Rewriting the History of the Peace Process
**Head to Head**: Should the United States remain impartial on the Israel-Palestine issue? Indyk, who served as the special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under President Barack Obama and as U.S. ambassador under President Bill Clinton, was affable, articulate, and insistent that he has been “trying to solve this conflict” until his “dying breath.”The Clinton Parameters
However, Iftah Curiel, the spokesperson for the Israeli embassy in the UK, chose to sidestep these concessions. Instead, Curiel shared a 29-second clip from the 48-minute interview in which the former U.S. ambassador invoked the American peace initiative known as the “Clinton Parameters” of December 2000. The Israeli spokesperson promoted this clip as the “most important 30 seconds” of the show, as it ostensibly serves as “Israel’s credentials on peace.” Curiel’s tweet was shared by several Israeli diplomats, most notably the pro-Israel American commentator and Bush speechwriter David Frum. Peter Lerner, the head of the Israel Defense Forces’ foreign and social media department, retweeted it with the claim that Martin Indyk had “cleared up the misconceptions of Mehdi Hasan.”Noam Chomsky on the Refugee Crisis
Ordinarily, I do not revisit a Head to Head episode once it has aired, but on this occasion, I felt compelled to respond. First, there is a delicious irony in Curiel and other Israeli officials rallying behind the “Clinton Parameters,” which proposed a Palestinian state encompassing a significant portion of the West Bank in exchange for Israel proper, while incorporating Israeli settlements. It bears remembering that the government Curiel serves—the current Netanyahu administration, and specifically the Likud party—opposed the Clinton Parameters at the time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out previously, nearly a dozen senior ministers in that government have publicly and proudly rejected the concept of an independent Palestinian state and, by extension, any iteration of a two-state solution.Demonstrably Wrong
Second, as indicated in the video clip, the line of reasoning pushed by Indyk is entirely and demonstrably incorrect. Here is the transcript of the exchange between Indyk and myself, as featured in the clip shared by Curiel on Twitter: Martin Indyk: “No, it is based on what Clinton offered them [the Palestinians].” Mehdi Hasan: “And both sides placed conditions on the Clinton Parameters of December 2000, as you know full well.” Martin Indyk: “No, Barak [the Israeli Prime Minister] accepted them.” Mehdi Hasan: That is not true, but we will have to agree to disagree on that.The Past, Present, and Future of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Martin Indyk: “I was there…” Mehdi Hasan: “Right.” Martin Indyk: “…when the formal Israeli decision came in from Barak’s office, with the Prime Minister’s signature, accepting the Clinton Parameters. So don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about.” To be clear: Indyk is claiming that Israel accepted the Clinton Parameters without conditions, while implying the Palestinians did not—or that they only did so with conditions. In reality, this is false. Do not take my word for it. Do not even take the word of the late Yasser Arafat. Do not even take the word of the Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, a diplomatic correspondent for *Haaretz*, who replied to Curiel’s tweet, stating: “Martin [Indyk] is wrong, and I have the proof. Barak’s answer was ‘Yes, but.’” Instead, look to the official statements of the Clinton administration under which Indyk served. Following a series of phone calls between Clinton, Barak, and Arafat, White House spokesperson Joe Lockhart told the *New York Times* on January 3, 2001: “Chairman Arafat told the president he accepted the president’s parameters. At the same time, he also added some reservations. This means both sides have now accepted the president’s ideas with some reservations. This is a step forward.” U.S. State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher repeated the same sentiment while briefing journalists that same day: “Both sides have accepted the president’s parameters, the president’s ideas, but both sides have reservations.” Clinton himself, in a speech to the Israel Policy Forum on January 7, 2001, used the exact language of his officials: “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have accepted the parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed reservations.” If Indyk and Curiel wish to believe that the Palestinians never intended to accept the parameters or reach a peace deal with Israel, that is their prerogative. However, the historical record suggests otherwise. To borrow a sentiment from the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a distinguished American diplomat and staunch supporter of Israel: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”Translated from the original essay 'Rewriting the history of the peace process' by Mehdi Hasan.