Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.Martin Kramer takes this apart in detail, but some things in particular stand out:
There is no mention of terrorism--the issue is to "lower the level of violence." Not eliminate the rockets fired at Israeli citizens; just lower the violence--even then, it is not clear is she is referring to Palestinian 'violence' or overall violence in the Middle East.
According to Clinton, the Palestinian Arabs get a state. What does Israel get? She gets: 'a declaration', 'recognition', 'guarantees', 'diplomatic recognition', and 'normalization'. Clinton does not take a stand that the terrorism--which she does not mention anyway--will stop. Israel gets words; Palestinian Arabs get themselves a brand new country.
Even among the words, the guarantees, recognition, and declarations--Kramer points out that something is left out:
The Palestinians insist that they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because this effectively negates their "right of return." Hillary herself, in a statement made in September, said she personally "believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state... must never be questioned." Yet Hillary's formula in the Foreign Affairs piece invites the Palestinians to do just that, asking them simply to "recognize Israel's right to exist."
A Palestinian can only read this as an invitation to hold firm to the bogus "right of return" (and hold out against the Bush-Rice diplomatic surge in anticipation of a Hillary administration).
The New York Sun has an article about Hillary's statement--good thing too. If you look for it on Hillary Clinton's site, you can't find it. If you go to "issues" or "press releases" and search for 'Israel': nothing comes up. And don't even think of doing a search of her site--there is no such option. After all, no point in taking a stand and being held responsible for it.
According to September article in the New York Sun:
Last Tuesday, prior to the start of the Jewish High Holiday season, Mrs. Clinton's campaign circulated a paper articulating her support for Israel. Headlined "Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.- Israel Relationship," the statement addressed Mrs. Clinton's positions on Israel's fight against terrorism, the threat of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned," the paper states. [emphasis added]Besides supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which implies rejecting the Palestinian Arab right of return, Clinton also supports an undivided Jerusalem--of course she can afford to commit to that, seeing as how Olmert and friends have expressed their readiness to divide Jerusalem.
It should be obvious, but what a former director of AIPAC is quoted as saying bears repeating--presidential candidates will say anything for votes:
Morrie Amitay — who is a former director of Aipac, a Washington lawyer, and a pro- Israel activist — cautioned against reading too much into Mrs. Clinton's statement. "What a candidate says before they're elected is fairly meaningless. She's become a friend of Israel only recently. You do not know what she really believes," Mr. Amitay said. [emphasis added]The fact remains, as Martin Kramer makes clear, putting aside how candidates do not necessarily do what they promise once elected--what Clinton says in her Foreign Policy article does not jive with her statement to the Jewish community in September.
Read Martin Kramer's Hillary: Triangulation on Israel?
[Hat tip: Powerline]
Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.
2 comments:
of the 2 dozen candidates for president, hillary clinton has the strobgest perfect 100% pro israel record.
strongest...perfect...100?
Let's see.
From Senator Israel: Hillary Clinton runs from her past
"...but what does Clinton really think about the Arab-Israeli conflict? The truth is, it's nearly impossible to know. Her past tells a very different story from her statements and record as junior senator from New York.
Much of that past is already well known, if often willfully forgotten. In 1998, for example, Mrs. Clinton went far beyond official U.S. policy in declaring her support for the creation of a Palestinian state. Some today might call her prescient, but under the circumstances her remark amounted to significant pressure on Israel and a field day for unreformed Palestinians. Hillary also caused a stir in 1999 when she exchanged kisses with Yasser Arafat's wife after the latter gave a ridiculous speech accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children.
Then there's Hillary's past engagement with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi, among others shady characters. In October 2000, Candidate Clinton announced that she was returning contributions Alamoudi had made to her Senate campaign after he publicly declared, "We are all supporters of Hamas…. I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." Clinton reportedly cited "serious disagreements" with Alamoudi's views, but defended her long-time involvement with him as part of the Clinton administration's peace efforts. For instance, Clinton had had Alamoudi draw up the guest list for the official White House celebration of Ramadan in 1996. Yet this was after he had protested President Clinton's decision to meet with author Salman Rushdie, and after he had denied that Hamas was a terrorist group. Last year Alamoudi pled guilty to charges of taking part in a plot to assassinate a Saudi prince and laundering money from Libya, allegedly to fund terrorist groups. In fairness, Clinton wasn't the only public figure duped by Alamoudi. But apparently he wasn't the only questionable activist she let into the White House. The New York Daily News reported that as First Lady Clinton "held several White House Muslim holiday receptions to which individuals opposed to the Mideast peace process and Israel's existence were invited."
Going back still further, we come to Clinton's embarrassing stint in the late '80s as chairman of the far-left New World Foundation. During that time she oversaw a grant of $15,000 to an organization called Grassroots International, which funded two groups with close ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization. When the incident came to light in 1992, Clinton responded by denying any knowledge that the money had been "diverted" to PLO-affiliated groups. But Clinton emphasized general-purpose grants during her chairmanship, meaning Grassroots may not have had to "divert" anything: She wrote in the board's biennial report that under her watch the foundation had made "mostly general support grants, rather than project grants, so as to prove core support to organizers and advocates." Even if the grant was project-specific, however, it probably would have just freed up other Grassroots money for the Palestinian groups.
Also among Clinton's New World grantees was the Communist-party-affiliated National Lawyers Guild, to which the foundation gave $15,000 in 1987, according to Daniel Wattenberg. What was the Guild doing at the time? Well, for example, just a year earlier it had joined the November 29th Committee for Palestine — a reported front group for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — in protesting Israel's deportation of accused terrorists from the West Bank. And in 1987 it petitioned a U.S. court of appeals to declare unconstitutional a federal law allowing for the deportation of immigrants with subversive political beliefs. The case in question involved a group of illegal immigrants accused of membership in the PFLP. The National Lawyers Guild argued the law "would prevent anyone from giving any support to a liberation struggle in their own country." (The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of deportation.)
These causes are worlds away from yesterday's paean to Israeli democracy and condemnation of Palestinian violence. If today's Hillary Clinton has any regrets, she doesn't appear to have made them public. (Her office didn't return several phone calls and an e-mail requesting comment.) So far it hasn't mattered much for her political career. But will her past eventually catch up to her? With ambition and political acumen like hers, it probably won't."
Post a Comment