Reports emerged yesterday that President Clinton — along with Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta — was traveling to North Korea to negotiate the release of two imprisoned American journalists. In an interview with AFP today, super-hawk John Bolton attacked Clinton for “negotiating with terrorists” and “rewarding bad behavior“:

“It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists,” Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton’s trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. [...]

“I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that’s encouraging their bad behavior,” Bolton said.

However it seems Clinton’s trip has paid off. Reuters reported this afternoon that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il granted “a special pardon” and, according to Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin, both would be traveling back to the U.S. with Clinton and his team. Bolton appeared on Fox just after Griffin’s report and despite Clinton’s successes, he still couldn’t bring himself to offer any praise and instead again attacked the move:

BOLTON: But I worry that the outcome is a lot better for North Korea than for the United States. I mean this is a classic case of rewarding bad behavior, the seizure of these two basically innocent Americans. Obviously all of us want to get them out but we want it done in a way that doesn’t increase the risks in the future for other Americans seized by North Korea, seized by Iran, seized by other despotic regimes and then turned into pawns to get senior officials like former presidents to come and legitimize the regime in order to get them out.

Watchi it:

On CNN this afternoon, nonproliferation expert and Ploughshares Fund president Joe Cirincione explained why Clinton’s trip is not rewarding bad behavior:

CIRINCIONE: The Obama administration seems to have played North Korea just about right — largely ignoring them for the first eight months, not rewarding their bad behavior, not reacting to their provocative statements or actions and now after about two months of relatively quiet, moderate North Korean behavior and the involvement of China…you now send in a real power player to hopefully negotiate the release of the journalists…and help reset U.S.-North Korean relations, refreezing that nuclear program and if things work out we could see the beginning again of the dismantlement of that nuclear program.

The Anti-Defamation League took out a full page ad (pdf) in today’s New York Times opposing President Obama’s pressure on Israeli settlements. The ADL insists that “the problem isn’t settlements, it’s Arab rejection”:

The obstacle to peace is not Israel. The settlements are not the impediment. The issue is simple: the Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, including through violence and terrorism, for over 60 years. Israel’s right to exist is undeniable and is based on its right to self-determination in its historic homeland.

The path to peace is clear. With recognition, Israel has said again and again that everything is on the table without preconditions. Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally. It’s now time to direct your attention to the rejectionists who refuse to recognize Israel and negotiate an end to the conflict.

The claim of “Arab rejectionism” would probably make a lot more sense if the Arab League had not offered full recognition and normalization with Israel in 2002, in the form of the Arab Peace Initiative. In a meeting with Secretary Clinton last Friday, the Saudi Foreign Minister reiterated the offer, saying “The whole world knows what a settlement should look like:”

Withdrawal from all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem; a just settlement for the refugees; and an equitable settlement of issues such as water and security.

The Arab world is in accord with such a settlement through the Arab Peace Initiative adopted at the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut which not only accepted Israel, but also offered full and complete peace and normal relations in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in ’67. This initiative was adopted unanimously by the Islamic countries at Makkah Summit in 2005.

As with Israeli conditions, the conditions of the Initiative should be seen as a starting point for negotiations. Back in May, U.S. envoy George Mitchell confirmed that the Initiative would be incorporated into Obama’s Middle East peace plan.

Though a number of Israeli leaders have publicly discussed the Initiative, Israel has never officially responded to the offer of full recognition. Certainly there are factions that continue to reject Israel, but given the unprecedented scope and historic significance of the 2002 offer, it’s pretty counterproductive to continue to pretend that those factions are dominant, or that there hasn’t been any appreciable change in opinion among Arab publics “for over 60 years”. As with Arab condemnation of Israel, which President Obama rightly condemned in his Cairo speech, it seems that the spectre of “Arab rejectionism” is a difficult instrument for the Israeli right, and their friends here in the U.S., to give up.

Incidentally, it’s unsurprising that the ADL does not consider settlements an impediment to peace. According to its web page, the ADL maintains that the settlements are not really illegal, which goes against the overwhelming international legal consensus on settlements, while reflecting the position of the Israeli government.