Clinton's Farewell Error
By Moshe Zak

(January 12) - US President Clinton won't partition Jerusalem, 
as long as Israel and the Jewish people remain determined in 
their opposition to an imposed settlement. The Clinton plan 
won't bring peace. At the utmost it will be remembered as an 
intellectual exercise. Therefore, the crowd at the Jerusalem 
rally rudely booing Clinton was wrong, as was the government's 
enthusiasm for Clinton's plan. 

If his aides had prepared a full dossier on the American efforts 
within the Arab-Israeli conflict, Clinton would have learned 
that whenever American presidents drafted concrete plans for 
territorial arrangements, they failed. However, when they worked 
as mediators, they succeed in helping the two sides reach 
agreement. 

Clinton was very helpful in achieving the peace treaty with 
Jordan, without presenting his own plan for territorial 
arrangements. President Carter was deeply involved in the 
negotiations at Camp David (1978) between Israel and Egypt, 
but there was no "Carter plan" on the negotiating table. 
The basis of the negotiations was the bilateral contacts 
between Egypt and Israel, including Sadat's visit to Jerusalem. 

Israel doesn't object to American involvement, but over the 
years it has repeatedly stressed that the role of the US is 
to bring the sides to the negotiating table and smooth the 
path of the discussion. But the US doesn't have to present 
its own plans. The US is entitled to initiate conferences in 
Geneva or Madrid, or to suggest other procedural proposals, 
but it should refrain from putting forth solutions which 
actually complicate the negotiations. 

Israel rejected plans proposed by two American presidents at 
the height of their power: the "Rogers plan," which the 
American secretary of state proposed in December 1969, which 
was really president Nixon's plan; and the "Reagan plan," 
which the president announced in September 1982. 

Golda Meir described the Rogers plan as a disaster for Israel, 
saying, "It would be irresponsible for any Israeli government 
to support such a plan." The administration did not consult 
with Israel before the plan was announced, and the American 
secretary of state, who had met with foreign minister Abba Eban 
a few days before, concealed the imminent announcement from him. 
This was not the case with the current "Clinton plan." 

The main thrust of the Clinton plan is the establishment of a 
Palestinian state with Jerusalem (the section called "Al-Kuds") 
as its capital. The Reagan plan had stressed that the US would not 
support the establishment of a Palestinian state. This was 
conveyed in a message to prime minister Menachem Begin by Ronald 
Reagan on the day he announced his plan. 

Times have changed, and so have policies. Clinton's promise that 
"Israel can't be expected to recognize an unlimited right of 
return to Israel's current borders" may not stand. By breaching 
the wall of opposition to the absorption of Palestinian refugees 
he has set a precedent, and a subsequent president can modify 
the definitions of "limited" or "unlimited" return, according to 
changing circumstances. 

Clinton's speech has no practical significance, apart from the 
electioneering for Ehud Barak in its introduction. It would have 
been filed in the government archives on February 7 as "yet 
another presidential plan" with no content, if the Israeli 
government hadn't been in such a hurry to welcome the US 
president's plan. 

The Israeli representatives rushing around the capitals of the 
world to enlist international support for the Clinton plan have 
granted the plan an established status that will outlast the 
date when Clinton leaves the White House. In other words, the 
partition of Jerusalem, a Palestinian state, and a limited right 
of return will form the basis of any future negotiations between 
Israel and the Palestinians. 

In fact, there are no real negotiations at the moment between 
Israel and the Palestinians. Most of the time we are negotiating 
with the Americans or with ourselves: what territorial offers can 
we suggest to make the Palestinians accept the Clinton plan? 
The Palestinians aren't interested in any compromise. The more 
enthusiastic we become, the more indifferent they are to the 
proposals that we transmit via the Americans. 

True, Arafat agreed this week to minimize acts of violence for 
a while, responding to Israel's lifting of the closure of the 
territories. This gesture may also be connected to January 20 or 
February 6. But Israel should not nurture any illusion that the 
Palestinians are prepared for military cooperation with Israel 
in combating terror. The concept of military and intelligence 
cooperation is totally opposed to the spirit of the intifada to 
which Arafat is still bound. 

Arafat reads opinion polls too, and he knows that 72% of the 
Palestinians in Judea and Samaria want a renewal of military 
action, as opposed to only 32% a year ago, and this is in spite 
of Israeli concessions.