Bill Clinton: President Hillary’s Lead Negotiator in the Middle East?


rabin-clinton-arafat.jpg

I was reading Matt Yglesias’ summary of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy plan (one-line synopsis: just like Edwards’ and Obama’s, but a shade more hawkish) and noted this paragraph from Clinton on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

It will be nice to have a president come into office with this mindset. In comparison, George W. Bush announced at his first National Security Council meeting, “We’re going to tilt back toward Israel.” When Colin Powell warned that such an attitude might lead to excessive uses of force by the Israeli army and a victimized Palestinian population, Bush responded, “Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things.”

So we’re miles ahead of nonsense. In fact, a commander-in-chief with Clinton’s position on the issue would mean that we’re roughly back to the attitudes that led to the last serious shot at peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, under President You-Know-Who. Which begs the question, if Bill is looking for role as First Gent (“If Hillary wins, I want to do whatever she wants me to do.”), maybe he can be America’s lead negotiator on this issue. Lord knows he’s got the gravitas and the experience.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.