Home

It was 3 a.m., and Bill Clinton couldn't sleep.

In less than eight hours, Clinton would be joined on the podium at the White House's South Lawn by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat to sign the Declaration of Principles On Interim Self-Government Arrangements, more commonly known as the Oslo Accords.

The ceremony would mark that date -- Sept. 13, 1993 -- in bold on the timeline of Arab-Israeli history. And so Bill Clinton couldn't sleep.

Instead of tossing and turning, Clinton opened up his Bible and read the pesukim in Joshua on the battle of Jericho. He then put on a blue necktie with gold trumpets, symbolizing in his mind the breaking down of the walls that separate the Jews from their hopefully erstwhile, or at least evanescent, enemies.

Clinton's former advisor, Martin Indyk, relates this story in his book on the Clinton administration's Mideast diplomacy, no doubt in an attempt to provide crisp detail to the account. But the story does something else; Clinton was nothing if not self-aware, and he knows when history lies before him.

Bill Clinton made mistake after mistake in the Middle East, but his enduring and endearing friendship with Rabin was genuine and touching. As such, he held an admiration for the Israeli people that led him to follow Rabin even when Rabin was wrong. Naivete and hubris were responsible for his awful Mideast legacy, not bitterness or malice aforethought.

But can we say the same for the current Clinton representing American Mideast policy?

When word leaked that Hillary Clinton was going to be named secretary of state in the Obama administration, I praised the decision on these pages. I did so for several reasons, including the lack of a better option (should John Kerry be allowed anywhere near the Middle East?) and the need to balance out Vice President Joe Biden, whose prognostications on the Mideast have a slightly worse record than the Washington Generals against the Globetrotters.

But there were other, more important reasons, such as Clinton's understanding of the region. In my column, I quoted her as saying this: "You do not get people into a process or to the table to make any kind of tough decisions, including compromises, unless the other side knows that your commitment to Israel is unshakable." In other words, the Arabs will only come to the table if they believe they cannot drive a wedge between Israel and the U.S.

It's a plainly true statement, and I thought it showed that Clinton understood the practicalities of Mideast peacemaking. But here is what she said to AIPAC March 22: "It is our devotion to this outcome -- two states for two peoples, secure and at peace -- that led us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in East Jerusalem. This was not about wounded pride. Nor is it a judgment on the final status of Jerusalem, which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. This is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it -- and staying there until the job is finally done."

Wrong. This is a miscalculation of such staggering proportion that it practically knocked me over when I heard it. Condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem does the opposite of getting the Palestinians "to the table" -- as the recent fiasco proved. After the U.S. upbraided Israel for the Ramat Shlomo plans, the Palestinians decided they wouldn't even meet for proximity talks -- which means, in plain English, that they won't even talk about talking.

The day before Clinton's speech, former Bush adviser Elliot Abrams told an AIPAC audience that "When we take this position, the Arabs change their position; so do the Europeans." It's a domino effect.

On that same panel, Bret Stephens, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and former editor of the Jerusalem Post, said earlier that day he was asked if the current administration's foibles in the region indicated we were watching amateur hour or witnessing a statement of doctrine.

"It's actually quite possible," Stephens responded, "for the answer to be: both, which is something that concerns me a great deal."

Clinton's statement clearly was the latter. One of the other reasons I supported Clinton's nomination was that the concept of loyalty resides outside her frame of reference. As such, she would do what she wanted, not what she was ordered to do by Obama. I thought that meant we'd get a more hawkish State Department when it came to Israel's security.

But whatever you think of Clinton's views, let us be clear on something: This is the real Hillary Clinton. She isn't an administration pawn, and she isn't running for a Senate seat in New York. She means what she says, and her statements are a cholent of hackneyed falsehoods and Bidenesque vapidity.

Amateur hour? Stephens was referring to Obama, but the label could just as easily be applied to Bill Clinton's Mideast mishaps. Hillary, on the other hand, knows exactly what she's doing.

And at 3 a.m., I bet she's sound asleep.

Seth Mandel is the managing editor of The Jewish State.