Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Appetite for Self-Destruction

Appetite for Self-Destruction

By Steve Knopper
$19.76

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Clinton Hits Another Diplomatic Snag on Mideast Tour

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 2, 2009
Clinton in Morocco
AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar

From right to left: Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Deputy Prime Minister of Kuwait Sheikh Mohammad Al-Salem Al-Sabah, and Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Prince Saud Al Faisal attend a meeting at the Palmeraie Golf Palace in Marrakech, Morocco on Monday.

Hillary Clinton continued her diplomatic spree in the Middle East on Monday, meeting with Arab heads of state in Morocco, and she once again found herself revisiting, and perhaps revising, her words when she read a statement qualifying a comment she’d made last weekend about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Her last self-edit moment happened after she publicly expressed puzzlement over the Pakistani government’s professed lack of knowledge as to the whereabouts of key al-Qaida leaders believed to be hiding in their country.  —KA

The New York Times:

Struggling to stem a chorus of protests from the Arab world, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated Monday that the Obama administration still wanted Israel to freeze construction of Jewish settlements, even if it regarded Israel’s compromise offer as “unprecedented.”

Arab leaders have expressed alarm that the United States seems to be decreasing pressure on Israel, after Mrs. Clinton said in Jerusalem on Saturday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained settlement construction was better than what any previous Israeli government had offered.

Mrs. Clinton said the administration would not stop pushing Mr. Netanyahu to do more. But she added that in trying to revive a stalled peace process, she wanted to offer Israel encouragement for moving in the right direction, even if that movement fell short of what the United States wanted.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, November 5, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther, point well taken. Israel is not at the
top of the power chain, per se. You are right that it
is the trans-national elite that control us. You are
also right that AIPAC controls the US through it’s
CAMPAIGN finances…I meant that but I didn’t word it
correctly, having omitted the work ‘campaign’. I
fully agree that Israel is ultimately expendable to
the elites and probably will be cached in (as in annihilated) within the next 2-12 years or so. But
while I slightly misstated the precise mechanism of
their control I think you would agree on the salient
point: that the US is virtually utterly controlled
and that the control is largely exercised VIA Israel
VIA AIPAC.

Given your point, which I embrace, that Israel is a
secondary asset / useful tool of the elite, would you
agree that Israel’s raison d’etre in the region has
always been to ensure that a perpetual state of
non-accommodation and strife? How would you picture
the role of the Soviet Union (and now Russia?) in
this? Do you think Israel will be used to ignite a
conflagration? Or might it be India?

Report this

By Folktruther, November 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

No, DieDaily, Israel does NOT control the US through its finances.  It has partially independant power and controls congress through its electoral machine, but the ultimate control of the US power system is the money of the ruling class, not neozionist which is merely a partially independant tool.  Both Kissinger of the Gops and Zbig of the Dems were Rockefeller men, and although both are neozionists, as is Clinton, their broacer view is US power, with Israel power secondary.

It is precisely Obama’s support of Israel’s settlements that indicates this.  It makes the two state solution impossible, making a one state solution historically inevitable.  Most of the neozionist lemmings are so enthralled by Zionist power that they do not look into the currents of the world’s future.  Which is accelerating rapidly aagainst israel.

Israel is currently ruled by war criminals supported by the US, just as the US supports Arab puppets for Arab states.  The US ruling class couldn’t care less that this long range strategy is not viable, since it serves their short range purposes.  Israel will go the way of apartheid South Africa, which both the US and Isreal supported.  It is not a major concern of the American ruling class who will try to prevent it, but not at the expense of their own interests.

Report this
DieDaily's avatar

By DieDaily, November 3, 2009 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

Ed Hargis, you missed the point. Pakistan is not “her
audience”. That was obvious from the beating she
took. Does anyone REALLY still believe that this is
more than a dog and pony show? Israel controls the US
through its finances. These interests then control
Obama and Clinton. To assert that “Clinton is merely
carrying out Obama’s foreign policy objectives” is
naive and absurd. She’s there to carry out Israel’s
objectives while obfuscating every issue to the
maximum extent. The rule of thumb you want to be
gravitating toward is “well, I’m not sure that it’s
true yet because the government hasn’t officially
denied it.” Likewise, the reports we get about
Clinton are not-so-elaborate fictions parsed into
simplistic sound-bytes aimed at the still-slumbering
remnants of the systematically dumbed-down US
population.

Not all is going according to plan. Many are waking
up. Many no longer believe in the fictional left vs.
right dichotomy. Historically, whenever this has happened in the past the elites create a giant war.
In a couple of years or less, they would be right on
schedule if they tried to do so again.

Report this

By RootJensen, November 3, 2009 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

Antinazionista,
Is that where Michelle Obama is heading, from the back
of her husband and a puppet! smile


Out of interest has anyone ever been to Gaza, not
Israel or the West Bank, but Gaza and seen how the
Palestinians are kept and treated?

It would also be interesting to know the views of
Truthdig themselves on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Report this

By Folktruther, November 3, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Clinton is merely conducting Obama’s foreign policy.  What is a short term political necessary for Obama is long term disastrous both for the US and especially for Israel.  Obama is legitimating the war criminals that rule the Israeli power system and have such a disastrous effect on US policy.

It looks increasingly likely that Israel will not survive more than a few decades.  Their power strucure is so blinded by religious-political delusion that it cannot meet its historical necessities.  It is making the whole world an enemy and as the US and the West decline in world power, the world will not tolerate it.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 3, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Samson writes:

SOS Hillary is just very good at exactly the same things that Bill, Obama and
the rest of the leading Democrats are good at.

That is, they’ll say whatever they think their audience wants to hear.”

Oh really? When she was in Pakistan recently, she didn’t exactly say what the
Pakistanis wanted to hear, now did she? In fact, she was shockingly offensive
and patronizing.

What she says, wherever she goes, is what the Israel lobby, the neocons, and
the interventionists want to hear - though occasionally, as in this case, she
backpedals a tiny bit from some of here more outrageous statements.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 3, 2009 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

SOS Hillary is just very good at exactly the same things that Bill, Obama and the rest of the leading Democrats are good at.

That is, they’ll say whatever they think their audience wants to hear.  This of course has no connection to the reality of what they really do with the power they hold.

The Obama policy since taking office has been to fully support Israel, no matter how awful the things Israel is doing.  The Obama opposition to ‘settlements’ has always been a figleaf.  You can see this in the actions, since the US has never taken any real action to restrain the settlements.  Given that the US gives the Israeli government $5 billion to $10 billion a year, the US obviously has the power to enforce its views if it so chooses.  It has never chosen to do so.  Thus, the rhetoric where the Democrats pretend to oppose the settlements doesn’t match the reality of the actions by which Obama and the Democrats fully support and back Israel and its war-crimes.

As always with the Democrats, watch what they do.  Don’t even bother listening to them, because anything and everything they say is a lie designed to fool you.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 3, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, November 3 at 11:09 am #

Preaching to the choir Ed.

I’m with ya, but our government isn’t.
You know what I say? F*&K em!

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 3, 2009 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Hillary is emblematic of the US’s self-destructive relationship with Israel, which
is based on a narrow set of choices: “Gee. What’s best for Israel? Is it this, or is
it that?” We need to throw “What’s best for Israel” out of our policy discussions.

And here is a good analysis and summary of why J Street, the new “pro-Israel,
pro-peace” alternative to AIPAC, only perpetuates the problem of America’s
inherently destructive Special Relationship with the Holy State of Israel. J Street
perpetuates the notion that in America, we should all be focused on the
question of what is in Israel’s best interests, and then structure our policies
around that:

In a country that happens to control the largest, best equipped, and most
hubristic military apparatus in the world, J Street finds itself banging on the
table, shouting, “Yes, we absolutely agree with AIPAC that it is vital for America
to protect Israel’s interests. And yes, we agree that many Arab state actors are
monsters.” Then, in an embarrassed whisper, it adds “We think there are
diplomatic solutions that America should begin imposing.” Finally, it concedes
in footnotes to be released later, that “No, we don’t think America should really
threaten to withhold its money or technology from Israel to accomplish any of
this.”

I’m sorry. This won’t work.

The fix for Washington’s obsession with protecting Israel is not a series of
panel discussions on what is really in Israel’s best interest. Instead, our
political class should focus on what is in America’s best interest.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/10/29/j-street-runs-in-the-wrong-
direction/

Report this

By chirsx, November 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Though not a core subject in peace negotiations, Jewish settlements are a charged issue for Israelis and Palestinians because they involve building in areas that both claim as their ancestral lands.”

Jewish settlements are “not a core subject in peace negotiations”?  I am speachless.

Report this

By Antinazionista, November 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Clinton is testament to 2 things:

1. She is where she is because she was the wife of
someone successful, she, herself is not successful.
And has no talent to be where she is.

2. She, like 99% of US politicians are owned,
seriously, they are owned by the Israel lobby. Have
they no shame? Putting aside the fact that they
support the brutal ethnic-cleansing of Palestine -
wiping Palestine off the map, if you will; are they
not just plain embarrassed to be so utterly unable to
do what’s right for even their OWN country? To use
the power they have.

The degree to which these clowns are obedient to this
“shitty little” (to quote a French diplomat) foreign
‘country’ must be unique in history.

Report this
Ouroborus's avatar

By Ouroborus, November 2, 2009 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Well, so far we have a consensus; and I’ll vote with incompetence followed by iniquitous. Regarding our M.E.
policy; the past, present, and future is plain
hopeless.  Clinton? She’s just a clown out of her
costume…
Her statement; Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained
settlement construction was “unprecedented.” just
defies understanding.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, November 2, 2009 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

Re:By brewerstroupe, November 3 at 12:00 am:

Or maybe it’s her inanity that makes her infuriating?

I don’t know how she can stand her self.

Report this
brewerstroupe's avatar

By brewerstroupe, November 2, 2009 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

Only one question remains.

Is it her iniquity that makes her look incompetent or is it her incompetence that makes her appear iniquitous?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.