…..’Settlement policy has changed,’ he said.
Jeffrey Blankfort writing for MONDOWEISS took on former President Bill Clinton’s pro-Israel talk at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem a few days ago with the full cynicism it deserves. His advise to the Palestinians was no less disingenuous than his ‘nod and wink’ go-ahead policy in the early 90s that doubled Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.
Bill Clinton, who is thus a major source of the problem now facing Obama, settlements, is probably the last person who should be advising the Palestinians.
In what should go down as one of the most humiliating episodes in the history of Israel-US relations, former President Bill Clinton told the Saban Forum in Jerusalem on Sunday that Palestinians must “accept America’s modification of its anti-settlement policy and return to the bargaining table,” according to a report in the Jerusalem Post which the US media apparently ignored.
It was the last nail in the coffin of Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s earlier demand for an Israeli settlement freeze.
(snip)
Ignoring the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly in favor of the Goldstone Report, Clinton warned that the Palestinians “risked irking the international community” if they refused to return to the bargaining table. When even the French and British have expressed criticism of Netanyahu’s hardline stance, what countries, besides Israel, the United States, and maybe Palau, was he referring to?
The article reiterated the myth now being spread by the Obama administration that the Israeli prime minister is calling for a resumption of “peace talks” without preconditions, ignoring the fact that Netanyahu has, among other demands, made the Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state a prerequisite for any settlement.
Concerned that they might think otherwise, Clinton told his audience, “You should not think that President Obama is your enemy,” and then offered as proof of America’s commitment to Israel, its own rejection of the Goldstone Report.
“No American president can serve in good conscience,”he said, “and not be committed to the security of Israel.” Nor, he should have added, could he or she obtain the campaign funding necessary to even run, let alone get elected.
Is there any American president who deserves more cynicism than Bill Clinton about his contributions toward increasing the conflict in the Middle East, both in the past and today?
.
I do hope Obama is taking notice, this may lead to conformity and harmony with Israelis. U.S. Congress biased? We must respect Israel’s right of self defence from terror attacks. The world has changed since 9/11 Netanyahu believes.
(IsraelNN.com) The chances of the Palestinian Authority convincing the United Nations to recognize the PA as an independent Arab country are “dead on arrival,” according to Democratic U.S. Senator Ted Kaufman, visiting Israel from his home state of Delaware. Speaking at a news conference Monday at the Saban Forum, he was joined by other senators who also ridiculed the idea.
Independent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, a former candidate for vice president for the Democratic party, called the Arab effort a “waste of time” because it would eliminate Israel from the diplomatic process. “I hope and presume that the United States would veto such a move if it ever came to the [United Nations] Security Council,” said Lieberman.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. , center, talks as Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-D.E. , left, Rep. Susan Davis, D-C.A. , second left, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. , second right, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-C.A. (AP photo)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Lieberman is probably right. If Netanyahu says that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood were to come to pass, the Israelis would not feel any obligation to maintain prior agreements with the Palestinians. My question is: whenever did the Israelis abide by international agreements? E.g., when did Israel ever stop colonizing the Palestinian territories just because it was part of an agreement it signed (like Oslo, Road Map).
thanks for this, shergald. Just a couple of thoughts.
Much as I appreciate Blankfort’s analysis over at Mondoweiss, he is responding to an article in the right-wing Jerusalem Post, which has its own motives for putting a spin on Clinton’s remarks.
Also, the Senator’s remarks are more likely bluster for the benefit of the same constituents who are impressed that he showed up in Jerusalem for US -Israel dialogue (sponsored by hardliner Saban), than anything of substance. The Legislature has control of many aspects of the US-Israel relationship, the pursestrings, but not all. I seriously doubt that the Obama adminstration has been confiding its MidEast Strategy to the average senator, especially ones who blabber and bluster. The recent official statement from the State Department was less committal: the US sees negotiation as the best route to I/P peace (but it didn’t condemn the Palestinian move or call it a “non-starter”).
Hi Rusty.
I appreciate the JP’s slant on things IP, but I also appreciate Clinton’s history on IP. The settlements and/or number of settlers did DOUBLE during Clinton’s two terms as president, and it would seem that he gave Ross the go-ahead to blame Arafat for his own failure at Camp David/Taba. Especially disturbing was Clinton’s claim to have offered Arafat 97% of the Palestinian territories, when in fact he lacked the authority to do so, as it was, according to Barak, an impossibility. No member of the major parties in the Knesset would have voted to “disengage” (remove) a single settlement in the West Bank.
Listen to Ehud Barak’s interview with Charlie Rose, Jan 25, 2005. Barak also took pains to make the point that the Taba negotiations were nothing, just talk between low level people. It was also the case that the Israelis insisted that nothing be written down during the negotiations. FAIR has a good analysis of the Camp David/Taba talks, which is worth taking in.
I hear you about Bill and Dennis. Barack considered Bill such a liability that he was one of the top reasons for nixing Hillary for the #2 position. Back in February, Obama appeared to be trying to please different constituencies by appointing both Ross and Freeman. The neocons made such a fuss about Freeman that he resigned; then Obama was stuck with Ross but didn’t replace Freeman with someone of a similar caliber. Ross got kicked upstairs from State to NSC; now we get I/P leaks from the NSC rather than State that someone official has to correct the record about.
Dennis Ross, famous for his Camp David lies, should never have been considered in the first place. Here we appear to have an inside man now working at NSC against Obama’s own peace initiative. He might as well have appointed Richard Perle to the position.