Skip to content

SOS Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Speech on the Middle East at the Saban Center

December 11, 2010

Vodpod videos no longer available.

SOS Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Speech on the Midd…, posted with vodpod

The transcript:

Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the introduction, but nothing is imminent – (laughter) – so far as I know. But it is a great pleasure for me to be back here and part of this very important forum.

And I appreciate your introduction. I appreciate the friendship that you and Cheryl have given to me and to my family. You’ve been friends for many years. And certainly, as anyone who knows Haim understands, as an entrepreneur, a philanthropist, he is unparalleled, but also as a champion for peace. He represents in many ways in the best qualities of both Israel and America. He’s generous, he’s irrepressible, and absolutely unstoppable. And he has dedicated his energy and support to so many important causes and helped so many people. But he has probably no deeper passion than the one we are here discussing tonight – strengthening U.S.-Israeli relations and securing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

So I thank him and I thank Strobe Talbott, I thank Martin Indyk, and I thank all of you. And in particular, I appreciate your bringing us together to discuss the crucial issues surrounding the Middle East. I also want to acknowledge all of the colleagues from Israel who are here. Certainly, you’ll hear in a minute from Defense Minister Barak.

There are other members of the Israeli Government here – opposition leader Livni, and I’m delighted that Prime Minister Fayyad is also with us. Prime Minister Fayyad has accomplished a great deal in a short amount of time under very difficult circumstances. Along with President Abbas, he has brought strong leadership to the Palestinian Authority and he has helped advance the cause of a two-state solution by making a real difference in the lives of the Palestinian people. So Mr. Prime Minister, welcome again to Washington and thank you for your very good work. (Applause.)

Now, you don’t have to read secret diplomatic cables to know that we are meeting during a difficult period in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. I understand and indeed I share the deep frustrations of many of you in this room and across the region and the world. But rather than dwell on what has come before, I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America’s continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal.

Before I go further, I want to offer the deepest condolences of the American people for the lives lost in the recent fires in Northern Israel. Israelis are always among the first to lend a hand when an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. So when the fires began to burn, people and nations stepped up and offered help. It was remarkable to watch. Turkey sent planes; Egypt and Jordan donated chemicals and equipment; the Palestinian Authority dispatched firefighters and their trucks; and the United States was also part of the effort deploying expert firefighters, C-130 cargo planes, and thousands of gallons of chemicals and suppressants. It was testament once again to the deep and enduring bonds that unite our two countries, to the partnership between our governments, and the friendship between our people.

The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America’s commitment to Israel’s security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change. From our first days in office, the Obama Administration has reaffirmed this commitment. For me and for President Obama, this is not simply a policy position. It is also a deeply held personal conviction.

Over the last two years under President Obama’s leadership, the United States has expanded our cooperation with Israel and focused in particular on helping Israel meet the most consequential threats to its future as a secure and democratic Jewish state. Our security relationship has grown broader, deeper, and more intense than ever before. And we have not just worked to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge. We have increased it through new advances like the Iron Dome, a short-range rocket defense system that will help protect Israeli homes and cities. And our military continues to work closely with the IDF through exchanges, training, and joint exercises.

For Israel and for the region, there may be no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We just heard my husband speaking to that. And let me restate clearly: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And along with our international partners, we have implemented tough new sanctions whose bite is being felt in Tehran. Iran’s leaders face a clear choice, one of those tough choices that Strobe mentioned as the theme of this forum: Meet your international responsibilities or face continued isolation and consequences.

We have also stepped up efforts to block the transfer of dangerous weapons and financing to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. But Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel’s long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel’s future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States.

I know that improvements in security and growing prosperity have convinced some that this conflict can be waited out or largely ignored. This view is wrong and it is dangerous. The long-term population trends that result from the occupation are endangering the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Israelis should not have to choose between preserving both elements of their dream. But that day is approaching.

At the same time, the ever-evolving technology of war, especially the expanding reach of the rockets amassed on Israel’s borders means that it will be increasingly difficult to guarantee the security of Israeli families throughout the country without implementing peace agreements that answer these threats.

Continuing conflict also strengthens the hands of extremists and rejectionists across the region while sapping the support of those open to coexistence and cooperation. Radicalization of the region’s young people and growing support for violent ideologies undermine the stability and prosperity of the Middle East. The United States looks at these trends. We reflect on our deep and unwavering support of the state of Israel and we conclude without a shadow of a doubt that ending this conflict once and for all and achieving a comprehensive regional peace is imperative for safeguarding Israelis’ future.

We also look at our friends the Palestinians, and we remember the painful history of a people who have never had a state of their own, and we are renewed in our determination to help them finally realize their legitimate aspirations. The lack of peace and the occupation that began in 1967 continue to deprive the Palestinian people of dignity and self-determination. This is unacceptable, and, ultimately, it too is unsustainable.

So for both Israelis and Palestinians and, indeed, for all the people of the region, it is in their interest to end this conflict and bring a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace to the Middle East based on two states for two peoples.

For two years, you have heard me and others emphasize again and again that negotiations between the parties is the only path that will succeed in securing their respective aspirations; for the Israelis, security and recognition; for the Palestinians, an independent, viable sovereign state of their own. This remains true today. There is no alternative other than reaching mutual agreement. The stakes are too high, the pain too deep, and the issues to complex for any other approach.

Now, it is no secret that the parties have a long way to go and that they have not yet made the difficult decisions that peace requires. And like many of you, I regret that we have not gotten farther faster in our recent efforts. That is why yesterday and today I met with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and underscored our seriousness about moving forward with refocused goals and expectations.

It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself. And starting with my meetings this week, that is exactly what we are doing. We will also deepen our strong commitment to supporting the state-building work of the Palestinian Authority and continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision.

Over recent months, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have met face to face multiple times. I have been privileged to be present during their meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, in Jerusalem, and in Washington. I have also had the chance to talk with each leader privately. These were meaningful talks that yielded new clarity about the gaps that must be bridged.

Significantly, both sides decided together to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the fundamental compromises on all permanent status issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty.

Reaching this goal will not be easy by any means. The differences between the two sides are real and they are persistent. But the way to get there is by engaging, in good faith, with the full complexities of the core issues and by working to narrow the gaps between the two sides.

By doing this, the parties can begin to rebuild confidence, demonstrate their seriousness, and hopefully find enough common ground on which to eventually re-launch direct negotiations and achieve that framework.

The parties have indicated that they want the United States to continue its efforts. And in the days ahead, our discussions with both sides will be substantive two-way conversations with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months on the key questions of an eventual framework agreement. The United States will not be a passive participant. We will push the parties to lay out their positions on the core issues without delay and with real specificity. We will work to narrow the gaps asking the tough questions and expecting substantive answers. And in the context of our private conversations with the parties, we will offer our own ideas and bridging proposals when appropriate.

We enter this phase with clear expectations of both parties. Their seriousness about achieving an agreement will be measured by their engagement on these core issues. And let me say a few words about some of the important aspects of these issues we will be discussing.

First, on borders and security. The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is finite, and both sides must know exactly which parts belong to each. They must agree to a single line drawn on a map that divides Israel from Palestine and to an outcome that implements the two-state solution with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. The Palestinian leaders must be able to show their people that the occupation will be over. Israeli leaders must be able to offer their people internationally recognized borders that protect Israel’s security. And they must be able to demonstrate to their people that the compromises needed to make peace will not leave Israel vulnerable. Security arrangements must prevent any resurgence of terrorism and deal effectively with new and emerging threats. Families on both sides must feel confident in their security and be able to live free from fear.

Second, on refugees. This is a difficult and emotional issue, but there must be a just and permanent solution that meets the needs of both sides.

Third, on settlements. The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. But let me be clear: The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself.

And finally, on Jerusalem which is profoundly important for Jews, Muslims, and Christians everywhere. There will surely be no peace without an agreement on this, the most sensitive of all the issues. The religious interests of people of all faiths around the world must be respected and protected. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations for both parties, for Jerusalem, and safeguard its status for people around the world.

These core issues are woven together. Considering the larger strategic picture makes it easier to weigh the compromises that must be made on both sides and see the benefits to be gained. We are not moving forward in a vacuum. From day one, the Obama Administration has recognized the importance of making progress on two simultaneous and mutually reinforcing tracks – negotiations between the parties and institution-building that helps the Palestinians as they prepare to govern their own state. Improvements on the ground give confidence to negotiators and help create a climate for progress at the peace table.

So even as we engage both sides on the core issues with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, we will deepen our support of the Palestinians’ state-building efforts. Because we recognize that a Palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable.

I want, once again, to commend President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad for their leadership in this effort. Under the Palestinian Authority’s Two-Year State-Building plan, security has improved dramatically, services are being delivered, and the economy is growing.

It is of course true that much work remains to reverse a long history of corruption and mismanagement. But Palestinians are rightfully proud of the progress they have achieved, and the World Bank recently concluded that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is – and I quote – “Well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.”

The United States is continuing our efforts to support this important work along with many other international partners, NGOs and governments, including the government of Israel to bring together key players to focus on solving specific challenges in the region, including in the Palestinian territories, we have launched an initiative called Partners for a New Beginning chaired by Madeleine Albright, Walter Isaacson, and Muhtar Kent. And we are working directly with the Palestinian Authority on a range of issues. Last month I was pleased to announce the transfer of an additional $150 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

This fall, to site one example, American experts in partnership with the Palestinian Water Authority, began drilling new and much needed wells in Hebron. And with recent Israeli approvals, we soon will begin several water infrastructure projects in Gaza that the Palestinian Authority has identified as priorities. These and other efforts to expand wastewater treatment and provide sanitation services have already helped 12,000 Palestinian families gain access to clean water.

The United States is working with the Palestinian Authority, with Israel, and with international partners to ease the situation in Gaza and increase the flow of needed commercial goods and construction supplies while taking appropriate measures to ensure they don’t fall into the wrong hands. We are pleased with Israel’s recent decision to allow more exports from Gaza which will foster legitimate economic growth there. This is an important and overdue step, and we look forward to seeing it implemented.

Now, we also look forward to working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority on further improvements while maintaining pressure on Hamas to end the weapons smuggling and accept the fundamental principles of peacemaking – recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements. This is the only path to achieve Palestinians’ dreams of independence.

Security is one area where the Palestinian Authority has made some of its most dramatic progress. I have seen it myself on recent trips to the West Bank, where well-trained and well-equipped Palestinian security forces stood watchful guard. Families in Nablus and Jenin shop, work, and play with a newfound sense of security, which also contributes to the improved economic conditions. As the Palestinian security forces continue to become more professional and capable, we look to Israel to facilitate their efforts. And we hope to see a significant curtailment of incursions by Israeli troops into Palestinian areas.

But for all the progress on the ground and all that the Palestinian Authority has accomplished, a stubborn truth remains: While economic and institutional progress is important, indeed necessary, it is not a substitute for a political resolution. The legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people will never be satisfied, and Israel will never enjoy secure and recognized borders until there is a two-state solution that ensures dignity, justice, and security for all.

This outcome is also in the interests of Israel’s neighbors. The Arab states have a pivotal role to play in ending the conflict. Egypt and Jordan in particular have been valuable partners for peace. In the days ahead, as we engage with the parties on the core issues and support the Palestinian people’s efforts to build their own institutions, we will also continue our diplomacy across the region and with our partners in the Quartet. Senator Mitchell will leave this weekend for Jerusalem and Ramallah and will then visit a number of Arab and European capitals.

Our message remains the same: The Arab states have an interest in a stable and secure region. They should take steps that show Israelis, Palestinians, and their own people that peace is possible and that there will be tangible benefits if it is achieved. Their support makes it easier for the Palestinians to pursue negotiations and a final agreement. And their cooperation is necessary for any future peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria.

We continue to support the vision of the Arab Peace Initiative, a vision of a better future for all the people of the Middle East. This landmark proposal rests on the basic bargain that peace between Israel and her neighbors will bring recognition and normalization from all the Arab states. It is time to advance this vision with actions, as well as words. And Israel should seize the opportunity presented by this initiative while it is still available.

In the end, no matter how much the United States and other nations around the region and the world work to see a resolution to this conflict, only the parties themselves will be able to achieve it. The United States and the international community cannot impose a solution. Sometimes I think both parties seem to think we can. We cannot. And even if we could, we would not, because it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable. The parties themselves have to want it. The people of the region must decide to move beyond a past that cannot change and embrace a future they can shape together.

As a political figure, a Senator, and now as Secretary of State, I have seen what it takes for old adversaries to make sacrifices and come together on common ground. Unfortunately, as we have learned, the parties in this conflict have often not been ready to take the necessary steps. Going forward, they must take responsibility and make the difficult decisions that peace requires.

And this begins with a sincere effort to see the world through the other side’s eyes, to try to understand their perspective and positions. Palestinians must appreciate Israel’s legitimate security concerns. And Israelis must accept the legitimate territorial aspirations of the Palestinian people. Ignoring the other side’s needs is, in the end, self-defeating.

To have a credible negotiating partner, each side must give the other the room, the political space to build a constituency for progress. Part of this is recognizing that Israeli and Palestinian leaders each have their own domestic considerations that neither side can afford to ignore. It takes two sides to agree on a deal and two sides to implement a deal. Both need credibility and standing with their own people to pull it off.

So this is also about how the leaders prepare their own people for compromise. Demonizing the other side will only make it harder to bring each public around to an eventual agreement.

By the same token, to build trust and momentum, both sides need to give the other credit when they take a hard step. As we begin to grapple with the core issues, each side will have to make difficult decisions, and they deserve credit when they do so. And it should not just be the United States that acknowledges moves that are made; the parties themselves must do so as well.

To demonstrate their commitment to peace, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and their respective teams should take these steps. They should help build confidence, work to minimize distractions, and focus on the core questions, even in a period when they are not talking directly.

To demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed.

And to demonstrate their commitment to peace, they should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so.

America is serious about peace. We know the road forward will not be easy. But we are convinced that peace is both necessary and possible. So we will be persistent and press forward. We will push the parties to grapple with the core issues. We will work with them on the ground to continue laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. And we will redouble our regional diplomacy. When one way is blocked, we will seek another. We will not lose hope and neither should the people of the region.

Peace is worth the struggle. It is worth the setbacks and the heartaches. A just and lasting peace will transform the region. Israelis will finally be able to live in security, at peace with their neighbors, and confident in their future. Palestinians will at last have the dignity and justice they deserve with a state of their own and the freedom to chart their own destiny. Across the Middle East, moderates and advocates of peace and coexistence will be strengthened, while old arguments will be drained of their venom and the rejectionists and extremists will be exposed and marginalized.

We must keep our eyes trained on this future and work together to realize it. That is what this is all about. That is what makes the compromises and difficult decisions worth it, for both sides.

We are now in the holiday season, a time of reflection and fellowship. The National Christmas Tree is lighting up the sky. Jewish families have just completed the eight days of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, which reminds us that even when the future looks darkest, there is light and hope to be found through perseverance and faith. Muslims around the world also recently celebrated Eid al-Adha, the Festival of Sacrifice, which teaches the story of a man whose faith was tested when he was ordered by God to give up his beloved son. Whether we call him Abraham, Avraham, or Ibrahim, this man is the father of all the faiths of the Holy Land. He is a reminder that despite our differences, our histories are deeply entwined. And so too are our futures.

Today we should remember these stories. Sometimes we will be asked to walk difficult roads together, and sometimes these roads will be lined with naysayers, second-guessers, and rejectionists. But with faith in our common mission, we can and will come through the darkness together. That is the way – the only way toward peace, and that is what I hope we will keep in mind as we make this journey – this difficult journey toward a destination that awaits.

Thank you and may God bless you in this effort.

25 Comments leave one →
  1. SirJohn permalink
    December 11, 2010 9:10 am

    That picture just says it all doesn’t it?

    Nothing new here but nobody was really expecting anything new.

    I’m sorry but the Haim Saban Center is just another pro-Israel think tank that seeks to maintain the status quo under the guise of supporting a two state solution. Saban throws millions of dollars into this think tank to ensure the faux liberal Brookings Institution hires Israel Lobby insiders as Fellows. Saban also buys up media outlets to push the Israel view of everything. It’s sort of a joke.

    I don’t blame Hillary for going along with this charade because after all, she understands the politics of this- the dems have to pander to the Jewish community incessantly or they will be threatened with a mass exodus to the Republicans. I love how the Saban Center doesn’t even pretend that the Palestinian point of view matters. just look at the photo. Sure, they had one token Palestinian (Fayyed) speak but the room was apparently filled with Israeli officials, Lobby insiders, former Ambassadors to Israel and of course the Israel firsters in Congress.

    The irony is that think tanks like the Saban Center are the reason why this administration can’t get anything done with Mideast Peace. The Israel Lobby ensures the pro-Israel status quo remains and fights any effort to get Israel to concede anything. Most of the US negotiating team come from these think tanks- AIPAC, WINEP, Saban- and you wonder why Israel always has the upper hand and feels like it has the right to tell the POTUS and the American people to go f*ck ourselves?

    How many Palestinian American do you think advise Hillary or the POTUS? I’m guessing zero. How many Israeli dual citizens advise them? I’m guessing the list is long and starts with Dennis Ross.

  2. GeorgeS permalink
    December 11, 2010 9:28 am

    She’s a really good public speaker but is there anything new here? We’ve been saying these same tired lines for like 30 years. Its not just the Israelis and the Palestinians who need to make tough choices for peace but also the US. Are we going to continue pretend to be objective mediator or are we going to act as a proxy for Israel? If its the former, great we might get something done but if its the latter then maybe we ought to let some other country take the lead because we’re just making things worse.

    It’s like having a court case where the judge is a family member of one of the parties and expecting a fair trial for both involved.

  3. discourseincsharpminor permalink
    December 11, 2010 9:53 am

    A nice speech, but I think she wasted her evening. If our words don’t change, our actions ever will.

    • discourseincsharpminor permalink
      December 11, 2010 9:54 am

      * edit – never will.*

  4. Thain permalink
    December 11, 2010 12:10 pm

    Steve Clemons very politely hints at the 800lb gorilla in the room- the administration has to be willing to put it’s own ideas on the table rather than just allowing the Palestinians and the Israelis to dick around like they always do- ideas that lean more towards the international consensus and international law and that put meaningful pressure on Israel but the main problem is worry about a backlash from US jewish groups.

    Lets be honest, that’s what it’s all about. If Jewish groups really supported a two state solution which included sharing Jerusalem, going back to 1967 borders with land swaps and some sort of compromise on the right of return, we’d have two states by now. But have they supported the POTUS on any of this? No, they support Netanyahu. Not even Democrats in Congress supported Obama – Weiner, Schumer, Lowey, Boxer, Frank, etc. lashed out at him when he dared to ask Israel to stop settlements. And yet when Americans Jews found out about the conversion bill in the Knesset that would narrowly define “Jewish” to exclude a huge portion of the diaspora that had converted or inter-married, Congress and Jewish groups immediately called on Bibi and his right wing coalition to kill the bill and guess what- he did, no questions asked.

    But pressuring Bibi to work with Obama? Not a word. Sure, some token commentary from Friedman and a few others but the AJC, AIPAC, ADL and other heavy hitters? Of course not. Can you imagine if they got as worked up about Bibi’s disrespect shown to the VP the POTUS and Likud’s efforts to scuttle peace talks as they did about the conversion bill?

    Many people (not all) talk about two states but when you ask AIPAC, AJC, WINEP, Saban etc. to describe the two states they want Jerusalem solely as their capital, no 1967 borders, the Palestinians with no right to an army or any defense, no right of return, recognition of not just Israel but of Israel as a solely “Jewish” state, Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley and the US compensating any settlers that have to be moved. Oh, and the US providing all necessary security assurances whatever that means. Why not also require the Palestinians to make Hebrew their official language too?

    The Palestinians probably should give up the right of return and they should make good faith gestures to the Israelis but as long as the US is held hostage to narrow internal politics which disallows any pressure on Israel to concede anything the Palestinians would be stupid to give up so much up front in return for so little.

    • December 11, 2010 2:06 pm

      I don’t think it’s fair to put all the blame on the diaspora and I would personally caution against painting with so broad a brush. Keep in mind that many of the blogs and activists speaking out so eloquently against the occupation, happen to be Jewish. Not all of course, but many.

      And things are slowly changing with respect to having an open dialogue about the issue. Roger Cohen’s opinion piece the other day in the NYT is evidence of that. He must have caused quite a stir at AIPAC, ADL the AJC etc.

      I think the hope lies in the younger generation (doesn’t it always?).

      • Steve permalink
        December 11, 2010 2:31 pm

        Stacy, I give you credit, you would be a great diplomat because you can be very diplomatic on this. But unfortunately the reason the Dems are afraid of losing the Jewish vote is because the Lobby is trying to fear-monger by saying just that.
        From The Hill:

        High-profile Jewish Democrats say President Barack Obama has risked an important bloc of voters because of recent tension with Israel.

        Obama’s most outspoken Democratic critic is former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, who campaigned for Obama in Florida during the 2008 election.

        Koch said if Obama asked him to do it again he would not, because of the administration’s harsh criticism of Israel in recent days.

        Privately, these Democrats say that the administration’s criticism of Netanyahu was excessive and will embolden Israel’s enemies.
        Jewish Democratic fundraisers and donors say Obama could lose significant financial support and votes, although they caution it is too early to say with certainty.

        Exit polls showed Obama won about 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, but Jewish political strategists believe his level of support among the bloc has dropped in recent months.

        The impact on the Democratic Party could be significant.

        Jewish Democratic donors are believed to make up 25 to 50 percent of the party’s major contributors — those who give more than $25,000 — according to sources familiar with Jewish fundraising.

        Some Jewish fundraisers estimate pro-Israel donors give $20 million to $30 million to federal races in an election cycle.

        Many Jewish Democrats were shocked when Vice President Joe Biden publicly condemned the Israeli government’s decision to build new housing in East Jerusalem, a decision Israeli officials announced during Biden’s visit to the area. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton later called Netanyahu to air the administration’s displeasure in a 40-minute phone conversation.

        Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said Obama’s recent actions have heightened concerns many Jews had of his views on Israel since the election. Obama stirred concerns in 2007 by acknowledging the hardships suffered by Palestinians.

        That last highlighted bit is a disgrace.

        As a Jew I am embarrassed by the over-reaction to the squabble between the US and Israel and the fear-mongering we are engaging in to try to scare the Obama administration away from trying to getting concessions from Israel. The idea that we should be “concerned” about Obama because he expressed some human empathy towards Palestinians shows just how ass-backwards our progressive Jewish values have become. This belief that human rights only applies to us was not how I was raised.

        This is why when some people say “but American Jews overwhelmingly support a two-state solution” I say “bullsh*t” because if we did, we wouldn’t be running around throwing our support behind a foreign leader over our POTUS and threatening to withhold money unless Obama/Clinton start kissing Bibi’s ass. This feeds into every negative stereotype about us. I personally wish Koch, the Roy Cohn of political has-beens, would just give it a rest.

  5. Steve permalink
    December 11, 2010 6:48 pm

    Hey Stacy, MJ Rosenberg over at TPM linked to this post in his discussion about Secretary Clinton’s speech- more proof this is the Secretary of State/foreign policy blog to go to!

    It’s interesting because he thinks Clinton was tougher on Israel in this speech than the US generally is and he thinks team Obama should let her take total control of negotiations (read- stop letting Dennis Ross be bibi’s appointed point-man):

    I’m surprised this speech isn’t getting more coverage in the MSM quite frankly. I know it’s been a full news week but still.

    • December 11, 2010 7:06 pm

      Hey, thanks for the heads up about him linking here Steve. Although I think you are giving me (and this blog) a bit too much credit- he may have just found it in a google search or on Twitter.

      I’m glad MJ Rosenberg had good things to say about Secretary Clinton’s speech because he has quite a bit of credibility in the progressive community.

      But remember, I’m not commenting on these Israel things so don’t try to bait me into discussing them! ;). Btw when I told Micah I was no longer going to provide commentary on Israel-Palestinian issues on this blog her response was a rather dismissive “yeah, right.”

      • discourseincsharpminor permalink
        December 11, 2010 7:34 pm

        None, as in no more?! Say it ain’t so!

      • Steve permalink
        December 11, 2010 8:07 pm

        @discourseincsharpminor- Of course she’s not going to permanently refrain from providing commentary, right stacy?!? She’s just taking a very, very brief break which I think should be over by now, don’t you? Someone as passionate and informed about this issue can’t just not talk about it!

        Besides, just like she said above, do you really think we can’t bait her into talking about this? I think she underestimates us!


      • discourseincsharpminor permalink
        December 11, 2010 8:34 pm

        @ Steve, yes, I think her break ought to end about now. Intelligent individuals with reasonable ideas on this issue are not the ones who should remain silent.

        I’m not above baiting someone into a policy discussion.;)

  6. AhmedMuntasavi permalink
    December 12, 2010 11:20 am

    The day before Hillary Clinton joined Haim Saban’s Mideast peace conference Saban had a little fundraiser with his zionist friends to raise money for a foreign army- the IDF! Not the US army but the army of Israel charged with safeguarding the occupation against my people. My parents are Palestinian and Jordanian and they escaped to Jordan. We are not allowed back into Israel and the territories to visit family because we are Arab and seen as a threat to Israel security although we oppose all forms of violence.

    If these stories actually made it into your media conscious I think the Americans might be more inclined to see more of the whole picture. Under the excuse of philanthropy Jewish groups raise money to purchase weapons for settlers. When Arabs have guns in the territories we are called terrorists but when civilian Jews have guns to harass us and steal more land they are viewed by your media and the world as settlers.

  7. December 12, 2010 4:45 pm

    The theme of SOS Clinton’s Saban speech is that the U.S. position regarding Palestine has not changed; namely, that Israel’s drive to establish itself as the U.S. forward-positioned military force in the U.S. concept of and drive to form and control the Greater Middle East is still the focal U.S. objective and strategy (i.e., the one begun under her husband). What’s interesting in this speech is that she alludes to a concept of the Palestine State as a collection of city-states existing cellularly in an Israeli-controlled West
    Bank. This approach to the two-state solution effectively gives Palestine a “nation” status similar to that of the reservationized Indian tribes of the U.S. Under this approach, Palestine could even have a building site in East Jerusalem
    as its “capitol”. Palestine would “control” its city-states and Israel would control the roads and countryside (i.e., the integral nation). Thus the West Bank would become a single, integral Israeli settlement contiguous with and in essence part of the present nation of Israel.

    Most interesting is that this concept replicates the approach used by the Roman Empire as it evolved to its final Byzantine configuration centered in present-day Istanbul; hence the U.S. concept for the Greater Middle East is in essence a step toward a greater “Roman Empire” encompassing (eventually) the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. Despite this apparent growth in size and power, it’s inherently a form of decline; for no group can escape the entropic destiny of the Earth.

  8. Thain permalink
    December 12, 2010 7:14 pm

    Now this is brass balls- after Clinton’s speech Bibi announces Israel will never share Jerusalem. Ok, here’s the question- will the State Dept. and WH come out and strongly condemn Bibi like they condemned provocative Palestinian actions about a week and a half ago? Will members of Congress condemn Bibi for scuttling the peace process? Of course not, b/c they get their marching orders from Bibi. Maybe we should follow Israel’s lead and have loyalty oaths in this country?

    The Israelis have been dicking the US around for two years but will there be any consequences? Of course not! Hillary and Obama will keep pandering to them and reinforcing how “special” the relationship is and how we will do ANYTHING for Israel.

    This really makes the whole Saban speech seem naive:

    • discourseincsharpminor permalink
      December 12, 2010 9:02 pm

      I think there might already be a sort of loyalty oath system in this country. If you’re in politics, you must never, ever, EVER be even mildly critical of anything Israel does. If you step out of line, rest assured you will not be re-elected to so much as a PTA because you’ll be branded anti-Semitic. It’s a choice – your political career or the ability to hold a rational view of the Israel/Palestine issue. Rationality has never meant much to politicians anyway, so I guess it’s not that much of a choice for them.

      Here’s what I find so strange. The same politicians who believe (rightly, IMO) that biblical thinking has no place in our modern government are insisting that another country – one which was founded in 1948, btw – has borders that are concretely and unalterably defined by… wait for it…
      biblical thinking. That’s what I think is nuts.

      • Thain permalink
        December 13, 2010 8:12 am

        @discourse- agreed, you can’t reason with people who think they have a biblical (or Quran or Torah) right to ANYTHING. They think ordinary laws don’t apply to them and hence terrorism and stupid wars over religion. And of course, this is behind Israel’s claim that Jerusalem is the exclusive, eternal home of the Jews- as if no one else exists.

  9. Thain permalink
    December 13, 2010 8:10 am

    Now the Israeli government is saying there won’t be any hope of progress unless the Palestinians change their educational curriculum. They also continue to lie and claim that the Palestinians have not recognized Israel’s right to exist- the PA has recognized the right repeatedly.

    Oh, and Israel is happy that Clinton didn’t lay blame on the Israelis for the collapsed talks because you know, nothing is ever there fault. Bibi has been celebrating his big win handed to him by this administration.

    When is the US- including Hillary- going to get a backbone and stop caving? Ever? I guess not.

    Here’s a little other nugget that no one talks about- Israel refuses to ever discuss Jerusalem for the past 2 years and now going forward- it’s totally off the table per the Israelis and will never be divided because it’s the “eternal city of the Jews.”

    Now THAT’s Chutzpah.

    Oh, and where is the outrage from the Jewish community in the US over Bibi’s games and stalling and making this administration beg? Oh yeah, there is none, because Bibi is their president. Stacy I read your comment above and your point about the work of some liberal Jewish bloggers is well-taken. I have a lot of respect for their willingness to speak out. But let’s be honest they don’t represent mainstream Judaism and they are often shunned by their own communities- just look at Joseph Dana and Phil Weiss. I know it’s not politically correct to say but the American Jewish community enables the worst tendencies in Israel and it’s their continued unquestioning knee-jerk support of anything with the word “Israel” in it that allows Bibi to treat the US like sh*t all the while getting billions of tax payer dollars, total diplomatic protection, most favored trade status, tons of military equipment etc.

  10. Lulu permalink
    December 13, 2010 12:27 pm

    Nothing to see here move along:

    The more I think about it the more I think Clinon’s speech was a cop-out. The US has to propose a plan and if either or both sides reject it then there should be consequences. This isn’t just about them it’s also about OUR national security. If they are going to continue to be our client state dragging us down then they can do what we ask once in a while. If they don’t want peace then they shouldn’t need us to go to war for them with Iran. If they don’t want peace then they need to stop playing the victim.

    • discourseincsharpminor permalink
      December 13, 2010 1:52 pm

      Actually, Israel convincing the US to wage a proxy war on their behalf makes sense – sick, twisted sense, but sense nonetheless. Why would you expend precious resources and the lives of military personnel when you can easily convince someone to do it for you. If anyone comes to Iran’s aid, they’ll be next because that’s usually how the US opperates which works for Israel. They’d like to see most of their geographic neighbors made to move or fall and, when Israel gets sick of the war as all countries eventually do, Bibi can just throw up his hands and remind them that he isn’t in charge – it’s America’s war. It so easy to see and yet no one in DC would ever think of stopping it for fear of making jewish groups pout a little. I’m waiting for Netanyahu to suggest we “help them out” with Gaza and then the West Bank. And then we’re called to the Hague. There’s my dystopic view of the next ten or so years of US Mideast policy. It’s creepily plausable if you think about what 2012 might bring.

  11. Thain permalink
    December 14, 2010 1:33 pm

    If this were any other country but Israel we would all be condemning this nonsense:

    And in other news I just saw stacy tweet that the ADL’s Abe Foxman isn’t too concerned about Kissinger’s horrible statements about Soviet Jews (possibly being gassed) back when he was working with Nixon because after all, Kissinger is strong on Israel- and that’s really all that matters to Abe. Is there any more proof we need that the ADL has become a huge joke? Seriously, can you imagine if, say, the head of J Street (a group Foxman can’t stand) said what Kissinger did or if someone who wasn’t Jewish said it? Foxman would be hysterical. Foxman’s moral compass is all f*cked up. It’s not about defamation it’s about controlling all debate on Israel to make sure everyone falls into line.

  12. August 23, 2013 5:02 pm

    she’s a amazing women


  1. Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin » Blog Archive » Israel pleased Sec’y. Clinton’s speech rejects imposed solution
  2. Clinton Addresses Israeli Leaders in DC - Top News

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: