's situation amounts to nothing less than a stunning triumph for Yassar Arafat and Palestinian diplomacy, which has gained greatly from following a simple three-part formula: agree to nothing, insist that America put pressure on Israel, and resort to violence as a sure-fire means of increasing international support. This approach has paid off so well that it would be crazy for Arafat to agree to any Israeli or U.S. proposal, for by refusing to negotiate seriously he has picked up one concession after another. There is little left for the Israelis to give.

Clinton's headlong dash to get an agreement may be explained by his longing to create a legacy and perhaps win a Nobel Peace prize in the bargain. No plausible rationale or motivation for Barak's actions has yet appeared. What is clear is that, between them, Clinton and Barak have mangled nearly every core principle of peace process diplomacy. They have pressed forward when neither party's leader was politically able to deliver on an agreement. Additionally, they put Jerusalem up for grabs, turning an Israeli-Palestinian negotiation into a Judaic-Islamic contest.

For its part, the Clinton administration has openly intervened to try to shape Israeli domestic politics, has yielded to the temptation to produce an "American plan," and has created a perception that the U.S. wants a peace agreement more than the parties directly involved.

Just as with the concessionary diplomacy of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Clinton stimulated a frightened Israeli electorate into voting for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, today's situation may lead to the election, on Tues., Feb. 6, of Ariel Sharon as Israel's next prime minister. Sharon, in fact, appears to be the only Israeli leader strong enough to make a true peace with the Palestinians and persuade Israeli voters to approve a referendum on it. But Sharon's reputation, worsened by years of American bad-mouthing, may be taken as an excuse for massive riots in "the Arab street" immediately upon his electoral victory. If so, Sharon will have to crack down hard. The American media and "the international community" will recoil in horror and condemnation of him, and a worsened cycle of violence will be underway.

The peace process that began in 1967 with united nations Security Council Resolution 242 thus has hit a wall and collapsed. The old paradigm is gone, but a new one is not in sight. What can be done at this point?

First, the Bush administration should not treat Sharon, should he be elected, as a pariah as the Clinton administration did with Netanyahu. Sharon should be supported in an effort to reach agreement on the creation of a Palestinian State that meets basic Arab needs while leaving openings for greater Israel-Palestine cooperation in the years ahead.

Second, the U.S. should undertake a major, long-range effort with Arab states to begin to solve, through a range of resettlement options and forms of restitution, the refugee problem. And third, the issue of the Temple/Haram Holy Places needs to be returned to something resembling the status quo in practice. No party can be expected to yield any religious requirement now or perhaps ever, yet all claims must be respected while the parties wait for, and work for, a better time to reach final agreement.

Aaron Faust is co-president of the Yale Friends of Israel. Graphic by Cristina Sosa and Hyura Cho.  Charles Hill is a visiting lecturer in the Political Science Department.

Back to Opinion...