The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Bill Clinton Did Try To Bring About Peace For Israel

Posted on | February 8, 2012 | 11 Comments

by Smitty

In the credit where due department, Bill did make some effort:

Half a dozen snarky things come to mind, but one will relax and opt for graciousness.

via DavidVida004


11 Responses to “Bill Clinton Did Try To Bring About Peace For Israel”

  1. Bob Belvedere
    February 8th, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

    Bill Clinton Did Try To Get A Piece In Israel

    There…fixed that for ya.

  2. ThePaganTemple
    February 8th, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

    If he was really that surprised by how it all turned out, that speaks wonders as to how amateurish and naive is the State Department and the CIA. It should have been expected, if anything. All Middle East peace is to the average American politician is some grand elusive prize that isn’t really peace at all, its just a lid to fit over the boiling pot, good enough to contain it all for another four years.

  3. Adjoran
    February 8th, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

     The State Department isn’t a bunch of amateurs – they are seasoned, career professionals.  They just aren’t on our side.

  4. Adjoran
    February 8th, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

    Clinton brow-beat Barak into giving Arafat over 95% of the territory the PLO was demanding and most of his terms.  It was a sell-out of Israel which would have led to a temporary peace at best.

    Arafat walked out, proving the Palestinians never wanted land for peace or money for peace or any peace at all that did not involve the destruction of Israel.

    In any sane world, we would have learned our lesson from that and let the damned dogs lie.

  5. Anonymous
    February 8th, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

    let the damned dogs die. 


  6. Dana
    February 8th, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

    The problem is really very simple: the Palestinians, or at least the men in the leadership, still desire victory more than they desire peace.

    For the Palestinians, to accept a settlement which leaves Israel in existence is an admission of defeat: the Jews will have invaded their land, and conquered their territory, and signing a peace agreement means that the Israelis have won.

    And though we like to say thet the Israelis have beaten the Palestinians in war four times now, the fact is that they haven’t beaten the current Palestinians.  War is a young man’s game, and the current Palestinian warriors  have not been beaten.  The Palestinian fighters beaten in 1948 and 1956 are mostly dead now, and the survivors old men.  The brave Palestinian fighters of 1967 are in their sixties and seventies, and the fighters of 1973 mostly in their late fifties.

    But the current Palestinian fighters, who have been waging a guerrilla war for years and years, have never been beaten.  Like the Viet Cong, they have lost a few skirmishes, but in the larger sense of things, guerrillas expect to lose some skirmishes; the object of guerrilla warfare is attrition, to wear down the larger, more traditionally-armed enemy, until they finally weary of the struggle and surrender.  They really have no reason to think that they’ll lose right now.

  7. Bob Belvedere
    February 8th, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

    I don’t think they have been since William Seward.

  8. Bob Belvedere
    February 8th, 2012 @ 7:52 pm


    The brave Palestinian fighters….

  9. Thomas L. Knapp
    February 9th, 2012 @ 1:55 am

    “The problem is really very simple: the Palestinians, or at least the men in the leadership, still desire victory more than they desire peace.”

    Actually, no, it’s not quite as simple as that.

    All of the involved parties — the Israelis, the “Palestinian” Arabs, the region’s other regimes, and the US players in the military-industrial complex all find continuous low-intensity warfare, with the US writing big checks to all the regimes and to “defense” contractors and standing buy to keep a lid on things getting out of hand, preferable to a formal peace that would end with fewer welfare checks and more obligations.

  10. Ben David
    February 9th, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

    Uh… no.
    At least not for Israel – which incurs far more suffering and cost due to violence and international exclusion than it “profits” from “military-industrial” aid…

    We could be 2-3 times more prosperous – and far less neurotic – if we had peace with stable neighbors.

    Israel hasn’t received direct monetary aid for 3o years – and we’d gladly pass on the military aid, and use all the brainpower spent on arms development for medical and technology breakthroughs.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp
    February 9th, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

    Ben David,

    “Peace with stable neighbors” is probably not an option, and continuous low-intensity warfare with $3 billion per year in military aid and US security guarantees looks preferable to a “peace” which may last 10 years or 10 weeks, with that aid and those guarantees withdrawn. That’s the logic for Israel.

    The logic for the “Palestinian Authority” is that said state of continuous low-intensity warfare, with the US somewhat restraining Israel and pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in direct aid in annually, is preferable to losing that aid, losing US restraint of Israel, and leaving themselves vulnerable to final annexation of Gaza by Egypt, the West Bank by Jordan, etc.

    The existing situation gives Lebanon breathing space to resist the influence of Syria and Iran. It gets Saudi Arabia access to advanced US military technology as long as that weaponry is perceived as being pointed at Iran and not Israel.

    It’s not that “everybody wins,” it’s that everybody sees potential much larger losses if the situation is materially altered.

    That’s why, for example, Israel won’t do peace with the Palestinians if they don’t have a state, and won’t do peace with them if they have a state, and won’t do business with the Palestinians if Hamas is in charge, and won’t do business with Abbas if Hamas hands the reins over to him — there’s nothing the Palestinians can do that isn’t a “deal-breaker,” because no side desires a deal.