Hillary's 'shop-worn' ME paradigm has AIPAC approval UPDATE

ICAHD Photo.

Open this document to see the latest ICAHD analysis of demolished homes, estimated at some 23,500 in total since 1967, which includes over 3,600 homes estimated to have been destroyed in the recent Gaza conflict, according to preliminary figures provided by UN OCHA.

Lest one believes that Hillary has in some manner gone anti-Israel recently, Phillip Weiss posted this comment on Mondoweiss, Hillary seems stuck in 'shop-worn' paradigm of Fatah only, which puts a different light on her Middle East diplomacy. For that matter, her most recent statement concerning Israel's planned demolitions of more Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as "not helpful," sounded more like a late afterthought (see above). Still, it's better to be late than never, I suppose.

Perhaps more disturbing is her recent statement excluding Hamas from negotiations, while there are reconciliation efforts being conducted by Fatah, as well as the Arab League. It suggests that she is adopting a pro-Israel stance: a conformance with Bush style State Department propaganda condemning Palestinians as "terrorists."

The Mondoweiss piece goes further:

Jim Lobe has a devastatingly-smart analysis of the new State Department, including the bad news that Dennis Ross seems to have legs, on the 7th floor, guiding Iran policy, and that Hillary is reading neocon thinktank papers. Ideas, ideas, ideas--the ideas are bad. Ross was for colonies in the West Bank in the early 90s, the neocons were for the Iraq War. Today on NPR Tom Ricks says that the Iraq war was "the greatest mistake in the history of American foreign policy." It came out of bad ideas.

Is there some reason to believe that Ross is now for dismantling those colonies to make way for a Palestinian state? Doubtful. Every "Lobby" man is a Likudnik by definition.

Here's some of Jim Lobe's analysis, focused only on the Palestinian state issue.

Ross Is Clearly a Major Player

Since Secretary of State Clinton set out for the Middle East over the weekend, it has seemed increasingly clear to me that Dennis Ross, contrary to my earlier speculation, pretty much got the job that he and WINEP were hoping for. Not only has he claimed an office on the coveted seventh floor, but Obama's conspicuous placement of Ross' name between those of Mitchell and Holbrooke in his speech on Iraq at Camp Lejeune last week strongly suggested that he considers Ross to be of the same rank and importance as the other two.


Adding to my growing sense that Ross occupies a critical role in policy-making, at least in the State Department, are what Clinton has had to say so far on her trip about Gaza, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. As Marc Lynch reports in his truly excellent blog, also on the Foreign Policy website, "her remarks suggest that rather than seize on the possibility of Palestinian reconciliation, Clinton prefers to double-down on the shopworn `West Bank first, Fatah only' policy" strongly advocated by Ross. In that respect, you should definitely read Tuesday's extended colloquy between Lynch, Brookings' Tamara Wittes (who is more optimistic), and Carnegie's Nathan Brown, who shares Lynch's "disappointment" about Clinton's performance. As Lynch notes,

...it seems that Clinton is stuck "in a bit of time-warp" regarding Hamas' power in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority's abject failure to enhance its legitimacy, and the Arab League's renewed efforts to both unify itself and to reconstruct a Palestinian government of national unity. This insensitivity to Palestinian and Arab public opinion bears all the hallmarks of Ross' failed Mideast diplomacy during the 1990's.

I also have the impression that Ross and the so-called "Israel Lobby" whose interests he represents believe that enhancing conditions on the West Bank, combined with diplomatic engagement with Syria, will somehow be sufficient for Washington to regain its credibility in the region...

Aside of Iran, that notice about "enhancing conditions in the West Bank" is precisely what Netayahu proposed, a pacification of the Palestinians by filling their stomachs, while the land-grab proceeds on course.

So we must now ask: just what kind of a Palestinian state does Hillary have in mind? Until we have reason to believe otherwise, we must assume that Israel intends to complete the Apartheid state it has been working on for over 40 years.


Interesting and relevant article just published on the Electronic Intifada:

DID CLINTON SABOTAGE A PALESTINIAN RECONCILIATION? By Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2009

On her first visit to the Middle East as US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made the same demands of Palestinians as the Bush administration. But it is ludicrous to insist that the stateless Palestinian people unconditionally recognize the legitimacy of the entity that dispossessed them and occupies them, that itself has no declared borders and that continues to violently expand its territory at their expense. Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah comment.

LINK: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10367.shtml

Has Israel still not recognized the right of Palestine to exist, for the Palestinians to live free and self-determined in a country of their own?

If Hillary can get this recognition from Israel, all of our Middle East problems will be over.

Tags: Cinton, Gaza, ICAHD, Israel, obama, Palestine (all tags)



why should Israel make peace?

What incentive does Israel have to make a just peace?

Israel is fine with the limited number of casualties it takes. These casualties fuel the political movement that wants to take more land. And the casualties simply aren't very numerous. Israelis have more chance of being killed in an automobile mishap than a Palestinian attack.

And the Israeli leadership wants the land. This is true of Labor, Kadima, Likud and of course the Right Wing nutjobs.

The economic incentive to end the conflict doesn't apply to Israel for a couple reasons. The United States subsidizes the Israeli military and the subsidies would drop if Israel made peace.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-05 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: why should Israel make peace?

You've said some truth there.  But the economic angle is not the whole story.

However, I haven't got the trade figures to hand, but we import massively more from Israel than we export to Israel -- why?  Isn't Israel 'small-fry' to us -- why aren't we producing and manufacturing their stuff here?  Plus, as you say we 'subsidize' them to buy our stuff...  [as well as bribe them to not sell to other countries].  I question why can't other countries, that happen to be our allies have those amazing discounts?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-05 07:27AM | 0 recs
Sorry, I instantly got the urge to question --

why should we still subsidize...?

I get your point.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-05 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, I instantly got the urge to question --

The point is AIPAC. Need more be said. No, they have not gone away.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: why should Israel make peace?

Yeap! Israel chose land over peace a long time ago and we are still seeing its effects. More Palestinian home demolitions in concert with more Israeli building and expansion of settlements.

There seems to be an understanding among all of the Israeli political parties, whether right or left in relation to domestic politics, that Israel will eventually annex all of original Palestine, Palestinian gripes notwithstanding. It has been a slow but inexhorable process since 1967.

Hillary is undoubtedly aware of this agenda, since she has taken the AIPAC road for some time now, at least since 1998, when she claimed compassion for Palestinian suffering.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
HRC'S 'shop-worn' ME paradigm has AIPAC approval

I agree...

Plus, another blogger over @ TP fished out some news coverage from Condi's last trip:

Rice Israeli settlement announcement 'unhelpful,' US says
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Rice_Israel i_settlement_announcemen_03102008.html

Basically, Clinton is using the same language of the neocons...  Her stern words weren't that ground-breaking afterall.  However, from the propaganda we're hearing from the US press you'd think she'd kicked Netanyahu in the balls.

Most of what the Israel lobby etc. is is way over my head, but I know bs when I see and hear it.  We have to keep peeling back the layers, we can't back down his time -- enough is enough.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-05 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: HRC has AIPAC approval

"Most of what the Israel lobby etc. is is way over my head."

No, it is not. Think AIPAC think Likud, then look up their agenda. AIPAC went right wing about twenty years ago, and pretty much has since supported the platform of the Zionist Organization of America, ZOA.

That they have the left wing Democratic party by the balls is very disturbing.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 07:43AM | 0 recs
whats wrong with AIPAC?

they just want to protect Israel and see to it that she never surrenders. Get it in your head: no one is going to accept most of the crazy palestinian parties, like HAMAS.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-05 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: whats wrong with AIPAC?

I believe the problem with AIPAC is that it is now a extreme right wing org that is aligned with extremist Zionists, members of ZOA and AJC.

ZOA thinks all Palestinians are terrorists and backs their transfer from Israel, a worse consequence than Blacks suffered under Apartheid in South Africa. South Africa is not a democratic country, and what a difference it has made.

Ross is a right wing Zionist who approved the colonization of the Palestinian territories under Clinton. Poor Clinton: he's done more harm to peace in the region than any other president.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: whats wrong with AIPAC?

Bill Clinton / Hillary Clinton versus Main Street... I'll take the Clintons and their ideas!  Thanks!

by mikes101 2009-03-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: whats wrong with AIPAC?

You meant to say, J Street, didn't you?

This is left wing liberal and human rights advocate org, if you aren't familiar with it.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 09:19AM | 0 recs
Good catch! n/m

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-05 09:39AM | 0 recs
So did Irgun

Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Karl Rove, wonderful reasonable people all.  

by JJE 2009-03-05 05:44PM | 0 recs
I gotta be honest here

If you were completely happy with her policy, I would worry she had gone too far. Balance will be achieved when both sides are somewhat disgruntled.

by Neef 2009-03-05 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I gotta be honest here

Not certain what you mean by "balance."

However, if it means a sovereign, continguous and independent Palestinian state, then I would say that balance is meaningful. If it means just cutting the number of house demolitions or settlement expansion, in half, then I'm not understanding your idea of balance.

by MainStreet 2009-03-05 09:23AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads