The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.
Shultz Expects Some Progress From Mideast Shuttle
By returning so soon to the Mideast, while the bloody uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip continue, Mr. Shultz hopes to find some opening among leaders whom he believes increasingly want regional stability. In the long term, he hopes that by keeping the momentum going, he will deflect criticism that he has not taken an active enough role in promoting peace in the region during his long tenure. Even if he can make little progress before the Reagan Administration leaves office, he is eager to leave behind the legacy of having tried. Mr. Shultz said that after discussions with Arab and Israeli leaders during his last shuttle in February, he came away convinced that they recognized the need for more stability, which can only be achieved with a peaceful resolution of conflicts. ”The problem is there,” he said. ”Everybody recognizes it. And the problem isn’t going to go away.” He conceded that President Hafez al- Assad of Syria, as well as the Soviet Union, are likely to oppose any American initiative. Yet he said: ”I can feel it in my bones that there’s an answer out there if you can only find it. And you can only find it if you can get the right people together to talk about it and negotiate it, so that’s what we’re trying to do.”
At this point the PLO was a terrorist organization, not having officially (and mendaciously) accepted Israel’s right to exist.
The PLO was still in exile in Tunis. Israel controlled Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.
WHOSE HOLY LAND? NEWS ANALYSIS; Falling Short of Peace
And Mr. Clinton, who had devoted more time to Middle East peacemaking than any other American president, saw little risk and possibly big gains, his aides said. If he failed, he would be given points for trying; if he succeeded, his legacy as the Middle East peacemaker would be unchallenged. Now, with three months’ hindsight and having witnessed the startling speed with which an elaborately woven peace effort can unravel, officials and diplomats are considering whether those risks were greater than the Clinton administration had anticipated. Diplomats from moderate Arab nations have said that they were startled by the alacrity with which the summit meeting was called, and they said afterward that the White House had neglected to prepare the ground with them, something that proved crucial particularly as proposals were put forth over the fate of Jerusalem, which is a priority not just for Mr. Arafat and the Palestinians but for the entire Muslim world. If the Americans had consulted them fully beforehand on the scope of their ambition, those diplomats said, they might have been able to give greater support to Mr. Arafat during and immediately after the meeting.
At this point:
Arafat and the PA had jurisdiction over Gaza and a number of cities in Judea and Samaria, including Tulkarem, Jenin, Bethlehem, Nablus, Kalkilye and Ramallah.
The PLO was no longer considered a terrorist organization by most of the world.
There was an official Palestinian police force.
Hamas was flourishing though it was still second to Fatah.
The administration was winding down. It wanted to make its mark on history. A legacy. What better legacy could there be than peace in the Middle East? And so the adminstration worked to make it happen.
Rice Drops Hints on Time, Place and Tone of Middle East Talks
With time running out on his tenure, President Bush has called for an international conference to be held in the United States this fall as part of a renewed push to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, trying to leave a legacy that has enticed and eluded his predecessors. In Ramallah, Ms. Rice, on her seventh trip to the region this year, described Mr. Bush’s initiative as ”the most serious effort to end this conflict in many, many years.” In some of her strongest language yet, she said, ”Frankly, it’s time for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
At this point:
Hamas controls Gaza where there are no more Jews living there.
Sderot is under regular rocket attack.
Arafat is dead, replaced by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad (and Hamas.)
Does it sound like Groundhog Day yet?
Inarguably the Palestinians should be in better shape than they are now. The idea of forcing Israeli Jews from their homes to allow for Palestinian self-government was a pipe dream of the extreme left in Israel when Secretary Shultz was seeking his legacy. But that very action was carried out by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, never had been known as a leftist.
The political landscape in Israel has shifted tremendously in the past 20 years. And yet it’s debatable that the Palestinians have moderated their views at all in the same time.
The Palestinians refuse to define Israel as the Jewish homeland — a major point of contention in recent talks — and identify east Jerusalem, annexed by Israel after its capture in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of the future Palestinian state. Palestinians think that offering recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would imply they are dropping one of their key demands in any peace deal — the right for Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants to return to former properties in Israel. Israel opposes a return
No it’s not debatable. The Palestinian position has not changed at all. And it’s been quite a bit longer than 20 years.
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
Denying that Israel is a Jewish State, isn’t a matter of negotiation. If the PA doesn’t accept it, it doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist. The PA insists on this because it isn’t strictly or even mostly a movement national liberation, rather it is a movement of national destruction.
Even now the Quartet’s envoy Tony Blair has announced a series of initiatives for the Palestinians including
Another is the repair of a sewage system in Beit Lahiya, in the northern Gaza Strip. Though Hamas’s takeover of Gaza has meant that most of the projects are earmarked for the West Bank, the sewage system was put on the list because it is on the brink of collapse and represents a serious health hazard to Gaza residents.
And why is that sewer system in such a state of disrepair? Could it be because the pipes were scavenged to make Qassams?
Once again, the evidence shows that the Palestinians are more devoted to destroying Israel than to building their own society. And Israel is expected to concede more and more. (The problem isn’t only with the Palestinians either.)
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
I have a dream that some day we’ll have a president who (when confronted with the question of how best to be remembered for brining peace to the Middle East) decides that carpet bombing Gaza works best.