Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is in Egypt today, talking to President Obama's Muslim Brotherhood friends. Aside from promising to open America's checkbook to the Islamists, there was also this fascinating exchange:
In her earlier remarks, Secretary said this:
More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war. And on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two people with peace, security, and dignity for all.
We believe America’s shared strategic interest with Egypt far outnumber our differences.
Here's her response to a question by an Egyptian reporter on th ePalestinian Authority's 'reconciliation' withthe genocidal Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood's arm that rules Gaza and on the the treaty between Egypt and Israel, with an interesting addendum by no less than Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood foreign minister, Amr:
QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) It’s two questions. And first one concerns have – has the U.S. or yourself taken any steps to bring President Morsi and Netanyahu together, especially that some people raise the possibility of amending some of the provisions of the peace treaty? And the second question concerns the U.S. position vis-a-vis the Palestinian reconciliation efforts. And there’s an understanding that the U.S. is opposed to that and also opposed to the Palestinians turning to the United Nations. So the question is if you were in President – in the Palestinian President’s shoes, what exactly would you do with regard to this issue?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Obviously, we think it’s important for all the nations in the region to try to maintain peace and stability, especially with so many economic challenges facing the region. And we certainly support the continuation of the peace agreement, because we think, as I said, it has brought great benefits to Egypt and will continue to do so, enabling the President to focus on the economic conditions and the internal political situation here in the country.
And as to your second question, I’m in very close communication with President Abbas. I met with him last Friday in Paris. Our goal is to help bring about the two-state solution. And we know that it can only happen if there is a negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that can only happen if all Palestinians are committed to seeking a political resolution and renouncing violence.
So reconciliation is up to the Palestinians, and I commend the Egyptian Government for all the work that Egypt has done. But at the end of the day, the factions of the Palestinians themselves have to determine whether they are committed to a negotiation that will result in a state which they deserve and which the Palestinian people have every reason to expect, or whether there will be diversions and other actions that do not promote that. And I personally believe, having watched this closely now for more than 20 years, that it’s imperative there be a negotiated resolution. And I will continue to do everything I can to bring that about.
FOREIGN MINISTER AMR: (Via interpreter.) I would like to add something about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.MS. NULAND: (Inaudible) CNN, Elise Labott, please.
Read between the lines. Secretary Clinton is telling the Islamists that America supports the union of the PA and Hamas as long as they make the appropriate noises and put on a suitable front - and she's saying this when Israel is still under attack from Gaza.
And when Egyptian foreign minister Amr adds linkage between the Camp David Accords and the total fulfillment of all Palestinian demands, something that was not even mentioned in the original treaty, she doesn't even make a pretense of challenging it.
Egypt's new Islamist rulers are using this on almost a daily basis as a stock line, because they fully intend to break the treaty and need the Palestinians as an excuse to do so.
If Egypt adhering to the treaty was as important as she claimed it was in her speech, you would expect a response. But she says nothing.Because when it comes down to it, the no question that the Obama Administration would fully support Egypt breaking their treaty with Israel on that basis.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't voice those sentiments simply because it's an election year. Here's the proof of her real feelings about the matter and America's Jews, from a video of her speaking to Tunisian Islamists taken when she was a bit more off guard:
4 comments:
Quote : ' Pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital ' = suicide boundaries. It would be the equivalent of the US' having donated the Washington & Jefferson Memorials to the USSR circa AD 1947 as a peace gesture. --dragon/dinosaur
If we really desire a two state solution with two states living side by side in peace, the way to achieve this is quite simple. Cut off all aid to the Palestinians or at the very leasst, if the aid is to be continued, make it highly conditional like the aid Israel receives.
By cutting off the uncondtional aid the Palestinians receive this would place the parties on much more equal footing. Right now largely as a result of these large sums of unconditional aid the Palestinian position relative to Israel is superior. As such, the Palestinians feel no real need to negotiate in good faith. Without this aid the parties will be on much more equal footing. When this happens good faith negotiations are much more likely.
Since the aid to the Palestinians has not been cut off or made conditional like the aid Israel receives, we can conclude one of two things. 1.)People really aren't interested in a two state solution and are lying when they say they are. 2.)Policy makers are to blinded by their ideology to figure out the correct way to their goal. I think the answer is most like 2, however, the path to achieving the achieving stated goal is clear. Cut off the aid to the Palestinians or make it highly conditional like that which Israel receives.
Mrs. Clinton is not going to publically correct the Egyptian leadership even if she disagreed with them. To do so would make her the late Mrs. Clinton. In other words, they very likely would have killed her or at the very least they would have used this as a reason to cut off all cooperation with us. One does not go to another country and publically criticize its leaders. That is unless they are coming to America or perhaps Israel. Here they can publically criticize oru leaders with impunity.
Now with that said linking the peace treaty with Egypt to the Palestinian issue seems like an exceedingly dumb idea. It sets a very bad precedent. Some day someone may try to do the same thing to us. For example, at some time in the future, we may sign some sort of treaty with a country in South America based upon some type of trade agreement and they may decide to violate it based upon our border security policies along our border with Mexico. Our border security policies are irrelevant to this particular treaty as are Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians irrelevant to a peace treaty with Egypt. If we can link two divergent issues, it sets a dangerous precedent for us and for so called "international law." No treaties would be safe!!
In a saner world, nation states would be up in arms over these actions by Egypt. Alas, we don't live in a sane world. At least not when it comes to Israel or America.
Finally, given the low status of women in the Arab world, is it wise to have a woman as Secretary of State? I think not. Its not a politically correct thing to ask but unless we can start asking questions of this nature the survival of our country is going to be problematic at best.
Mrs. Clinton's response to the question posed raises alarm on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. First of all when the person asking the question brought up the notion of a very powerful "Zionist Lobby" she does nothing to correct this. The Arab lobby is far more powerful and well connected than any pro-Israel lobby. The least she could do is to correct this man's misunderstanding of the American poltical system.
Right now we are the most hated nation on earth. Fixing our image should arguably be aour top foreign policy priority. Allowing misconceptions about our political system to go uncorrected is not helpful in this regard to say the least.
Secondly, she admits she lies during election season. The problem with lying during election season is, if you lie once, how can we be sure you are not lying now. As has been said, if you see a close friend lying to someone else, know this, they can lie to you too!!
As Sec of State Mrs. Clinton is supposed to be representing America to these people. She says we lie during election season. If so, we can lie at other times to and it clearly indicates we or at least she cannot be trusted. Also, she allows the misconception of a powerful Zionist lobby to go unchallenged. As long as people don't trust us and they don't understand us, it it going to be hard to fix our relationships with other nations so we can get the assistance we need from them in areas that are important to our interests. The incompetence, arrogance, stupidity, or all of the about of our leaders is absolutely breath taking.
While it is hard to correct someon in a foreign country and it involves some risk, I do think Mrs. Clinton could have corrected the myth of a powerful Zionist lobby with tact and respect.
If she really beieves the myth of a powerful Zionist lobby, this is a huge problem in itself. Thsi means we have a very powerful American official who does not understand the Aemrican poltical system or how the world works. Unless this changes, achieving good results for our country is going to be problematic at best.
Post a Comment