In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Clinton boils it all down to one paragraph:
Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.
Martin Kramer takes this apart in detail, but some things in particular stand out:
There is no mention of terrorism--the issue is to "lower the level of violence." Not eliminate the rockets fired at Israeli citizens; just lower the violence--even then, it is not clear is she is referring to Palestinian 'violence' or overall violence in the Middle East.
According to Clinton, the Palestinian Arabs get a state. What does Israel get? She gets: 'a declaration', 'recognition', 'guarantees', 'diplomatic recognition', and 'normalization'. Clinton does not take a stand that the terrorism--which she does not mention anyway--will stop. Israel gets words; Palestinian Arabs get themselves a brand new country.
Even among the words, the guarantees, recognition, and declarations--Kramer points out that something is left out:
The Palestinians insist that they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because this effectively negates their "right of return." Hillary herself, in a statement made in September, said she personally "believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state... must never be questioned." Yet Hillary's formula in the Foreign Affairs piece invites the Palestinians to do just that, asking them simply to "recognize Israel's right to exist."
A Palestinian can only read this as an invitation to hold firm to the bogus "right of return" (and hold out against the Bush-Rice diplomatic surge in anticipation of a Hillary administration).
The New York Sun has an article about Hillary's statement--good thing too. If you look for it on
Hillary Clinton's site, you can't find it. If you go to "issues" or "press releases" and search for 'Israel': nothing comes up. And don't even think of doing a search of her site--there is no such option. After all, no point in taking a stand and being held responsible for it.
According to September article in the New York Sun:
Last Tuesday, prior to the start of the Jewish High Holiday season, Mrs. Clinton's campaign circulated a paper articulating her support for Israel. Headlined "Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.- Israel Relationship," the statement addressed Mrs. Clinton's positions on Israel's fight against terrorism, the threat of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned," the paper states. [emphasis added]
Besides supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which implies rejecting the Palestinian Arab right of return, Clinton also supports an undivided Jerusalem--of course she can afford to commit to that, seeing as how Olmert and friends have expressed their readiness to divide Jerusalem.
It should be obvious, but what a former director of AIPAC is quoted as saying bears repeating--presidential candidates will say anything for votes:
Morrie Amitay — who is a former director of Aipac, a Washington lawyer, and a pro- Israel activist — cautioned against reading too much into Mrs. Clinton's statement. "What a candidate says before they're elected is fairly meaningless. She's become a friend of Israel only recently. You do not know what she really believes," Mr. Amitay said. [emphasis added]
The fact remains, as Martin Kramer makes clear, putting aside how candidates do not necessarily do what they promise once elected--what Clinton says in her Foreign Policy article does not jive with her statement to the Jewish community in September.
Read Martin Kramer's
Hillary: Triangulation on Israel?[Hat tip:
Powerline]
Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.