Skip to content

TGIF: SOS Hillary Rodham Clinton Friday December 10th Schedule

December 10, 2010


SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, at the Department of State.

1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Israeli Kadima Leader Tzipi Livni, at the Department of State.

2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with UN Special Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, at the Department of State.

2:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Posner co-host the 2010 Department of State Eleanor Roosevelt Awards, at the Department of State.

4:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the International Human Rights Day Town Hall hosted by Assistant Secretary Posner with civil society representatives and human rights community leaders, at the Department of State.

5:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C.

5:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C.

8:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton addresses the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy Seventh Annual Forum, at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C.

So, tonight is the big Mideast speech at the Saban Center. Here’s more information on it:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will address the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy Seventh Annual Forum.

Haim Saban will introduce Secretary Clinton. Following her remarks, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak will deliver remarks. Secretary Clinton will then join Defense Minister Barak and Ambassador Martin Indyk for a moderated discussion including questions from the audience.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Former President William Jefferson Clinton, Quartet Representative Tony Blair and Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman will also participate in the Saban Forum through December 12.

Secretary Clinton’s remarks will be open to credentialed members of the media. Press will be escorted out immediately following her remarks. The moderated discussion will be closed to the press.

The theme of the 2010 Saban Forum is “U.S.-Israeli Relations: Facing Hard Choices.” The Forum will focus on the critical decisions that American and Israeli leaders will confront in the coming year to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, as well as deal with Iran’s nuclear challenge.

I’ll post the transcript/video of the speech if it is made available. I’ll refrain from commenting when I do – you all can reach your own conclusions about the status of what is/isn’t going on. I’m sure the remarks will be very much geared towards the Israel-centric audience given the title/theme of the event (“U.S.-Israeli Relations: Facing Hard Choices”). Salam Fayyad will be making an appearance on behalf of Palestinians/Arabs. Interesting that the moderated discussion isn’t open to the press.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. Steve permalink
    December 10, 2010 8:29 am

    I don’t want to be too negative and I’m sure she’ll give a great speech but probably nothing really new in terms of policy. What can she really do? Unless the US is willing to think outside the box, use the tools at its disposal to lean on both sides to move forward, this is all academic. And the Saban Center is hardly where you go to think outside the box. That’s where you go to appease the status quo but I understand why she’s going- it’s politics. There’s a reason this has been going on for decades. Unless Congress fully gets behind administration efforts and so long as Abbas is so weakened that he can’t do much of anything for fear of losing what little support he has and unless Bibi is going to stop triangulating the Obama admin. with Congress and the Israel Lobby, then all the talk is just that, talk.

    Obama is already looking ahead to 2012 and he’s afraid of upsetting certain political constituencies and as we’ve seen he’s not exactly a risk-taker. He’s kind of Mr. Sellout. His approval rating in the Arab world has dropped 40% points but that will actually win him support here at home- how’s that for irony.

    And Stacy I look forward to your coverage of this speech, right everyone?!?

    • Thain permalink
      December 10, 2010 9:38 am

      But it’s not the settlements are the problem! I mean, what’s wrong with building illegally on land where someone else lives while negotiating over that land? This line is right from the AIPAC handbook of talking points and I’m thinking we’ll be hearing a lot of this going forward. It doesn’t matter that the settlements beyond the Green Line are illegal or that it violates international law for an occupier to appropriate the lands and forcibly transfer the people they occupy- no, that’s not the problem. You see, the problem is TRUST according to Ehud Barak. He’s got that right. How can you trust someone who takes your land, bulldozes your home and how can you trust the superpower that turns the other way? And Hamas isn’t even part of the equation because they aren’t part of negotiations and the PA has no control or relationship with Hamas.

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-palestinians-didn-t-mind-settlement-construction-during-past-peace-talks-1.329834

      This is all about 1967 borders- almost every Arab state in the region (and apparently even Hamas) would sign a peace treaty with Israel if they would go back to their legal borders but they build settlements to change the facts on the ground so they can then say it’s impossible to go back to the Green Line. So the choice is land or peace and Israel has chosen land.

      Yes Steve, I look forward to stacy’s coverage too.

      • Lulu permalink
        December 10, 2010 11:59 am

        You may have seen this Thain but if not I thought you’d get a kick out of it. Walt cracks me up sometimes. I love his sarcasm in this:

        http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/09/goldbergs_latest_silly_sally

      • discourseincsharpminor permalink
        December 10, 2010 6:59 pm

        Why would Israel negotiate when they can appropriate anything right now and it’s no problem. Israel could, if they wanted to, claim all Palestinian government sites, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc… tomorrow and topple the Palestinian government and theoretically, the US would be cool with it. If the Palestinians got too annoying, they could always reprise Cast Lead. We didn’t care about that either. Phosphorus bombs dropped on population centers? Nope, not a problem with us.
        With that as the status quo, I don’t see why Israel would be moved to negotiate on anything. What could they possibly gain? I think it’s far more likely that Abbas dissolves his government as he said he might and Israel ends up with a whole bunch of new, royally pissed off, people to deal with. Taking the land doesn’t make those who used to live on it just magically disappear and thousands of angry, displaced, people without any hope for some positive change to their situation is dangerous to whatever government is in charge. Does the French Revolution ring a bell? An environment like the one I discribed breeds violence, the question is not if we will see it, but when.

    • AmericanPatriot permalink
      December 10, 2010 10:32 am

      I can say with 100% certainty that I am not the slightest bit interested in Stacy’s biased, pro-terrorist, Arab apologist opinion on the mideast. If I want to hear similar views I can go to Al Jazeera or whatever it’s called. Maybe she should move to Gaza to be with her peeps in Hamas while complaining about how unfair the situation is.

      I’m glad Hillary has finally turned away from her stupid obsession with settlements. I liked her MUCH better when she was Senator of NY and when she was truly pro-Israel. I understand she’s probably forced to kiss up to the Palestinians because her of her boss, Hussein Obama but it’s time she remembered which side she’s on- ISRAEL’S SIDE!

      • Lulu permalink
        December 10, 2010 11:59 am

        Who is this Bozo?

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        December 10, 2010 1:34 pm

        And yet…here you are.

      • December 10, 2010 2:08 pm

        @AmP- I’m not sure why you feel the need to spam me via email and then say exactly the same thing here in the comments. How many IPs do you have anyway? So far I’ve counted 4 that I’ve blocked, now this is number 5? You’re long past tedious.

      • December 10, 2010 2:51 pm

        We can easily ignore AP’s posts. I wonder though what makes someone visit many times a blog with views they claim to strongly disagree with and also take the time to enter comments and emails. I prefer to visit blogs I find interesting; time is too precious to waste on stuff I think is nonsense. But that’s me…

  2. Carolyn-Rodham permalink
    December 10, 2010 2:23 pm

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Clinton_still_working_on_debt.html

    My response (leaving out some expletives) was primarily directed at some of the obnoxious comments people posted to the story, but by simply posting Bill Clinton’s fund-raising letter without comment and without providing comtext, Smith is essentially inviting the invective with which his readers so oblingingly provide:

    A candidate — like any other private citizen — is limited by campaign finance law from simply donating millions to his/her own campaign. They are subject to the same $2500 limits/person applied to the rest of us. They can LOAN any amount they wish — Hillary loaned $11.4 million to her campaign committee in 2008 — but campaign law limits to $250,000 the amount a campaign committee can REPAY candidates AFTER the election is over. Anything above $250,000 gets written off — I assume as “bad debt,” which is not the same as getting her $11.4 million back. Every politician operates this way, not just the wicked, devious, criminal Clintons. Mitt Romney may have loaned millions but he also wrote off the millions he wasn’t repaid. And for the record, the idea that Hillary is the only politician who has unpaid bills two years after an election is over is simply absurd! President Obama just won a legal battle allowing his campaign committee to pay off fines of over $200,000 owed by Biden to the Feds for ILLEGAL contributions to his 2008 campaigns. Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Rudy Guliani all raised money after the campaign to retire their campaign debts. And in case someone wants to claim it’s only the Democrats? John Glenn owed $3 million for over 20 years after his failed Presidential bid in 1984 — until the Fed finally excused his debt.

    So give me an f***ing break, Ben, with your provocative, slanted reporting that fails to put a story in the proper context. You should be ashamed of yourself and embarassed for your profession where unbiased reporting is nearly extinct.

    • December 10, 2010 2:59 pm

      @Carolyn- I went over and read all the comments and not a single one, other than yours (and I think one other person mentioned she can’t simply write a huge check to her campaign) mentioned actual facts. And all the people who are ranting with their CDS will not care that you took the time to try to explain to them what the actual situation is. The anonymity of the web can be a bad thing because it really does encourage people to say the stupidest things.

      I got that fund-raising email from Bill Clinton this morning- as did probably most people who visit this site- and I’m going to send a contribution. I’m more motivated to do so after reading the comments over on Ben Smith’s blog.

      Unfortunately, Politico has become Fox News Light. Even on moderate, common-sense Politico blogs like “Laura Rozen” (who I love), the commenters are nasty, mean-spirited blowhards who just scream epithets at anyone with whom they disagree. The site is leaning further to the right and the people who comment seem to be mostly from the far right. They must divide their time between Fox and Politico. Heh.

      As for Ben Smith- he’s an ass. He was the one who took Dick Morris’ thesis that when Hillary became SOS she became nothing but a powerless tool, hidden away in some closet somewhere “in the shadows” and ran with it. Then every other media outlet repeated that meme for almost a full year- they were wrong of course but that doesn’t seem to matter.

      What’s amazing is think about this- Ben Smith gets paid to write that stuff. All he did was post the fund-raising letter and as you said, no context, no background, no FACTS. It’s not journalism- I honestly don’t know what the hell it is.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        December 10, 2010 3:46 pm

        It’s called defamation of character via inuendo — he doesn’t even take responsibility for what he clearly implies in posting Bill’s letter.

        P.S. Since I maxed out in 2008, I got my husband (die-hard Obama supporter) to fork over the $250. But if I win the signed CD, stacy, I’m giving it to you as a Christmas/late Hannukah gift for all you have done for us — and Hillary.

        • December 11, 2010 8:51 am

          Awww, you’re very sweet.

          You’re husband is a die-hard Obama supporter? Hmmm…I bet that made for some interesting dinner discussions!

          I’d like to win a day with Bill but honestly, I’d rather spend the day with Hillary. No offense Bill.

    • PYW permalink
      December 10, 2010 6:00 pm

      Excellent post!

  3. December 11, 2010 8:47 am

    @Discourse- Exactly, which is why they continue to do what they do- pretty soon it will be impossible to have a Palestinian state with contiguous borders and the PA will be stuck with South African style bantustans, which will be a disaster for all involved. Abbas doesn’t really hold many cards that he can play- the power balance of these negotiations is totally skewed in favor of Israel which is why I get so frustrated at how the US needs to constantly play the role of Israel’s protector in these negotiations. I tend to be someone who likes to try to, rhetorically speaking, bring the scales back to some sort of equilibrium. So long as US domestic politics ties the hands of whichever administration tries to nudge both sides towards a meaningful conclusion to this mess, nothing is going to be accomplished.

    If I were Abbas I would probably call Israel’s bluff at this point, go to the US and say “ok, let them keep building settlements, we’ll come back to the negotiating table but only if we can resolve the final status issues within a year- no more talk about this going on for generations (which the Israelis and even the US implied not long ago).” I’d bring the shebang to the table- a map with borders, a compromise on the right of return, I’d reluctantly agree to reward Israeli intransigence with land swaps but I’d insist that East Jerusalem be the capital. I’d also want to work out what the hell we’d do with Hamas and question whether a Northern Ireland-type solution could be in order (try to negotiate behind the scenes with Hamas’ political arm and get them to lay down and turn in weapons in return for a large prisoner release). Of course, Abbas has no control over Hamas, so he can’t really make promises in that regard. I’d try to get the arab league behind the idea of having their member states sign peace treaties with Israel on the condition that Israel doesn’t continue to play these games and kick the can down the road so they can appropriate more land to make the 1967 border deal impossible.

  4. March 24, 2013 4:24 pm

    She works really hard.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: