Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent Middle East trip was striking, by any measure. Despite grumbling by some in the Arab media for what they derided as her "excessive caution," or claiming that she merely echoed the policies of the previous administration - some going so far as to mock her as "Condi Clinton" - her overall performance was significant and substantial.
She was constructive on many fronts: chiding Israel for it's failure to open the borders of Gaza sufficiently to facilitate the transport of relief assistance and supplies; publicly criticizing Israeli settlements as "unhelpful, and not in keeping with obligations entered into under the Roadmap;" and expressing concern with the Jerusalem municipality's plans to demolish Palestinian homes, noting that "the ramifications" of this action go "far beyond the individuals and families affected."
Clinton, of course, spoke empathetically about her commitment to a two-state solution, saying that is an "obligation" and noting that it was a "commitment" she "carried deep in my heart."
Most important, I believe, were her remarks humanizing the situation of Palestinians. In one eloquent passage, Secretary Clinton noted,
That a child growing up in Gaza without shelter, health care, or an education has the same right to go to school, see a doctor, and live with a roof over her head as a child growing up in your country or mine. That a mother and father in the West Bank struggling to fulfill their dreams for their children have the same right as parents anywhere else in the world to a good job, a decent home, and the tools to achieve greater prosperity and peace. That progress toward the goals we seek here today is more likely to grow out of opportunity, than futility; out of hope, than out of misery.
Some Arab critics, of course, ignored all of this, noting only that the secretary of state spoke of America's "unwavering support for Israel's security," was harsh in her criticism of Iran, and tough on Hamas.
I am tempted to dismiss these critics out of hand. Every American leader will express support for Israel's security (but Clinton and President Obama emphasize that a Palestinian state is critical to Israel's long-term security). I would also note that Iran's predictably bizarre and provocative behavior (their faux "human rights conference," continued incitement and aggressive bluster), and Hamas' irresponsible stubbornness and insensitivity to the consequences of their failed leadership, make both deserving of the rebukes they received.
But even with regard to these regional "bad boys," one cannot fail to observe that current U.S. policy is providing opportunities for constructive engagement. Secretary Clinton, in her remarks, obliquely, but nonetheless clearly, praised President Mubarak's efforts to heal the Palestinian divide. Under the previous administration, Palestinian efforts to reach a reconciliation accord that creatively addressed Quartet conditions were sabotaged by both U.S. and Israeli intransigence. President Obama, Senator Mitchell and Secretary Clinton have indicated that they would be more open to recognizing and working with a Palestinian national unity government committed to peacemaking.
This prospect alone, and with it, the likelihood of reconstruction aid flowing into Gaza and the West Bank, should serve as an incentive for Palestinian reconciliation.
How much of a corner Secretary of Clinton turned can be seen in the reaction of other critics of her performance. Extremists in Iran were bellicose, the mayor of Jerusalem was incensed, hard-liners in the American Jewish community were shocked (saying they wanted "the old Hillary Clinton back"), and obstructionists among the Republicans in the Senate have put forward initiatives designed to not only send a warning shot at the Obama administration's Middle East efforts, but to sabotage the administration's 2010 budget appropriation, as well.
Digging ourselves out of the deep hole dug during the past eight years will not be easy. Political realities here in the U.S. and on all sides in the Middle East will require that peacemakers confront real problems and ingrained bad behavior. The process will be slow and, of necessity, require incremental movement and careful management. During this period, substantive and constructive criticism has a role in pushing the effort forward, but not uninformed grousing.
In this regard, it should be acknowledged that Secretary of State Clinton made a contribution to moving peace forward. She set firm markers, not just for the Palestinians, but for Israeli behavior, and in doing so, set the state for continuing efforts by Special Envoy Mitchell to end the deadly impasse. Again, progress won't come quickly, but the steps being taken are in the right direction.
The key word here – one that we will be hearing a lot of in the coming weeks and months – is “conditionalities.”
Excerpts from the interview:
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are friends, but even friends don’t agree on everything. We have a very constructive relationship. I had wonderful meetings today with (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak), with the prime minister, with the foreign minister and other ministers of your government.
And we also want to take our relationship to the next level. We discussed today at breakfast with President Mubarak creating a formal bilateral dialog that would be meaningful and cover the range of issues that we have concerns about.
QUESTION: With no conditionalities?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are very much looking at this because the conditionality is something that is not our policy, not the Obama Administration policy. So we will be discussing everything.
For more, please go to: http://www.examiner.com/x-2292-Chicago-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m3d7-israel-2
http://www.counterpunch.org/weir03152005.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/16/family_of_rachel_corrie_sues_israeli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
And while we're at it, let's remember the attack on the USS Liberty, and the 34 American sailors who were killed by numerous, hours-long attacks by both Is raeli planes and attack boats. This attack, like the killing of Rachel Corrie, shows how the Israeli military and occupation operate; imagine if you were a Palestinian. We will not be silenced!
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/wlmcgon.htm
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ussliberty.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
The attack on the Liberty was also a mistake, primarily the fault of the Israeli Navy and the IDA. The Israeli government had requested to the US to move all of its ships outside the war zone, but the US left the Liberty nearby in international waters. The mistaken identity led to a prolonged attack, but as soon as the IDF realized the mistake the attack stopped and notified the US. The Israeli government paid compensation to the dead and injured sailors on board the Liberty and apologized to the US and to the families of all of the sailors.
The USS Liberty was in international waters and clearly marked as a US ship - it had been overflown several times by the Israeli air force before the attack. Nice of the Israelis to pay compensation - considering how much money we give them, its sort of being paid back with your own money.
While you are explaining accidents, please explain the Jonathan Pollard accident and the Israeli air force officer that handled him and others that spied on America?
Pick the only one to have any possibility of actual existence:
1) Two State Solution
2) Peace Process
3) Easter Bunny
The correct answer is 3.
Unhelpful are all her awkward statements in front of the EU. Criminal is what bulldozing homes and stealing land amounts to.
Does everyone remember Karen Hughes' attempts at repairing America's image abroad? That was such a tragic failure - yet another failure because, once again reflective of the then administration, she sought to bully the world "love us or else".
In one brief trip, one person, Secretary Clinton, has managed to achieve positive results in contrast to the disastrous years of the Rice-Hughes sad, sad, pathetic disasters.
Israel warned Hamas, the cowards ruling Gaza, to stop the rocket attacks or suffer the consequences. The attacks continued. The Israeli governent sent in the IDF to stop the attacks. Members of Hamas hid among innocent civilians, fired on the IDF from emplacements among civilians, and the IDF responded to the attacks. It is clearly the fault of Hamas that any civilians were injured.
If Hamas had not started the fight the IDF would not have been obligated to try to stop the fight. Complaints about the IDF are misplaced and odd. If you get in the ring with Shane Moseley you shouldn't be surprised if you get hit really hard.
Americans to promote a much broader foreign policy. Both the EU & China are promoting non-military based foreign policies that are making hugely successful inroads in many parts of the world in contrast to what we & Israel have been doing with military intimidation & killing of civilians. (Parag Khanna's The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order 2008). I think Hillary's appearance on Turkish TV is indicative of smarter policy & showing the world we have more than one fish to fry. Keep up the good work on your Viewpoint program on Link TV satellite.
Secondly, when you say "Arabs" you mean Iraq. Iraq is something we broke; and have a responsibility to fix just as Israelhas a responsibility to fix what it breaks.
Both sides are guilty of terror.
In terms of David and Goliath, David represents the Palestinians.
I'm with you on the Israeli aid, though.
And Israel can take care of itself!
Blaming Egypt or Saudi Arabia or any other random country for the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank is simply beyond ridiculous
As for lies - go read some of the text books in Israeli schools that demonise and dehumanise Arabs - and say nothing about Palestine pre'48.
And I would love to know just how the Palestinians might slay Israel - an increasigly militaristic state that has a nuclear arsenal to boot.
Common sense - get a grip - more like fantasy.