Clinton: If Arafat Hamas Will Pretend to Want Peace, Israel Should Give Up Territory
There's something about this that sounds vaguely familiar:
In a weekend interview with BBC television, former U.S. President Bill Clinton called for a dialogue with the Hamas-led Palestinian government if several conditions are met, in particular a halt to violence. Clinton noted that the late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat signed agreements with Israel that honor the two-state principle.
"He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it. So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, 'OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honor that policy.' If they did that, I would support dealing with them," Clinton said.
OK here's the thing about Arafat's private and public assurances: he lied. We can debate back and forth just how much of the terrorism of Intifada II was directly ordered funded by Arafat, but he definitely had a hand in more than a few murders and bombings. So when to get back to the point: he lied. Having a Palestinian government say "no to terror and yes to negotiations" only gives them more of an incentive to lie - because they know they can demand concessions in negotiations while dragging their feet on the whole "no to terror" part. They've even worked out this division of labor where whoever's not in power can do the terrorism while the Palestinian government can claim plausible deniability.
Clinton should be apologizing for Olso not trying to resurrect it. He should also apologize for pressuring a string of Israeli leaders to give up land while terrorism escalated just so he could get his Noble Prize, but let's start with baby steps. How about no more believing the pledges of Palestinian governments without seeing actions to back those pledges up?
In a weekend interview with BBC television, former U.S. President Bill Clinton called for a dialogue with the Hamas-led Palestinian government if several conditions are met, in particular a halt to violence. Clinton noted that the late Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat signed agreements with Israel that honor the two-state principle.
"He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it. So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, 'OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honor that policy.' If they did that, I would support dealing with them," Clinton said.
OK here's the thing about Arafat's private and public assurances: he lied. We can debate back and forth just how much of the terrorism of Intifada II was directly ordered funded by Arafat, but he definitely had a hand in more than a few murders and bombings. So when to get back to the point: he lied. Having a Palestinian government say "no to terror and yes to negotiations" only gives them more of an incentive to lie - because they know they can demand concessions in negotiations while dragging their feet on the whole "no to terror" part. They've even worked out this division of labor where whoever's not in power can do the terrorism while the Palestinian government can claim plausible deniability.
Clinton should be apologizing for Olso not trying to resurrect it. He should also apologize for pressuring a string of Israeli leaders to give up land while terrorism escalated just so he could get his Noble Prize, but let's start with baby steps. How about no more believing the pledges of Palestinian governments without seeing actions to back those pledges up?
