Bill Clinton: Israel-Syria peace deal could be reached within 35 minutes

[oberliner]

A peace agreement between Israel and Syria could be reached within 35 minutes, former U.S. president Bill Clinton told the Lebanon-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an interview published Sunday.

Clinton said Israel and Syria were very close to reaching an agreement in 1998, adding that an accord could be reached assuming Iran does not play a role in the issue.

The former U.S. president also said that, in his opinion, the 1995 assassination of then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin led to the failure of the peace process.

" Arafat really trusted Rabin, and the assassination of Rabin killed the peace process," he said.

Clinton told the newspaper that secret negotiations, like those conducted in Oslo that led to the 1993 Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, are the only way through which to resolve the conflict in the Middle East.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848517.html

[AX10]

1. It probably could.

However, there are some people that don't want a peace deal.

[burythehatchet]

2. holy joe would have no reason for being

[IndianaGreen]

3. Unfortunately, Big Dog is no longer President, and his wife falls short compared to him!

If Bill Clinton were President we wouldn't be having an I/P forum in DU, and none of the bad blood that has festered in DU for the past 6 years would have never happened.

[Shaktimaan]

4. What makes you think that?

He was president when Arafat initiated the violence. There had been six months of intense bloodshed by the time Bush took over.

I don't know if you remember this, but Arafat was happy to see Clinton go. He thought he would be able to wrangle a much better deal from Bush than from Clinton. Wow, talk about bad wagers. It turns out Bush isn't really anything like his father was, much to Arafat's dismay.

You think Suha falls short? Suha isn't even a player. She doesn't even live in Palestine. She doesn't even visit Palestine to my knowlege. It's kind of like saying that Mamie Eisenhower wasn't as much of a statesman as her husband Ike. It's good she isn't involved though. She held very radical views. It's known that Abu Jihad was a close family friend if that means anything to you.

But the idea that Arafat was interested in making peace at any point, that talks fell apart as a result of poor diplomacy and that a more committed envoy from the US or Israel could have changed things for the better is just nonsense. If Bill was president many things would have been better, but there would not have been peace between Israel and Palestine.

"We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years, we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed by us. If the Jews can import all kinds of Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbeks and Ukrainians as Jews, we can import all kinds of Arabs to us. You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among us Arabs.

"I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews! We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!"
-- Yasser Arafat, (excerpts from his secret speech "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel" to Arab diplomats in Stockholm, Sweden, 30 January 1996)


"Anyone who thinks the Palestinian police will try to prevent attacks outside the borders of the autonomous area is making a bitter mistake."
--- Sufian Abu Zaida, a leader of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction in Gaza (Maariv, 25 April 1994)


"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion... We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."
-- Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (in front of an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996)


"Whoever thinks of stopping the uprising before it achieves its goals, I will give him ten bullets in the chest."
--Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO

[Englander]

5. Here's a link to a BBC News report.

It shows "Arafat intiating the violence".

"2000: 'Provocative' mosque visit sparks riots"

?click

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/28/newsid_3687000/3687762.stm

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=av&q=Ariel%20Sharon&recipe=all&scope=all&edition=d

[Shaktimaan]

6. Right.

Have you read the Mitchell report? It concluded that Arafat planned the intifada long before Sharon's visit to the temple mount.

But if you disagree then let me ask you this. If Sharon's visit was going to be so disasterous then why did Arafat and the Waqf both give him explicit permission to visit? Why did Fatah organize resistance, bussing people in to the protest and putting out calls to "rescue al-aqsa" over the radio after giving Sharon permission for the visit?


edit: you know, nothing in those news reports was really false. So, Sharon visited the Temple Mount. Arafat started the intifada. How are you justifying Arafat's actions by Sharon's visit anyway? Since when is it acceptable to start a war over something like that?

Despite it being the holiest site on the planet for Jews, Israel allows it to be overseen by the Muslim Waqf and has outlawed prayers from Jewish people to take place there. They have been more than accomidating where al aqsa is concerned. The reaction to Sharon's visit, even if it was spontaneous anger (no official reports agree at this point) but even if it was, how do you find it in any way justifiable? Is it in any way comperable to the Palestinian ransacking of Joseph's Tomb? Would it have been acceptable for Israelis to riot in a similar way following that (far worse) incident?

[Englander]

7. No, it doesn't.

The Mitchell report

>snip

In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.

Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force.

However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians.

Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly. The Sharon visit did not cause the "al-Aqsa Initifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited.

More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on 29 September to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1632064.stm#what%20happened

_________________


edit: you know, nothing in those news reports was really false. So, Sharon visited the Temple Mount. Arafat started the intifada. How are you justifying Arafat's actions by Sharon's visit anyway? Since when is it acceptable to start a war over something like that?

I'm not going to respond to these "questions" other than point your good self in the direction of
this thread, and these comments in particular;

A comment on partisanship
The takeaway is this, think before you post- please do not spend time arbitrarily trying to parse subliminal meaning from people's words and making assumptions as a result. Jumping in with both feet can easily throw up as much mud on yourself as the person you are commenting about. Making something more inflammatory is likely to draw as much, if not more attention, your way than the original post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=171386&mesg_id=171386

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. the Report concludes that the Palestinian leadership and US did urge prohibiting the Sharon visit

"In late September 2000, Israeli, Palestinian, and other officials received reports that Member of the Knesset (now Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon was planning a visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Palestinian and U.S. officials urged then Prime Minister Ehud Barak to prohibit the visit.3† Mr. Barak told us that he believed the visit was intended to be an internal political act directed against him by a political opponent, and he declined to prohibit it."

this from footnote # 3. When informed of the planned visit, Ambassador Dennis Ross (President Clinton’s Middle East Envoy) said that he told Israeli Minister of Interior Shlomo Ben-Ami, “I can think of a lot of bad ideas, but I can’t think of a worse one.” See Jane Perlez, “US Envoy Recalls the Day Pandora’s Box Wouldn’t Shut,” The New York Times, January 29, 2001."
_______________

thanks for the Mitchell report. I was just reading it myself at another link:

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/mitchellreport.html

just a few interesting comments:

"The Sharon visit did not cause the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."

"Divergent Perspectives: During the last seven months, these views have hardened into divergent realities. Each side views the other as having acted in bad faith; as having turned the optimism of Oslo into the suffering and grief of victims and their loved ones. In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other."
_______________

Here is a report of the events of that day by b'tselem. I think it is quite balanced and certainly not one-sided.


link:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200009_Temple_Mount_Eng.rtf

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. CNN Report from 27 Sept 2000. Palestinian officials try to stop Sharon vist

Palestinians say opposition tour of holy site could cause bloodshed
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 9:41 PM EDT (0141 GMT)

link: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/27/israel.palestinians.ap/index.html

"JERUSALEM (AP) -- Palestinians leaders warned Wednesday that if Israel's hard-line opposition leader goes ahead with his tour of Islamic holy sites on a disputed hilltop in Jerusalem, it could spark bloody battles between Jews and Arabs.

Likud leader Ariel Sharon plans to enter the hill early Thursday morning to reinforce Israel's claim of sovereignty there. In Israel-Palestinian negotiations, both sides claim the hill. Jews call it the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest place, where the biblical Jewish Temples stood. A Muslim shrine and mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, are built over the Temple ruins. "

snip:"Sharon's visit would be a political demonstration, said Likud spokesman Ofir Akounis. "We are visiting the Temple Mount to show that under a Likud government it will remain under Israeli sovereignty," Akounis said. "

snip:"In a statement, the Palestinian Information Ministry called on the Israeli government "to prevent this provocative visit, to avoid a new massacre of Palestinians."

Rajoub told reporters, "If, God forbid, something happens in Jerusalem, it will spread throughout the territories and I think there will also be a reaction in the Arab world and the Muslim world."


link: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/27/israel.palestinians.ap/index.html

.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Why exactly

should there have been a massacre of Palestinians because Sharon visited the Temple Mount?

Israelis did not spontaneously riot, kill Palestinians or form a mob to tear any Palestinians linb from limb when Joseph's Tomb was destroyed. (And them painted green.) Yet because the Palestinians acted in this way because of Sharon's visit to the temple mount the responsibility is his?

Isn't this a double standard?

(Your link went to a UNHRC report about syria, I think it was the worng link.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. Most of the Nationalist religious right in Israel want to destroy the Mosques and rebuild the temple

Of course I do not believe that this will happen at least any time soon. But Sharon's visit is enough to send off shock waves throughout the Islamic world.

It is certainly irresponsible of any politician to do such a thing as a political stunt knowing full well how his actions are likely to be interpreted throughout the entire region and the entire Islamic world:

snip:"Sharon's visit would be a political demonstration, said Likud spokesman Ofir Akounis. "We are visiting the Temple Mount to show that under a Likud government it will remain under Israeli sovereignty," Akounis said. "
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/27/israel.palestinians.ap/index.html

"Headline: Poll: 53% of Israelis want third temple Byline: HAIM SHAPIRO Edition; Jerusalem Post, Daily Section: News Page: 02

"Thursday, July 18, 2002 -- Over half of all Israeli Jews would like to see the building of a third temple, according to a survey commissioned by the Reform movement's Israel Religious Action Center.

The survey was commissioned for Tisha Be'av, which falls today. The fast, which marks the destruction of the First and Second Temples, ends tonight at 8:16 p.m.

According to the survey, conducted by the Dahaf Institute, a total of 53 percent of the 775 people queried ... "

link:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-54600808.html
________________

As an interesting historical footnote; until the rise of modern Zionism in the late 1800's Jewish religious law forbade Jews from ascending Temple Mount until the return of the Messiah. This was considered a violation of the Torah and Mitzvahs (from page 81 of "A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism" by by Yakov M. Rabkin, Orthodox Rabbinical Scholar and Professor of Jewish History at the University of Montreal. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-Century-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991/ref=sr_oe_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176729818&sr=1-1

.

[TomClash]

23. One might think there might be a massacre at Al Aqsa

because there was one in 1990, when 23 Palestinians were killed and 850 wounded by the IDF.

[Shaktimaan]

24. right.

They were all having a picnic when the IDF murderously attacked.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. recalling October 8, 1990

"October 8, 1990 - 21 Palestinians killed, 150 wounded by Israeli forces at Haram al-Sharif when Palestinians protest at Jewish group, “Temple Mt Faithful” who attempt to place a cornerstone for the construction of the “3rd Temple”. Violence of Israeli security forces is condemned by SCR672 (12Oct; unanimous). Israel’s refusal to cooperate with UNSC-mandated mission is deplored by SCR673 (24Oct).
SCR672
SCR673 "

link: http://www.middleeasttimeline.net/1990.htm

________________________

Resolution 672 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on
12 October 1990
link: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be65b75f931fa995052567270057d45e/a77d1562d5f685aa852560dd0063a757!OpenDocument

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),

Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people,

Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,

1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;

2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;

3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.

Adopted unanimously.
__________________

Resolution 673 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2949th meeting on
24 October 1990 link: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be65b75f931fa995052567270057d45e/3b28c7d6384fe1ea852560dd00639476!OpenDocument

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the obligations of Member States under the United Nations Charter,

Reaffirming also its resolution 672 (1990),

Having been briefed by the Secretary-General on 19 October 1990,

Expressing alarm at the rejection of Security Council resolution 672 (1990) by the Israeli Government, and its refusal to accept the mission of the Secretary- General,

Taking into consideration the statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,

Gravely concerned at the continued deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories,

1. Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region;

2. Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Council the report requested in resolution 672 (1990);

4. Affirms its determination to give full and expeditious consideration to the report.

Adopted unanimously.

[Shaktimaan]

11. If you were not

in fact insinuating that Sharon sparked the intifada, perhaps you may have been more specific in your reply. I was not parsing arbitrary meaning out of your reply, it genuinely seemed to be your intended meaning based on my previous post. I would rather you clarify yourself instead of posting clippings of rules you have judged me to be in violation of. I have not been trying to offend you and it appears that you have been following me around policing me lately which I find disruptive and annoying.

I can understand if you would rather not debate me however I don't find your actions to be helpful. If you don't want to actually discuss anything with me other than to alert me when you have unearthed a rule I may have crossed it may be best for the board in general if you refrain from replying to my comments.

[Englander]

13. "Tu quoques" & faux outrage, now?

Instead of making blatant attempts to rewrite history, baseless claims about anybodies pov, baseless
claims of double standards, blatant attempts to change the subject, & blatant attempts to make pretty
poisonous accusations thinly disguised as questions, why not try discussing the main topic of any
thread or sub-thread? In this case it's the Mitchell Report, and the false claim about the Intifada
being planned.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. highly implausible quotes without any credible references....

when I checked this on google...only pretty flaky websites reported these quotes. I could not find a single credible source that reported this; not even mainstream pro-Israeli sites.

Of course I do not know how to prove what anyone did not say in an unreported and unreferenced secret speech...

[Shaktimaan]

15. Is the Wall Street Journal too flaky?

After that, there was just no point in keeping up appearances, and so came the intifada. It was a premeditated act. As Arafat had already told an Arab audience in Stockholm in 1996, "We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005863

Why do you find these quotes implausible? Arafat was known for giving very different speeches to his Arab contingent than he did to western media.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. Yes I do find these words absolutely implausible and Bret Stephens a first class flake

The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page is pretty flaky in general.

I urge anyone to look up the other stuff Bret Stephens has written and they will see exactly what I mean; do a google search.

According to the quotes above Arafat made these comments to "a group of Arab diplomats." To find that plausible one would have to completely misunderstand the workings of Arab politics in the region and have no idea whatsoever except a demonized cartoonish caricature image of "savage Arabs".' And again, no credible sources - just secret meetings.

Indeed Arafat has said some dumb things in his time. With that I would have to agree. But these comments to a group of Arab diplomats most of whom are western/American aligned? That would not be plausible even if he believed it. And he didn't.

Again implausible quotes, secret meetings, no credible sources.

[Shaktimaan]

17. So if the wall street journal lacks credibility

what sources would you find to be less "flaky?"

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. I was referring to the Oped page /And that particular writer Bret Stephens

Mr. Stephens is in fact a hardline and uncompromising extremist ideologue. Again anyone can do a search of what else Mr. Stephens has written. He is certainly not in the mainstream of conservative or pro-Israeli writers. And the fact that there are simply no credible sources reporting from the "secret meeting of Arab diplomats"

The Wall Street Journals OpEd page and their news service are entirely different worlds.

The Wall Street Journals general news service is very good, if not excellent. I don't believe they reported such a meeting nor did any other credible news service.

But I don't know how to prove someone did not say something at a "secret meeting" for which there are no reliable witnesses and no reports from any credible news services; only extremist blogs.

[msmcghee]

19. Just to fill in some info here . . .

. . a Google search for your words "Stockholm secret meeting of Arab diplomats" yields 76,200 hits. This one has a very in-depth discussion of the topic if you care to read up on it.

http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/stockhlm.htm

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. thanks for the link..And Shimon Peres and the Israeli Embassy are part of the cover-up?

"Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem as well as by the highest Israeli officials in the Embassy in Washington, there is a concerted effort by the Peres government to not only ignore the story, but to actively spread disinformation abroad and deny its validity. "

Did Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon ever bring up this "secret speech"? I cannot find any evidence that they ever mentioned it -- even when they had Mr. Arafat surrounded at the Ramallah compound. That would have been a perfect time for Mr. Sharon to bring the subject up to justify his actions. But as far as I can tell neither Mr. Sharon or Mr. Netanyahu ever once mentioned it.

Indeed the story is on lots and lots of hardline blogs, and undoubtedly in some highly ideological publications.

I don't find it in any independent news services.

Listen the world of Arab diplomats meeting in Stockholm would be a fairly sophisticated and Westernized society. These are careerist who don't want to rock the boat. It is simply ludicrous that the late President Arafat would say something like that to such a crowd. It would not go over well there, at all.

.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I agree with President Clinton 100% on this

peace with Syria would be a snap. And it could deescalate other regional tensions in a significant way and reduce concerns regarding Iran.

I always wondered how the late President Arafat viewed the late Prime Minister Rabin. Mr. Rabin was no more an endearing figure from a Palestinian point of view than Mr. Arafat was from an Israeli point of view. And the Palestinian issue is far more politically costly to resolve.

But I always kind of thought that there was at least some amount of chemistry between the two; perhaps even a little bit of begrudging mutual respect in spite of everything.

.