×
It says a lot about the orientation of Rudy Giuliani's Middle East policy that Martin Kramer actually qualifies as one of Giuliani's less insane advisers. Here Kramer takes Hillary Clinton to task for being--wait for it--too solicitous of the Palestinians:
"[Clinton] deliberately evokes the legacy of her husband when she writes that the "fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000" (emphasis added), i.e., when Bill Clinton presented his "parameters" at Camp David.Clear to whom? Arafat rejected them then, Hamas (now far stronger than it was in 2000) has always regarded a final settlement with Israel as anathema, and even Mahmoud Abbas cannot bring himself to make the necessary concessions.Nor does Hillary consider that perhaps the Palestinians, having chosen to wage war against Israel in 2000, should be made to expect less than what they might have had in 2000. Instead, she implies that the game should be resumed precisely at the point where Arafat walked off the field and began to shoot. The Palestinians did not gain by war, she implies, but certainly they did not lose.The fact that the myth of "Arafat's refusal of Israel's generous offer" which Kramer peddles here retains about as much scholarly credibility as the idea that JFK was killed by the CIA doesn't stop otherwise intelligent people from believing it, and for the same reason: It conforms to their deeply held beliefs about the way the world works. It will be interesting to see if and how candidate Clinton responds to this, given both that President Clinton himself unfortunately did so much to promote the "blame Arafat" line (breaking a specific promise which he made to Arafat in order to get the unprepared Palestinian team to Camp David in the first place) in order to exonerate himself, and that Hillary Clinton herself has staked out positions, such as support for a "unified Jerusalem," designed to appeal to the pro-Israel crowd.
