Hillary Clinton Sends Mixed Signals On Israel

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on an international swing through Israel and the Arab Block and she's leaving many people confused and frustrated by her inconsistent remarks. One thing is for certain, there is no sniper fire.

The confusion comes over US-Israeli relations and what exactly the Obama Administration's policy towards the Palestinian territories and illegal Israeli settlements therein is.

Officially, the position of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations has been that the settlements are a violation of the 4th Geneva Conventions (which Israel legitimately and independently ratified) and that those settlements' expansion is a deterrent to peace, therefore, Israel should halt the expansion of its illegal settlements immediately. Of course, this hasn't exactly been advertised until President Obama took office. So what happened that has people confused and frustrated?

During a combined press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night, Secretary Clinton praised Israel for slowing the expansion of the settlements. That might not seem confusing at face value, but imagine it was your relatives living in the occupied territories who had their farmland and homes bulldozed so that a settlement could be built; or that they were denied access to clean water and electricity so it could go to the settlements first; or that they were further restricted in travel because the occupiers laid another "Jew-Only" road. In a way, it's like President Clinton praising the Chinese for slowing down their brutality against the Tibetans since 1960 or President Bush praising Sudan for slowing down the pace of the genocide.

Secretary Clinton has unfortunately stepped on a landmine with this. Her goal was to send "positive reinforcement" in Netanyahu's direction for curbing the growth of the settlements, which is ultimately makes the bad behavior "less bad." To use another analogy, imagine a guy getting arrested for killing his wife but he makes bail. While out on bond, he robs a liquor store. Now, what is Nancy Grace or Judge Judy going to say? Are they going to praise the guy for not killing the store owner like he killed his wife? Probably not... although his crime was ultimately less violent, it was still violent and highly illegal. Well, people are frustrated because Hillary Clinton has praised the murderer who robbed the liquor store.

Simultaneously, they're confused because the United States is praising Israel for their settlement policy when the settlements are still growing and thus praising Israel as they violate the Geneva Conventions and intentionally act against stated US International Policy. Did our policy change or does Secretary Clinton just have idiots working on her prepared statements?

Personally, I suspect we're dealing with idiots working under Secretary Clinton. I think she needs her own "peregruzka" button that will allow her to hire a new, qualified, and competent staff.

Archived Comments

daltonsbriefs
A hypothetical:
The United States probably signed that same convention right? What if a group of Hopi Indians tried to start forming their own county in Arizona? What if they said they were there first and demanded that the United States move all American citizens out of Arizona?
I realize that "what if's" aren't a great way to argue, but if I'm Israel I'm settling as much of King David's territory as possible ... the settlers basically are pioneers living much the same as our own settlers in the old west did when we bought the region but had no ability to control or defend it.

Kevin Tracy
Actually, the Lakota in the Dakotas have a more legitimate claim because, contractually, the United States violated terms and thus surrender control of that territory.
The difference between the Palestinians and Native Americans is really in timing. The Native Americans were overrun well before the signing of the Geneva Conventions and the international community recognizes the legitimacy of the United States in our territories. The Geneva Conventions actually ban acts of colonialism and conquest, so if - for some crazy reason - a new continent were discovered, we would not be able to walk all over the indigenous population the way Europe did over the American Indians.
What's more, the Palestinians had internationally recognized territory that was temporarily administered by the Jordanians and Egyptians prior to 1967. When you look at a map and see the West Bank and Gaza Strip, these are the internationally recognized borders from before the 1967 war. In 1967, Israel invaded these territories, kicked the Egyptians and Jordanians out, and occupies them to this day. Native Americans never had the borders the international community ever really recognized and accepted... perhaps a better analogy in history would be the European Colonization of India and China.

Travis Gearhart
Also, the Native Americans (and correct me if I'm wrong) weren't an organized society. Really, weren't they a bunch of separate tribes, many hunters and gatherers, therefore not really the claims to land that the Palestinians did?

Kevin Tracy
The native population of the Americas weren't organized in a sense that Europeans of the time could appreciate, but particularly in areas conquered by the Spanish, there were entire civilized empires and societies with large cities and vast networks of trade that saw goods exchanged from all parts of the two continents. In fact, artifacts from Canadian tribes have been found across South America.