Yes, but it wasn't really Clinton's fault. Arafat had the whole thing planned well in advance. He wanted the intifada, the peace deal was just a convenient place to launch it from. Clinton allowed himself to be used by Arafat, and he refused to criticize Arafat, but he didn't start the intifada (he just didn't do anything to stop it).
Funny, you should be defending clinton so eagerly. Whatsup wid' dat? Finding a way to disagree with GW that important to you?
President Bush sits in his pickup truck with British Prime
Minister Tony Blair after his arrival to the Bush ranch in
Crawford, Texas, Friday, April 5, 2002. Bush and Blair begin
two days of talk dominated by the rise of violence in the Middle
East. The war on terrorism, particularly Bush's plans for Iraq,
are also on the agenda as Bush hosts the America's closest ally
at his secluded Texas ranch. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Well, if Arafat had it all planned, then Clinton played into his hand. So I agree with Bush (and Fleischer before he apologized): Clinton deserves blame.
I disagree, it was very much Clinton's fault. He engineered (via Carville's campaigning) Barak's election, because Netanyahu wouldn't have any part of him. He then proceeded to ram through a "peace agreement," which everyone knew full well Arafat was not going to honor. I'll never forget Albright's tackling Arafat as he walked out of the meeting, she and slick Willie were so pathetically desparate to get the peace agreement.
Clinton's self-serving political grandstanding set the stage for the "intafada," since the PLO interpreted Baraks's offer as weakness and proceeded to wage a nasty little war with childen as weapons, and brainwashed young adults as human bombs. After his failure to get what he wanted, Clinton spent the remainder of his term lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize.
"It's just about intifada, everyone does it!" Let's move on.