Comments on: Clinton to State? Is Mid-East Peace Back On The Table?

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:09:31 +0000

Thanks Diane
“. I think it’s very difficult for Americans to get away from the idea that the US has been an honest broker between an Israel that has been striving to end the occupation, and the Palestinians who are just a bunch of terrorists. I think from the perspective of much of the rest of the world, however, Israel looks as if it has been using the peace process to take by force what it can’t get through negotiations, and US has been giving it diplomatic cover to do this, because it mistakenly believed its global hegemony and Israel’s regional hegemony would carry the day. It is only now, as the limits of military dominance become clear, that Israel and the US are scrambling aboard the peace train, as they see that this as the only way for them to salvage any of their own strategic interests from a situation they once thought they dominated but which has rapidly gone pear-shaped.”

Americans need to read more about this issue. Especially from other perspectives not shared by our MSM

————————————————————————-

Have asked many International students from that part of the world how quickly the anger and hatred towards the U.S. would be reduced if the U.S. really started acting as an honest broker in that conflict. The answer over and over again “immediately”

I also ask these students which President is most respected in those parts of the world when it comes to resolving this conflict. A resounding response… Former President Jimmy Carter.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:36:05 +0000

Peace

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:19:22 +0000

The “revisionist history” around those negotiations were endlessly repeated and pervasive in our media. According to our media the failure of those negotiations all “Arafat’s fault” Former President Jimmy Carter and others have written that Barak had not signed the agreement either and then Arafat was hung with the failure. The team that pushed that myth dominated the MSM

“There is also the revisionist history about Clinton and the Middle East peace process. The truth is that he only made a major push on it as a legacy thing at the end of his Presidency. And when Arafat refused to be steamrolled in large part fearing a fate similar to Sadat’s and Rabin’s if he caved, Clinton and Ross excoriated him. I know there is the story that the deal was 95% done and if Arafat had only agreed . . . But again the truth is that it was nothing like 95% except in Ross’s imagination and if they were that close then why did Clinton and Ross fail to make another push to finish it?”

32.. “last minute attempt” As the settlements kept expanding

33.. If the main negotiator on the I/P issue has spun the past negotiations and the leaders and people in the middle east look at this individual as a big negative not sure how the situation will change.

Not clear on how leaders in the middle east would look at Hillary being in charge of these negotiations? Can’t imagine her voting record on this issue would give them must hope.

Just hope Obama mixes up the opinions and perspective of his advisers and negotiators on this critical issue.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:10:46 +0000

I agree just do not see why Hillary would pull weight any weight on the I/P issue.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:46:57 +0000

Well, the real point of the post is that you cannot accomplish anything if there is no effort whatsoever, which has been the status for the last eight years. Just making a concerted effort would be a refreshing change. seems silly to me to shoot down that which we have not even seen yet, namely the specifics of an Obama approach. seems I am in a minority there though and killing that which has not been displayed is the brilliant move for most. I am somewhat chagrined by that, but have learned a great deal in the process. Cest la vie.

By: michaelh

michaelh — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:57:26 +0000

If Barack Obama is indeed going to make an early and strong play on the I/P issue, it is hard to imagine who could bring more cache and weight to the attempt than Hillary Clinton

This is somewhat overstated.

As Diane pointed out, there is little evidence to support this. Hilary may be well known , but this mistakes general “cache” for the specific “cache” on the issue. If anything, Hilary will have some negative “cache” given her very public credulity over the ‘Palestinian textbook’ faux-outrage that a certain pro-Israel group likes to drag out every so often.

More seriously, this idea is flawed in that it rests its hope on a change of facade altering the current reality in the midle east. If the basics of the US aproach remain as they have been over past years, than it won’t matter if Hilary Clinton (or Dennis Ross for that matter) is SoS - nothing much will change. If Obama’s approach is different, if there is a true recognition of 2 states based on the ‘67 borders with the Palestinians viewed, and treated, as equals, then there may well be progress.

Anyone who thinks that putting a new face out there in front of the same failed policy approach will solve the “Palestinain problem” must see them as ‘natives’ who will be taken in by a few mirrors and shiney beads.

By: Larue

Larue — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:56:06 +0000

I keep repeating this.

“Two senior Democrat officials” an Obama don’t make.

Until I hear that Pres. Elect Obama made the overture, I remain skeptical.

And time will tell, so I don’t really care.

My personal opinion is we could use Clinton in the Senate for some hardball we’re gonna hafta play. And I don’t think the Clintons can pass the ‘vetting’ required for that position of Sec Of State.

But again, I’ll just wait till Pres. Elect Obama and his team officially announce who their team IS. *G*

The rest is gamesmenship and what’s happening back stage we might NEVER know, much less it would be reported in the MSM. *G*

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:00:57 +0000

I agree with Mr. Bartoo; welcome, please comment often, and that was a fine comment. I still take issue with so much being read and edited into my original post that was not explicitly stated nor intended to be implied. If that is what is required to give a template for thoughtful discussion I guess I will quit fighting it; irrespective of my original intent. So be it. Thank you again for what is an excellent comment, and one I agree with substantially, even if not fully.

By: greenharper

greenharper — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:42:50 +0000

As long as we’re obsessing: it’s ‘cachet,’ rather than ‘cache.’ Apologies if someone else caught this.

I don’t forget Clinton’s campaign lies about her foreign policy achievements. Both the Irish, and officials of a Balkan nation whose name might recur to my synapses, issued public statements refuting Clinton’s claims of peacemaking in their respective bailiwicks. This was absolutely astounding. I have to wonder how much Clinton thereby damaged herself internationally.

But you (and Georgie Anne Geyer) might be right about Clinton and I/P. If Obama has indeed offered State to Clinton, I fervently hope that you are.

By: DianeMason

DianeMason — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:11:32 +0000

Thank you David, that’s my first time I’ve dipped my toe in the water here.