Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton: How better weapons could bring about peace in the Middle East

M1X00221_9.JPG

Speaking of Bill Clinton, here he is with a novel argument on the prospects for peace in the Middle East:

I still think there is some chance the Israelis and the Hamas government and the Palestinian government could make a deal. Because I think that the long-term trend lines are bad for both sides that have the capacity to make a deal. Right now, Hamas is kind of discredited after the Gaza operation, and yet [the Palestinian Authority] is clearly increasing [its] capacity. They are in good shape right now, but if they are not able to deliver sustained economic and political advances, that's not good for them. The long-term trends for the Israelis are even more stark, because they will soon enough not be a majority. Then they will have to decide at that point whether they will continue to be a democracy and no longer be a Jewish state, or continue to be a Jewish state and no longer be a democracy. That's the great spur.

The other thing that has not been sufficiently appreciated is the inevitable arc of technological capacity that applies to military weaponry, like it does to PCs and video games and everything else. I know that these rockets drove the Israelis nuts, and I didn't blame them for being angry and frustrated -- it was maddening. But let's be candid: They were not very accurate. So it's only a question of time until they are de facto outfitted with GPS positioning systems. And when that happens and the casualty rates start to really mount, will that make it more difficult for the Palestinians to make peace instead of less? Because they will be even more pressed by the radical groups saying, "No, no, look, look, we are making eight out of 10 hits. Let's stay at this." I think one of the surprising things that might happen this year [2010] is you might get a substantial agreement. Nobody believes this will happen, and it probably won't, because of the political complexity of the Israeli government. But all I can tell you is, I spent a lot of time when I was president trying to make a distinction between the headlines and the trend lines. If there was ever a place where studying the trend lines would lead you to conclude that sooner is better than later for deal-making, it would be there.

Photo credit: By Katie Barnes/Associated Press

By Ezra Klein  |  December 3, 2009; 5:02 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The talents of Thomas Friedman
Next: Why health-care reform can't control costs

Comments

Clinton makes some good points but draws the wrong conclusions. The whole notion of a Jewish state in the middle east was ill advised, but the possibility of Israel going the way of South Africa--which is what needs to happen--seems remote. The two sides are already too radicalized.

Posted by: bmull | December 4, 2009 3:18 AM | Report abuse

Clinton seems to have a hard time making up his mind in that bit. On the one hand, he's pointing out that the incentives for immediate peace, particularly on the Palestinian side, will weaken when they get more accurate weaponry. On the other, he's thinking a deal might be made in 2010 - but then he thinks it's unlikely.

Posted by: guardsmanbass | December 4, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company