Skip to content

Interview with Israeli and Palestinian Media

September 3, 2010

When/if the video of the interview she did today becomes available, I’ll post it.

Secretary Clinton participates in a joint interview with Udi Segal of Israeli Channel 2 and Amirah Hanania Rishmawi of Palestine TV at the Department of State on Friday, September 3, 2010:

UPDATE:The transcript was just made available from the State Department. No video yet:

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Shalom, and thank you for this unique opportunity with my colleague, Amira Hanania.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Your Excellency, for this interview. We’re taking your – from your time to send some messages, very important messages, to our people. I want to start directly, because I know your time is tight. I will start in asking, this Administration repeats that the Palestinian state is a strategic American interest. Is this become slogan for varied and concrete policies and steps to be taken from your side? Touch on that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: First, thank you both for giving me this opportunity not only to talk to you, but through you to Israeli and Palestinian citizens. And I thank you for that.

The United States believes very strongly, and we are totally committed to working with and supporting the efforts of the Israeli and Palestinian leadership and people to achieve a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel living side by side. That has been a personal commitment of mine going back many years, and I believe first and foremost it is in the interests of the people of Israel and of the Palestinians, and particularly of the children.

But it is also an interest of the United States. We strongly support the security and the future of Israel and we strongly support the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The only way, in our opinion, in the 21st century, that you can have the kind of security and peace that gives you a chance for the future that each of your people deserve is through a settlement of all of the outstanding issues and an end to the conflict.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, you said it yourself yesterday, both sides are so disappointed. What makes this attempt different? Why are the odds – this time it’s for us rather than against us?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s a great question, because I know of the skepticism and even the suspicion in the minds and hearts of people in the region. And I said yesterday I’m personally disappointed. I have not only supported the efforts that have come before, but was deeply involved in the support of what my husband tried to do in the 1990s. And I think I’m the first person ever associated with an American administration who called for a Palestinian state as a way to realize the two-state solution.

Why is it different? I think it’s different for three reasons. First, I think that time is not on the side of either Israeli or Palestinian aspirations for security, peace, and a state. It’s not because – there are so many changes in the region where the rejectionist ideology and the commitment to violence that some unfortunately have as we recently saw with the terrible killings in Hebron and the attack outside of Ramallah. They gained greater access to weapons. They have a sponsor, namely Iran, who is very much behind a lot of what they’re doing. The technology is threatening to the stability of both peoples’ lives.

I mean, if you look at the economies that are now growing, much of the world is still coming out of a recession. In the Palestinian business community, in Israel, you have vibrant, growing economies that are making a difference. In Nablus, last year, unemployment was 30 percent; it’s down to 12 percent. It’s clear to me that the forces of growth and positive energy are in a conflict with the forces of destruction and negativity. And the United States wants to weigh in on the side of leaders and people who see this as maybe the last chance for a very long time to resolve this.

Now, I will be the first to tell you it is very difficult. I cannot change history. I cannot take an eraser to the history books and change everything that has happened between you for so many years. But what we can do is offer a different future. But then it takes courage to accept that, because it is a bit of a leap of faith. That’s why I was very impressed that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas came here despite the skepticism.

QUESTION: Okay. So Your Excellency, public in the region — consider that Prime Minister Netanyahu came here for a public relationship – relations exercises. What are you going to do at the end of this month if he will not – if he wants to combine between settlement and these public relationship? The end of the month is going to be the last date for that sort of moratorium before the settlement. What are you going to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that I have known Prime Minister Netanyahu for many years, and I am convinced that he understands and accepts the importance of achieving a two-state solution. He publicly committed to that, something he had not done before, and he negotiated with the Palestinians in the past. He and President Abbas know each other. They have, in my presence, been very clear that they want to work extremely hard to get to a final agreement.

We’re well aware that there are issues that have to be dealt with, such as the one you referred to, at the end of the month. I’m not going to get into their discussions, because that really is at the core of their being able to make some tough decisions, being able to have the confidence that they can have sensitive discussions without me or anybody else talking about them. But I am absolutely convinced that these two men, for different reasons, maybe the two can actually do this.

Everyone knows that in order for Israelis to accept a two-state solution, they have to believe – and I support this with all my heart – that they will be more secure, not less secure. And from their perspective, and one of the reasons for the skepticism in Israel, is we pulled out of Lebanon, we got Hezbollah, we pulled out of Gaza, we got Hamas. So there’s a reality to it. It’s not just a kind of public relations or theoretical argument. I think with President Abbas, he was courageous in the times when he was alone in the Palestinian leadership, in the PLO, in Fatah. He’s been calling for a two-state solution for decades and has given his whole life to trying to realize that. And he knows that this may be the last time.

So I really am convinced that we have obstacles, we have some looming challenges in terms of time. But I believe that both men came with the best of intentions. And now, we have to work hard to overcome those obstacles.

QUESTION: President Abbas said clearly that if settlement freeze does not continue, there will be a – come to a screeching halt in negotiation. What do you – do you agree to that? What do you make of that saying of President Abbas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Udi, I think part of what we are doing here is creating an atmosphere that is conducive to a final agreement that rests on tough decisions. And the parties know that the goal here is to make the decisions within a framework agreement on all the core issues, all the difficult core issues. And clearly, territory, settlements, borders, security, those are the hardest of the core issues in my opinion.

QUESTION: Refugees?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They have to – and absolutely, Jerusalem, refugees, water, I mean, there’s a whole list of the hard internal core decisions. And I think that dealing with all of them – not in a piecemeal way, but in a comprehensive way, because each side is going to have to make concessions, each side is going to have to make tradeoffs. I’ve never been in a negotiation where one side got everything, because that’s not what happens in negotiations. So I understand the positions of both leaders and I think they are sincere about trying to work to get to a resolution of the outstanding problems, including the one that is looming at the end of the month.

QUESTION: Your Excellency, some people in the region say that peace talks are intended to appease Arabs or the Arabs before some kind of military action against Iran. Is there any truth of that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I think that’s a very important question, because we have great concerns about Iran. And it’s not only about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons; it’s about Iran’s sponsorship of terror and its supply of weapons to groups that are trying to destabilize countries and societies. So that’s a given. And that concern, as you know, is shared by much of the Arab world, because they see in their own countries the results of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism.

But the Arab Peace Initiative that was led by the Saudis and by King Abdullah, which said, “Here is an outline for how we would like to have peace with Israel,” has been embraced by Arab and Muslim countries, as you know. That had nothing to do with Iran. That was an expression of the recognition by Arab leaders that this conflict needs to be resolved, and it needs to finally result in a two-state solution, because there’s so much to be gained in the region, turning the attention to what could be done together on all these difficult issues that are looming over the region, like water and dealing with terrorism and the like.

So I think that Iran is a serious problem. I’m the first to tell you that. It’s a problem not just for the United States. It’s a problem for the entire region, because more than anyone, you see the results. I mean, Hamas is not only attacking Israelis; Hamas has been brutal to the people in Gaza in so many ways over the last years.

So let’s recognize that we have a lot of problems we have to deal with. My goal has been to try to tackle each problem and to say, “What can we do to make progress?” There are connections, but on their own, getting to a two-state solution is so much in the interests of the entire region.

QUESTION: I want to follow up Amira’s question. Isn’t – we are witnessing a simple deal here, “We, the United States will dismantle of Iran nuclear weapons, and in return, you, the Israeli and Palestinians, finally will establish a Palestinian state”?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there are some who make that case. I mean, I make the case on the merits. I mean, in the 1990s, Iran was not a looming threat the way that it is now because of its advanced nuclear program. And my husband, I, and others worked very hard with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak and others to try to get to the point where we could establish – and of course, I wish we had done that. We’d now have had a state for 10 years and we would have had, I think, a very clear example to the world about what that meant.

I don’t want to miss this opportunity. We are making progress on the sanctions against Iran. They are clearly feeling the pinch of those because we see it in all the interactions around the world where they are now under tremendous economic pressure. Countries that we didn’t think would join with us have joined and are part of trying to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. So we’re going to stay focused on that. But we know that on its own, this is such an important accomplishment. Will it have consequences? Of course. It will, I believe, help to undermine Iran’s support and that is, in and of itself, good.

QUESTION: Your Excellency, let’s go back – go back with me to the normal and daily life for the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories, checkpoints involved. The Palestinian – Israel maintained more than 500 checkpoints that seriously hinder the freedom of movement in the West Bank. Are the United States writing this up in the negotiation? And are there steps that really give the Palestinians freedom to move, freedom to pray, to reach Jerusalem, to reach a mosque, to reach a better future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That is very much on our mind and it’s very much on the minds of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. We are well aware that improving the daily lives of Palestinians, which has been going on for a few years now – we think that President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, other leaders – but mostly citizens themselves, mostly Palestinians who have really, in the West Bank, been able to do more on their own behalf – are demonstrating, in ways we could not say, the effects, the positive effects of peace. So, the checkpoints, the roadblocks, all of the daily challenges that we know affect the Palestinians are certainly on the agenda.

Tony Blair, who you know represents the Quartet, which has played an important role in keeping the world’s attention focused on the need for these negotiations, will be working even more with the – persistently and we hope effectively with both Israel and the Palestinian leadership to try to ease as many of those problems as possible while the negotiations are going.

You see, I think the political negotiations need to be matched with changes on the ground and confidence-building and interactions between Israelis and Palestinians. You both know the problems that we face in any society where there is a really small number of people who are committed to terror and violence – it sends all kinds of messages of fear into people who themselves are just wanting to live their lives. So we want to increase freedom of access, we want to increase opportunities in the West Bank, while at the same time, we’re pursuing the political track.

QUESTION: A hypothetical “What if” question if I may: If a full agreement cannot be reached through this negotiation, is creating Palestinian states with provisional borders an option?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I never answer hypotheticals and I don’t particularly want to answer this one because that’s really for the parties to decide. And at this point, that is not on the agenda. What’s on the agenda is a final agreement that ends the conflict, resolves all claims, creates a viable Palestinian state, and gives Israel the security that you deserve and need to have.

So we don’t want to talk about fallback positions because that’s not been mentioned by either leader. I mean, each leader has come prepared to talk about all the core issues, and it would be far better to resolve borders, which then resolves a lot of other difficult matters, than to only do it halfway. So our goal, working with and supporting the negotiation by the leaders, is to get to a framework that deals with all core issues and then a final agreement.

QUESTION: Your Excellency, peace doesn’t only come through beautiful words, but needs to be backed by actions. We all know that the PA government now is through a financial crisis. So what is your message to the donors? And we really need, as a Palestinian, your message to them because they are – start losing hope in peace.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Well, two messages.

First, on the Palestinian Authority, I want to publicly commend the work that has been done by the Palestinian Authority. The advances in security are recognized by all of us. The Palestinian security forces have gained a good and well-deserved reputation for their work in the West Bank. I want to commend the changes in financial management and accountability. And the United States, as you, I’m sure, know has increased dramatically our direct support for the Palestinian Authority. And I have encouraged and urged all the donors to do that and more. Last year was a good year. We got a very robust amount of contributions. This year, we are upping our request to all of the donors to support the peace process by supporting the Palestinian Authority.

And the second message is really to the Palestinian people themselves. I was in Ramallah last year and I met with a group of young Palestinians. And I came away not only impressed, but so encouraged by their motivation, their ambition, their curiosity, their intelligence. And then shortly after that, I was in Israel and I met with a group of young Israelis. And as an outsider, but someone who has long been devoted to Israel and long been committed to a Palestinian state, I see the potential in this next generation.

And I’m hoping that the adults, I’m hoping that the leadership will be willing to try one more time and to be willing to do the hard work of making peace, because these young people – they deserve to have a future in Ramallah or Jericho, not in Toronto or Chicago. If the Palestinian diaspora came home, it would be one of the most talented group of people ever – the doctors, the lawyers, the business leaders. And Israel deserves to have a peaceful, secure future. And so that’s a passion for me, and I will do everything I can to support this process.

QUESTION: You spoke about a core issue. I’m a little confused. When you were a candidate for presidency, you said that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of Israel. Then you retracted from this statement like the candidate, now President Obama. Who should we believe, then? Candidate Clinton or Secretary of State Clinton?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You should believe that I am committed to a safe and secure Israel, and that I believe a two-state solution that realizes the aspirations of the Palestinian people is in the best interests of Israel. Jerusalem is a contested, emotional issue for both Israelis and Palestinians, and really, for Christians, Jews, and Muslims around the world, as you well know.

I want to support what is the outcome that the parties can agree to. And I think both parties know that they’re going to have to engage on this issue and come to an understanding and a resolution so that Jerusalem becomes not the flashpoint, but the symbol of peace and cooperation. And so I am fully supportive of what can be negotiated between the parties.

QUESTION: You mentioned your husband. Maybe on a personal note, do you have an extra incentive to keep on from the point that your husband left it, and this time, succeed?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, there’s no doubt about that. Both my husband and I were very sad that we missed that opportunity. And I’ve told this story before, but I’ll tell it again. We – they were so close. I mean, then-Prime Minister Barak and then-President Arafat were so close. And my husband expended so much energy because he cares so deeply. And when he left office some weeks later, Yasser Arafat called him and he said, “Well, now, we’re ready to take the deal,” and my husband said, “But I’m not the president anymore.”

QUESTION: Do you think that Palestinians still losing chances in this time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I hope not, because I want to see this done. I want to see it not because it’s something that I care about, although I care deeply. I want to see it because it is so much the right thing to do historically and morally and spiritually and politically and economically.

Otherwise, I see, unfortunately, the forces of destruction, the forces of negativity on both sides gaining strength. And then more young Palestinians and more young Israelis will leave. And that’s – and they don’t want to leave. I mean, I meet with them all the time and they don’t want to leave. But they want to live their lives. They want to live their lives with a level of peace, security, and opportunity, which every person of any common sense wants to have.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So thank you very much, Your Excellency, for having us.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for this interview.


16 Comments leave one →
  1. Vcal permalink
    September 3, 2010 1:35 pm

    I hope there´s a video of the interview. Love her shoes ( I´m not sexist, just a regular woman)!
    Be back later! I feel optimistic with Hillary being the mediator beteewn these 2 leaders! She´ll accomplish great things!

    • September 3, 2010 1:52 pm

      No worries, no one thinks you’re sexist. We talk shoes and clothes here a lot, in between the more serious stuff 😉

    • September 3, 2010 2:48 pm

      Thanks Melusine. I’m at work and that video won’t play on my computer here for some reason. It’s also not letting me capture it using Vodpod so I can’t add it to this post for some reason. Foiled again.

      I’ll wait to see if the State Dept. or YouTube makes it available and then I’ll post it. I’m kind of limited by this computer here at work.

  2. Thain permalink
    September 3, 2010 5:33 pm

    I like when she does interviews with Arab tv and wish she’d do more of it

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      September 3, 2010 9:29 pm

      Agreed — I kinda liked the interviewer’s use of “Your Excellency,” too!

      • September 4, 2010 8:02 am

        She would do well to reach out to Arab media, particularly now with Obama’s approval rating among Muslims in the toilet. She does a great job when she speaks directly to them and I think that is important to them. I remember she gave a great interview to Al Jazeera last year and I think it has a lot of symbolic importance. Many Muslims/Arabs are suspicious of the administration after all Obama’s backtracking (on settlements for example) and it’s really important that the admin. try to reach out to not only the American Jewish community (which it has done endlessly for the past several months) but also reach out to Arabs and Muslims who get their news primarily from Arab sources.

        One thing that would be a devastating blow to extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is if Arab public opinion shifts against those groups and if the “Arab Street” starts to have a bit more faith in the US’ ability to be even a tiny bit more even-handed in negotiations. Hillary is a good emissary of that message because I don’t think they trust Obama any more- he promised too much in his Cairo speech and he didn’t deliver. Hillary is very good at convincing people that she feels their pain and empathizes with them.

  3. Suny permalink
    September 4, 2010 7:55 am


    In your last photo bomb, you have a bunch of photos that aren’t from daylife and that I’ve never seen before- they are fantastic where did you find them (if you don’t mind my asking):

    • September 4, 2010 8:05 am

      You know, you are about the 10th person who has asked me that since that last photo bomb- basically with that one I hit pay dirt because I was able to find a bunch of photos of her that I had never seen before, which is my goal when I create the photo bomb. I try to stay clear of daylife as much as possible because everyone is familiar with those photos and I use them all during the week on my daily posts. For last week’s bomb, there is no one site I went to- I spend a lot of time scouring the net for photos and sometimes I get lucky and sometimes, not so much. Last week I got lucky because I found a photographer who had traveled with Secretary Clinton on her last trip and published his photos on his blog only so they weren’t in circulation.

  4. Steve permalink
    September 4, 2010 8:23 am

    I hate to be the spoiler here and perhaps I should wait until I have more coffee this morning and am in a better mood but I think her answers were too politically guarded- she really danced around some important issues. First, when she says this in response to the question about settlements:

    “Everyone knows that in order for Israelis to accept a two-state solution, they have to believe – and I support this with all my heart – that they will be more secure, not less secure. And from their perspective, and one of the reasons for the skepticism in Israel, is we pulled out of Lebanon, we got Hezbollah, we pulled out of Gaza, we got Hamas. So there’s a reality to it. It’s not just a kind of public relations or theoretical argument. ”

    Why does she use the term “we”? Is she Israeli? Are the US and Israel one party in this negotiation? This is part of the problem- Palestinians think the US is not a mediator but rather the Protector of Israel in these negotiations and so long as that perception exists, Hamas will benefit because the Palestinians will not accept major concessions by Abbas. This is so obvious as to not need saying out loud. Hillary didn’t pull out of Gaza, Sharon’s government did. She has to be careful when she answers these questions. I’m really worried that Hillary is seen as too much of a neoconservative in these matters, particularly after some of her public statements as Senator of NY.

    Also, in response to that same question, she totally ignores the fact that one of the main reasons a two state solution may never come to pass- and this is what I believe the interviewer was getting at- is because Israel has illegally taken so much land that creating a Palestinians state will be damn near impossible. Sharon (or “We” as Hillary calls Israel) never would have had to pull out of anywhere if Israel hadn’t illegally stolen the land. Why does the US ignore that simple fact because it’s damn important to the Palestinians. Yet Hillary seems to blame everything on the Palestinians. Yes, Hamas and Hezbollah have been a huge road block to peace, but it sounds to me like behind every American statement is the pressure being exerted by the Israel lobby so we always have to walk on eggshells- we can’t come out and assign equal responsibility to BOTH parties (and some responsibility of course rests with the US too). There is no political cost to constantly berating the Palestinians but there is of course a HUGE political cost pre-election to DARING to bring up Israel’s non-stop illegal land grabs.

    Stacy- I’m a bit disappointed that given that you follow this issue as closely as anyone, that you gave Hillary such a pass on this and I don’t think you are being objective at all. As someone who holds Israeli citizenship, you know I want the best for Israel, but I know you also know that unless Hillary and Obama stop being mouthpieces for AIPAC out of concern of losing Jewish votes in November (and in 2012), then this is nothing but a useless photo op. The fact that she won’t even bring up the damage of the settlements and how there isn’t even any land left for a two state solution, is totally dishonest.

    • September 4, 2010 8:41 am

      Well, a couple of things Steve- first, I said last week on this blog that I was going to try to keep an open mind about these negotiations despite my underlying suspicions about Netanyahu’s real motives and about his questionable commitment to the peace process. So I am trying to be more positive.

      Everything that you brought up, was a concern to me when I first read the transcript, although I wouldn’t put it in as harsh of terms as you did.

      I think that the politically incorrect reality is that Secy Clinton and Pres. Obama’s hands are unfortunately tied by US politics. You mentioned the lobby and yes, they are a huge factor. Until the lobby and some big names in the so-called pro-Israel community come out and publicly support this administration (or even privately support them) when they have to lean on Israel, little will be accomplished. But we know from what happened with the settlement freeze that given a choice between maintaining the occupation and appeasing Israel’s worst tendencies, AIPAC and many in the Jewish and Evangelical Zionist movement only support a two state in theory, not practice. Whatever Bibi wants, Bibi gets. I mean, why do you think so many people are running around claiming Obama is a Muslim, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, anti-Semite? Take a trip over to Politico and read the comments on any post about Israel and that’s pretty much what you’ll read.

      As MJ Rosenberg (who formerly worked for AIPAC) said in that article Thain linked to yesterday, all the cards are in Bibi’s hands because he has more sway in Congress than BO does. Appropriate? No. True? Yes.

      Regarding Iran- I had no doubts that that was what Israel intended to do, that was clear from the get-go when Bibi initially tried to link peace negotiations to resolution of the issue of Iran’s as of yet nonexistant nuclear weapons. And yes, it’s a sort of blackmail that gives Bibi even more leverage than he already has.

      It must really suck to be on the Palestinian negotiation team. They must have to go find a mirror to look into every once in a while just to make sure they even still exist in these talks.

      • Steve permalink
        September 4, 2010 9:05 am

        Yes, I know you know all that which is why I was surprised you didn’t point any of it out. But since you are trying to be positive, I respect that.

        I know you kind of tip toe around the whole Lobby issue because you’re not Jewish and you’re probably afraid you’ll be called an anti-Semite if you come out and say what everybody knows but I’m a Jew so I’ll say it- do you know what would do more to push the negotiations forward and make it more likely than not that they will be successful? If AIPAC, the ADL and prominent members of the Lobby and Jewish community came out and made a simple public statement, something along the lines of :

        “We would like to make known our unconditional, nonpartisan support of the administration and the US efforts to help bring forth a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Successful negotiations which lead to a resolution of the conflict will help safeguard Israel’s security in both the short and long term. We condemn any efforts by outside groups and individuals to try to politicize or sabotage the negotiations. We understand that difficult compromises may be necessary from all participants, blah, blah, blah”

        THAT would totally change the game. It would also provide support for the US and make it more likely that the Arab world would see any Palestinian concessions as fair and necessary. It could help pull the rug out from Hamas, who are hoping that the US will be unable to get Israel to concede to anything. Right now, the Arab world knows the US won’t be able to be impartial and that we won’t likely pressure Israel because of our own domestic politics.

        So long as the US appears to be little more than a second Israeli negotiating team, this ship is going nowhere.

  5. Steve permalink
    September 4, 2010 8:30 am

    One more thing- I am STUNNED that she essentially admitted that the US is allowing Israel to blackmail us with Iran. I am surprised that the Israeli interviewer asked the question so explicitly (props to him for doing so):

    “I want to follow up Amira’s question. Isn’t – we are witnessing a simple deal here, “We, the United States will dismantle of Iran nuclear weapons, and in return, you, the Israeli and Palestinians, finally will establish a Palestinian state”?”

    And Hillary essentially says YES?!? In other words, Israel doesn’t give a shit about peace negotiations. They don’t see ending the occupation as in their best interest because they are so used to being a military occupation state at this point- they are simply using the US to get what they want in Iran and they see a two state solution as something that only the US and the Palestinians want?!?!? How f*cked up is that? So Bibi is clearly saying to the US “if you want me to make any concessions then you have to attack Iran, if you don’t, well, we won’t stop settlements or play nice with the Palestinians.”

    If any other nation but Israel pulled that shit above we’d cut them off in every way but because it’s Israel, not only will we likely do their bidding but we’ll bend over and grab our ankles while doing it! Unbelievable!

  6. AsherLev permalink
    September 4, 2010 9:14 am

    If you Americans would apply international law and UN resolutions in an even-handed manner the dispute would have been resolved decades ago. Here are just a few that you choose to ignore because you don’t want to offend our Israeli sensibilities:

    UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which deals declares that “the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum“ administered by the United Nations.

    Resolution 242 (1967) by the Security Council is fully binding. This insists on:

    (i) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

    (ii) termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

    242 also emphasizes the need for

    (a) guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

    (b) achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

    (c) guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones.

    Security Council Resolution 338 (1973) calls on the parties concerned to start immediate implementation of Security Council Resolution 242?

    Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) leaves absolutely no wriggle room. It “determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace… Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”

    Oh, but look over there at Iran, THEY’RE the ones who are the problem! HA made you look!

    We created many of our own security concerns in Israel but the Diaspora in the US doesn’t want to acknowledge this. Apparently they would rather view Israel as the Jewish Utopia and the place where they take their sons to visit after Bar Mitzvah.

  7. SpfcMarcus permalink
    September 4, 2010 12:25 pm

    Sorry, but Bibi has already hoodwinked the U.S. with a pre-signed letter he gave to his coalition prior to the start of direct talks promising to continue settlement construction:

    Nobody knows better than Hillary how Bibi can’t be trusted because of the shit he pulled in the 90’s. He’s as slippery as they come. Of course she has to put on a good face for the camera and pretend Bibi’s suddenly willing to be a peacemaker.

    Arafat was a huge problem and couldn’t be trusted either but now he’s out of the picture and with Abbas and Fayed Israel actually has a shot at making peace with the Palestinians. If Bibi plays his games and pisses this opportunity away, the US knows it’s over. There will never be another peace process and Israel will no longer be a Jewish state and instead will be an Apartheid state with an Arab majority. Yet US diaspora Jewish community remain silent and who do they back? Bibi.

    Everybody loves to blame the Palestinians for everything but the fact is, the US has enabled Israel’s every whim for decades. Now it’s game over and when the time comes, the US will be called upon to rescue Israel again and again as resistance to Israel will only increase with an Arab majority.

  8. SpfcMarcus permalink
    September 4, 2010 12:28 pm

    US intelligence says of all the countries who the US calls a “friend”, the most hostile to the US intelligence community isn’t who you’d think. it isn’t China or Russia but Israel:

    With friends like these…

    I’m actually surprised this was printed in the Post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: