Clinton Preaches, Rice Overreaches

Former President Bill Clinton was in Israel last week and had the following to say:

"If you work for peace and fail, fewer people will die than if you do not work at all," he told the Saban Forum, held at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

After all of the visits by Arafat to the White House, can Clinton really mean that?

And then Clinton had this to say:

Diaspora Jews and friends of Israel "have a special responsibility to give financial, moral, and technical support to the Palestinian people to help the Gaza gamble succeed and to the Israelis to give them time to sort through their political situation."

Among the questions I'd like to ask:

1. Why do Jews have any responsibility to give support to the people who want to murder them?
2. Why do Jews have a 'special' responsibility?
3. Who are the 'Palestinian people' and what historical, cultural, and political connection do they have to the land?

But clearly Rice does not agree with Clinton. She does not see a need to give Israel "time to sort through their political situation."

Arutz Sheva has an article entitled U.S. Jews Pushed Rice Into ´Unprecedented´ Intervention:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week broke her previously stated policy of "guiding, but not directing" negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Rice used "unusual personal involvement" to pressure Israel and the PA, according to the liberal New York Jewish daily The Forward.

Rice apparently did not agree with the idea of giving Israel time, instead applying more pressure than usual. I wonder if she ever considered applying real pressure on Abbas to reign in terrorists, or if instead Abbas will just go on indefinitely getting mileage out of his claim that his taking too strong a stand would start a civil war. This is the same Rice who was reported to have favored pressure on Syria instead of military action.

But apparently applying the pressure was not all Rice's idea:

The left-wing Israel Policy Forum, Reform movement members and Americans for Peace Now met with Rice to express their backing before her recent trip to the Middle East. The Forum also sent a letter to Rice stating the "strong support" that the Bush administration has "from Jewish Americans on both sides of the aisle."

It won't be the first time that Jews have shot themselves in the foot--too bad they didn't take Clinton's 'advice'. But in the aftermath of the agreement there are more questions than answers:

Abe Foxman, director of the liberal Anti-Defamation league (ADL), told The Forward, "I am nervous about this" because Israel's security may have been compromised. "I worry because there is a basic asymmetry, an imbalance, between the two parties. For the Palestinians, it is about status and sovereignty, which could always be adjusted, while for Israel it is about security and trust. If you make a mistake..., there is no going back."

...Her (Rice's) direct intervention was questioned also by David Twersky, director of international affairs for the American Jewish Congress. He said Rice's shuttle diplomacy for "a very small, modest achievement just shows how bad things are. What's going to happen when there is something really important to discuss?"

But there is another issue too, which of course is likely to be ignored:

The Rafah agreement is in direct contradiction to the Disengagement law, according to left-wing activist Meron Benvenisti. He wrote in the Hebrew daily Haaretz, "One should not dismiss the importance of the Rafah agreement, [which] contradicts the Disengagement plan as approved by the Knesset. [The law] stated that Israel will oversee and guard the external land envelope."

Which brings us back to Bill Clinton. He refers to the Disengagement as the "Gaza gamble." Indeed, whenever Israel goes to the bargaining table, why does it seem she always throws snake eyes?

See also Rice Rewrites History

Technorati Tags: Israel, Clinton, and Rice.