Tweet
When Secretary of State Clinton called on Israel to ease the blockade on Gaza last week, I was hopeful – perhaps we would begin to see a more even-handed approach if not an outright recognition of the criminality of Israel’s attack on Gaza and continuing siege.
Unfortunately, on her trip to the region, Clinton has reverted to more familiar messages. Meeting with Shimon Peres, she said:
"There is no doubt that any nation, including Israel, cannot stand idly by while its territory and people are subjected to rocket attacks.”
Yet there is no report of her commenting on the horror of Israel’s actions in Gaza where the population has been left living in tents, in torrential rains and hoping enough food gets through the blockade each day simply to keep them alive. Nor was there any equivalent comment on Israel’s continuing air strikes on Gaza.
Particularly interesting is the Secretary of State’s comment that:
the Obama administration would would work with "any government which represents the democratic will of the people."
Apparently such support for democratic will only applies when we like the outcome since SOS Clinton also said that:
“In the absence of Hamas agreeing to the principles that have been adopted by such a broad range of international actors, I don’t see that we or they — or anyone — could deal with Hamas," Clinton said in an interview with CNN…
Asked by CNN whether that means a public announcement by Hamas, the secretary said, "Well, the PLO did that, and I think no less can be expected of Hamas which is, obviously, not only a terrorist group but is increasingly a client of Iran."
(Clinton’s comments throughout the trip on Iran have not been promising but are certainly reassuring to the Israeli hawks who keep pushing for a military attack. And Israel’s latest comments should have been met with a very different response as Steve Clemons notes in his must-read “Israel is Crossing the Line")
Clinton repeated her outline of the positions Hamas must support:
“Renounce violence, recognize Israel and agree to abide by prior PLO commitments."
Which leads me to wonder once again when we will ask Israel to do the same.
Clinton did announce $900 million in aid to Palestinians yesterday at the Egyptian donors conference but it’s important to note that 2/3 will be given to the PLO to support their government while only 1/3 will be dedicated to rebuilding Gaza.
As Amira Hass points out in Ha’aretz:
The $900 million pledged to the Palestinians in Sharm el-Sheikh should be seen as part of the regular American aid to Israel. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to assure the well-being of the population under its control. But Israel is harming it instead, after which the United States (like other countries) rushes to compensate for the damage.
We’ll have to see what Secretary Clinton says today during her visits to the West Bank – but I’m not holding my breath.
Photo, used with permission by Sameh Habeeb whose PalestinianTelegragh, a new online newspaper from Gaza, will be launching soon. His recent photos can be viewed here.
60 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
zed
Sad.
I think that the admin sending a signal this early that it’s focused on the issue will be helpful. THey’re not signalling that this is the last problem to be solved, at end-of-term, as it has been for past presidencies… they’re forming an attitude toward the middle east in the first months of the Obama presidency. If Carter and Clinton I was any precedent, this is probably a good thing.
No US official is going to say critical things about Israel in public. It’s political suicide. What matters is the message they deliver in private. Foreign affairs are conducted behind closed doors- except for Bushies who love to do em on Fox News.
shrub foreign policy was effectively written by the producers of “24″
I’m a hopeless optimist and knowing that Hillary, Mitchell, Bill & Carter will be part of this process, along with Obama & Biden makes me think we’re heading for a 2- state deal.
That is, unless the NeoCons here and abroad scuttle the 2- state deal in order to perpetuate a never- ending conflict.
Kerry & Hillary were pretty ticked off at Israel last week.
OT (but on the general topic of US foreign policy): the neocons strike back
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.co…..us_primacy
“Obama’s defense budget sacrifices U.S. primacy”
they need to shut up and crawl back into whatever hole they emerged from 9 years ago…
i’m confused. if bush’s sos had done and said the things clinton has, would we see it as a sign of change or more of the same?
SoS Clinton, speaking for the administration, was clear in calling for Israel to change policy.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/d…..;nid=18307
This is an example of that message and should serve in showing you that the message was received in Israel.
I agree that the US government must should being an apologist for Israel, but I get the sense that you think we should start being an apologist for Hamas, and that is certainly ill-considered.
yeah.. to be clear, I don’t think this is more of the same at all… we haven’t seen anything like this level of assertiveness and interest on the part of US foreign poilcy, so early on, in a long while, and I for one welcome it. I don’t know whether or not I agree with all of Obama’s views on foreign policy.. I’m quite sure I don’t, but Clinton is definitely taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. And macaquerman is right too: the signals from the administration and Clinton toward Israel have been as clear as they have been in my memory.
That will never happen. Since 2002, in every crisis, it’s been clear that the Israelis have a veto over our foreign policy, and their utterances acknowledging that (Ravid, Olmert) have become more and more brazen. The only check they’ve suffered in that time was the ISG and the ascension of Gates. We’ll now be seeing that even without Cheney et al we have no say in what they do and who they bomb. The rhetoric of our paper statesmen will reflect that to conceal the ignominy of it all.
I remember Bush was “ticked off” at the Israelis when they invaded the West Bank in 2002. He very quickly got with the program.
Israel is set to have a government headed by the fascist Netanyahu and the uber-fascist Lieberman. The chances of having a peace process are effectively zero. The most likely scenario is that Netanyahu will demand a high price for any “concessions” he makes. Whatever these are they will be small and highly conditioned. He will then take the aid and proceed to renege on the deal.
Humanitarian aid is nice but it already looks like this is a place where Israel will drag its feet and seek to blackmail and distract the Obama Administration from any larger moves in a peace process. I should also point out that Clinton is talking about the two state solution as bein inevitable which is a pretty strong indicator of how out of touch she and American policy are with regard to the realities on the ground. Israel some years ago in its pursuit of an apartheid like policy of containment and bantustanning the Palestinian population has effectively eliminated the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
So bottomline: The Clinton/Obama policy toward Israel-Palestine will have a different feel from the Bush policy but is not going to succeed, divorced as it is from the economic, demographic, and political reality of Israel-Palestine.
You’re equating being an advocate for the Palestinians with being “an apologist for Hamas”. Whatever you call it, they elected Hamas, which many in the U.S. — perhaps yourself — have taken as a convenient excuse to condemn to incremental starvation and ethnic cleansing. Avoid self righteous demonization of Hamas and ask yourself whether being an “apologist” for them would really be worse than being an apologist for the state that gave us Jenin 2002, Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009.
Maybe she’s just being polite. “Look on the sunnyside always on the sunnyside.’
Replace “condemn” with “condemn them”.
I think its also important to understand that Hamas in some respects, is a product of Israeli actions. The Israeli security apparatus helped aid Hamas and turned it into an effective organization as a counterpart to the much-more-troublesome PLO of the time, only decades ago. Hamas is blowback.
Come to Saturday’s book salon to see just how much Israel created Hamas.
Also, remember it’s not just AIPAC. U.S. CIA is in complete disarray and must relay on Mossad for ME intelligence.
Yes. It’s also important to understand that they’re the party the Palestinians elected and that therefore reflexively dismissing Hamas is dismissing those people (a desired outcome, really, for the Israelis). It’s even more important to understand the legitimate grievances the Palestinians, and by extension, Hamas have: they’re being starved out, for one.
Your comment is well-intentioned, but it echoes a certain subtle propaganda dinned into our heads about groups like Hamas or Hezbollah: they’re immutable, eternally hostile by definition to the existence of the Israeli state, and therefore cannot and must not be negotiated with. When you’re the most powerful country in the world, or even your region, you can afford to negotiate with anyone.
Kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, I think.
I don’t know about the current competence of Mossad, but I’m an expert (*g*) on the CIA, having just finished reading Legacy of Ashes. However, I’ll opine on the basis of some bits & pieces I’ve picked up from the ethers, that it could well be that Mossad is a shadow of its former self.
I’m not an expert, either, obviously. I was suggesting the point that neoconservatives, whom I consider agents of Israeli influence (whether by opportunism or conviction), have worked to subvert our intelligence services.
Petrocelli?
I’m far from an apologist for Israel. For one thing, I’m not a Zionist.
I don’t support very many of the actions of the Israeli government.
I certainly don’t support killing, starvation, and the continual theft of land and water.
But where do you get the idea that wanting an end to the misery of the Palestinians means that you have to agree with the absurd tactics and anti-democratic practices of Hamas?
If two guys are fighting and one is wrong, does that automatically mean the other is right?
Christy’s new post: Open Questions: Truth Commissions, Accountability And Immunity
Yo !
Points taken. My apologies for misstating your point of view. But here’s my point: I think the unreflective condemnation of Hamas provides an excuse for mistreating the people by whom they were elected. In fact, some amount of “apologizing” for Hamas is in order: to wit, put their rocket attacks in the context of a blockade that is not some mere military demonstration, but which actually prevents the population from eating.
Because you have to negotiate with the legitimate representatives of that people. You’re knocking down a straw man when you call that “agreeing” with them, as if there weren’t individual points of agreement and disagreement.
That was a nicely put question. I can’t answer it. But if two guys are fighting and one is wrong, while the other, wrong or not, has both hands tied behind his back, I’d say you intervene to stop the actions of the former.
I meant to answer you earlier. Thanks for your interest and support. I kind of left it in others’ hands after they communicated there might be an interest in my little drama. When they didn’t follow up, I dropped it; I didn’t really see the point of initiating contact out of the blue by myself (and I couldn’t even find the contact info).
E-mail KO and Rachel at msnbc … if you can’t find their e-mails, let me know and I’ll get them for you later.
This is too important to let go … and if other citizens like you speak up, this could build into pressuring Holder to place a Special Prosecutor in charge of this matter. In other words, continued exposure will bring this to the front burner.
I thank you for the generosity in your reply.
First thing is definitely to stop the fight and restrain the bully.
But if you don’t want the fight to restart, you can’t be part of the usual crap of “hooray for our side”
I’m all for negotiating with anybody that can see that people have to be allowed to live decent lives.
Did emptywheel mention it to you? I got the impression from your comment on my thread that one of the biggies here already had the idea.
Thank you for the generosity in your reply to my reply. Another reason I am, to be frank, an “apologist” for Hamas, is that I believe they and the people of whom they are representives want the fight to end (would you want to be on the receiving end of U.S./Israeli ordnance, or or Arabs just implacably and inhumanly indifferent to suffering), or at least want a truce, whereas the Israelis are in such a strong position and have so much to gain (more land, destruction of Palestinian civil society, and therefore any future state that might obstruct expansion) that they are interested in pressing their advantage against the feeble resistance they face.
No, no one has spoken to me about it. I just think it would be a great story to get out, without the MSM spewing lies about some “angry man” cursing poor, old, innocent St. Rummy.
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
Rachel has a Facebook Page but I can’t find her msnbc e-mail right now.
Send it in with the subject/title: “From the Citizen who confronted Rumsfeld at the Bus Stop”. Additionally, I would recommend you cobbling together the talking points that others suggested to you and raise those issues in your correspondence.
Good Luck and keep us posted. If you are asked to be on KO or Rachel, I’m sure you’ll find a few friends here to help get the main talking points for your interview.
Rachel Maddow’s e-mail – rachel@msnbc.com
New post—>
hey, Siun, did I just hear the BBC report that Clinton is calling out Israel on it’s West Bank expansion?
Here’s the link …
Thanks.
You don’t think Siun actually was holding her breath, do you?
Breathe, Siun, breathe!
LOL … it is good to see the new admin. take a tone based on mutual respect.
At the end of the day, what will matter is how the children are affected and that will decide if we have more peace or war in the future.
WashingtonDC evidently will continue to dig a bigger,deeper hole alongside Israel. As Noam Chomsky has written it is what President Obama and his SOS Clinton are not saying,not doing or not changing that is the primary position again in American/Israeli affairs.
SOS Clinton again is voicing standard WashingtonDC boilerplate about how the Palestinians must denounce violence,terror and knuckle under to Israel.
Yet SOS Clinton does not speak out against Israel’s occupation and the many illegal,immoral and criminal acts to be found in this occupation by Israel and in turn Israel’s American backers.
Evidently no profiles in courage will be coming from President Obama or SOS Clinton regarding any truly real change in American/Israeli affairs.
More of the same truly very ignorant and shortsighted WashingtonDC policy for Israel Triumphant and a crushed,pathetically ruined Palestine.
Gaza? Where is any WashingtonDC outrage or condemnation of what Israel has done in Gaza with American provided weaponry/funding that fully constitutes war crimes and terrible,terrible abuses of innocent humans who are not able to undo what Israel seeks to destroy.
Israel is wrong about and over Gaza. Killing Gaza innocents and children by IDF and IAF because Israel does not like Hamas is wretched Israeli conduct.
Thus far President Obama has not displayed any political decency or moral decency regarding what Israel has now done,does or still is doing in Gaza to Gazan innocents,children who have nothing to do with Hamas.
Thus far SOS Clinton has not displayed any political decency or moral decency regarding what Israel has now done in Gaza to Gazans.
No profiles in courage or decency to be found in these two Americans with regards to putting Israel on notice regarding brutal,bloodthirsty conduct in recent Israeli attack on Gaza.
No greatness of character to be found.
More of the same wretched American blindness,not moral or ethical based policy. More of a failure to do what is right. To be and do what is decent.
Shame on President Obama and SOS Clinton.
The political,moral and ethical cowardice now endorsed by President Obama and SOS Clinton gives them both no credibility in bringing about any real change for Palestine or putting Israel on a decency diet of any sort.
I’m unsure what cowardice that you think that Obama and Clinton have endorsed.
Have you been following Clinton’s remarks? and what would you have her say?
I was sorely tempted to reply but thought it a waste of my time …
I’ve said so many things that sound so silly or offensive that I owe the effort.
Did Clinton sabotage a Palestinian reconciliation?
For what it’s worth, the link is to an opinion piece that is very slanted in interpreting what Clinton has said, done and meant.
Every time they mention what she said, they twist her statements to meant something different and objectionable.
It’s flat wrong and likely deliberately so.
What indeed did SOS Clinton have to say about Israel’s little dirty war in Gaza?
Did SOS Clinton denounce Israel for what it did in and to Gazans?
Did she draw some boxes around IAF use of American provided weaponry to kill innocent Gazans who had nothing to do with Hamas? IAF killing Gazan children is connected to Israels bully war against Hamas how again?
Did SOS Clinton condemn Israel for numerous known examples of brutal and war criminal conduct in Gaza?
If SOS Clinton did–where and when while she was in ME these past days?
SOS Clinton speaks for President Obama and for all Americans when she is out and about on these “State Visits”.
She may have spoke for President Obama who not yet has condemned Israel for what has taken place in Gaza.
She is not speaking for all Americans.
Many Americans are fully not in favor of Israel getting all these free passes from WashingtonDC. Many Americans do not support Israel’s brutal and most often illegal occupation of West Bank or this truly lie based Israeli conduct regarding Israel having “left” Gaza.
You are unsure? About what cowardice? What SOS Clinton are you following?
I’m folowing the Clinton who is the chief diplomatic officer of the US. The one who publicly called for the Israelis to dismantle the blockade.
The one who publicly described the West Bank land grab as an obsticle to peace.
you’ve made a serious accusation. can you back up?
imo ali abunimah is one of the most principled and accurate commentators on the subject – and has been for the years i’ve been reading him.
Which was not an act of poltical courage.
Not an adequately stated diplomatic “game change” signal from last 8 years.
No profiles in courage thus far from President Obama or SOS Clinton in taking on AIPAC in WashingtonDC or the Israeil zealot death dealers in Tel Aviv.
This is called cowardice.
Two things come quickly to mind.
1) the author says that by calling on Hamas to “renounce violence” that dhe is telling them that they have no right to self-defense.
No one said that or would ever say that. This is painting Clinton in the worst possible light.
2) The author says that Clinton, by asking Hamas to say that Israel has a right to exist, is saying that Clinton means that Hamas must accept whatever borders Israel might claim.
She says no such thing and no US SoS has ever done so. All of them have referred to negotiating within the UN framework for borders.
Those popped out at me. The overall tone, saying that any breakdown in talks should be laid at her feet, is grossly unfair.
The reconciliation talks have been going on for long and have broken down again and again over deep disagreements within the Palestinians. Many good folks in the Arabic ME have been trying to help, and even though the US favors Faah in the talks, we’ve made clear that we wish them to prouce a mend.
Interesting idea. Would Israel renounce violence and recognize a country which behaves the way Israel has been acting?
Does Israel even recognize Israel, in the sense that they know where it’s borders are and is willing to stay within them?
Would any other country accept their neighbor expanding with “natural growth” the way Israel does? Do you think Russia would be okay with Ukraine or China having ‘natural growth’ that creates settlements in Russia?
” “We want humanitarian aid to get into Gaza in sufficient amounts to alleviate the suffering of the people,” Clinton said, but stopped short of calling for a full opening of the crossings.
Last week, Haaretz reported that U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell had complained about Israel’s policy of limiting goods sent into Gaza, saying it was “unacceptable to the U.S.”
Many other diplomats, including the Norwegian Foreign Minister and a number of counterparts from the European Union, also urged Israel to drop the measure.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068813.html
The video is at the link.
********
” An Israeli creator of the Oscar-nominated “Waltz with Bashir” released a short film Wednesday about the effects of his country’s Gaza blockade on Palestinians.
Yoni Goodman said he hoped the 90-second animated film, “Closed Zone,” would draw attention to the plight of Gaza’s civilians. “
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..71859.html
SOS Clinton has now stated and declared WashingtonDC will continue to disregard Hamas in Gaza as not being “legitimate” but confers full American support upon PA in West Bank which plainly is the position Israel seeks being the PA is little more than a thinly veiled Israeli puppet.
If President Obama sent SOS Clinton to Israel to put the brakes to what Israel is doing in West Bank regarding land grabs and zoning Palestinians into Israeli run corrals. Or what Israel is doing in Gaza in order to smother Hamas and cut off any meaningful political alternative for Palestinians no matter who presents them SOS Clinton has not betrayed any such intent.
Israel’s game is to grab land and resources in West Bank and obliterate any Gazan alternative to Israel’s West Bank puppet PA and reinstall PA back into Gaza via Israeli imposed and American sanctioned violence,mayhem and death dealing. Gazan democracy and elections that produce a Hamas led governance or any other version that Israel cannont put Israeli puppet strings on will be unplugged and crushed by WashingtonDC and Israel.
President Obama and SOS Clinton are not the friends of innocent Gazans and the children of Gaza. To suggest otherwise is a lie and falsehood. Did SOS Clinton go and see Gaza for herself or visit any of the many who now suffer in Gaza at the hand of Israel? She did not. Hillary Clinton is a moral coward and a political coward for not having done so.
After giving Israel the same message WashingtonDC has been sending Israel pretty much for past 20 years SOS Clinton flew on to Brussels where she attacked Iran and parroted standard American anti-Iranian propaganda.It is certain TelAviv was pleased and surely Gaza will be getting some more hammer blows courtesy of IDF and IAF in coming weeks. It is all pathetic.
SOS Clinton thus displaying little in way of anything having been reset or rethought from what WashingtonDC has been offering Israel or Palestine anytime during past 20 years.
President Obama will let Israel suffocate any viable,truly independent Arab Palestine nationhood and any claim on his part that things are going to be different is a lie.
Liars tell lies and President Obama is proving himself to be a liar.
SOS Clinton has not said or done anything that former SOS Rice could not have easily walked through with an American SOS’s visit to ME/Brussels.
President Obamas much talked about “change” more and more becomes hollow and just one more cheaply mounted scenery change and little more once again regarding WashingtonDC’s dealings with Israel.
Shame? There is none. Mercy or compassion for Gaza’s children? None.
Strong stuff. Do you also do football picks?
Less than six weeks in, and it is over? Amazing.
who is speaking at the salon?
The denial of Israel’s behavior in the Gazan slaughter and/or Israel’s intimidation of its and US citizens to ignore and/or minimize the atrocity it committed bottlenecks all possibility for social, moral, legal recovery in the US as well as Israel. It will all be Kabuki until the truth is verbalized and amends made and apartheid, or even, slow genocide ended.
We all have a responsibility to protest.
This paradigm shift to reality and humanitarianism would give the Obama administration a grace-filled empowering momentum to the only healthy path of “change”. Would bring us and the world hope and will to exit the lying and killing fields to partnership societies.
But Obama and co. will have to make a seriously hard left and he has to be a statesman and leave off the gamesmanship.
Obama, dissolve this Gordian knot so easily and morally. Honor the truth. Stand up to Israeli lobby pressure. Be a stand-up man.
I say this prayer with a mustard seed amount of hope. A prayer worth praying, though.
Both President Obama and SOS Clinton within the first two weeks after Jan.20,2009 had a very real responsibility to fully condemn Israel for what Israel did to Gaza and the Gazans in late Dec.2008 and early Jan.2009.
There was no better time to fully and forcefully condemn Israel for the barbaric,ruthless and brazenly war criminal conduct of IDF and IAF in Gaza. In particular in view of the width and depth of evidence emerging that unarmed Gazan civilians and children were killed by IDF/IAF with American provided weaponry and ammo. There are laws about and against this conduct.
President Obama did not condemn Israel over the Gaza attack and lopsided Israeli use of lethal means to kill and inflict gross human suffering.
President Obama still has not condemned Israel six weeks later.
SOS Clinton surely could have fully framed Israel’s attack on Gaza during past two days in ways the entire world could have and would have seen as a full and firm pushback from WashingtonDC to Israels conduct in Gaza.
SOS Clinton did not.
Both President Obama and SOS Clinton came into this with plenty of time to have formed accurate and well balanced viewpoints. The process of “discovery” hardly required by either Obama or Clinton.
Words are words. Actions are actions. The record of words spoken and actions taken regarding Israel and Palestine reaches back decades coming out of WashingtonDC. President Obama appears content to not break the pattern of those words and actions. Morally such a position after the evidence coming out of Gaza of ruthless IDF/IAF conduct is that of a moral coward and a political coward. What is President Obams afraid of or waiting for? When would the “right” time then be for him to declare a moral indictment of Israeli conduct in Gaza and condemn it. When?
American backing of Israels illegal and brutal occupation of West Bank and Gaza has a long,knowable history. It reaches back to 1967. At http://www.Zmag.org on Znet site found there is an entire section devoted just to Gaza where several pieces by Noam Chomsky can be found and read. Chomsky powerfully lays out truth after truth,historical chapter after historical chapter regarding Israel and United States and Palestine. It is worthy of a read.
Also today at http://www.juancole.com Juan Cole expresses a viewpoint that will not be heard on American cable news today at CNN or MSNBC.
Have I been harsh or reached a conclusion in haste? In light of SOS Clinton’s set of words spoken and actions taken over past two days? No.
President Obama sent SOS Clinton to Israel to say and do what she did.
She did not condemn Israel ove Gaza. She did not go to Gaza. She indicted herself and President Obama for political,moral and ethical cowardice.
It is now done. Cannot be undone. Very likely will not be undone.
It should not surprize if Gaza within a few days or weeks is attacked again by Israel even more ruthlessly. WashingtonDC did not stop Israel.
“Words are words. Actions are actions.”
You said this, and I would suggest to you that everyone who has been replying to you here has been trying to get you to understand just that exact thing.
I would venture to say that we all agree with you about the horror of Israel’s actions in Gaza, but think that having conditions change is what counts. Making statements of outrage concerning things that happened during the previous administration is less important than seeing that they do not happen again.
Wait a while, see what happens.
hang in there. i agree re clinton’s actions so far. the facts speak for themselves and wishful thinking or calls to “wait and see” without taking into account the historical are frustrating because we’ve been hearing the same kind of thing for years and it wears thin after a while.
the facts could change and i hope they will. but until they do it doesn’t help anyone to pretend otherwise.