CLINTON: Unbelievable

BY: MATZAV



Israel to 'lose' Arab support on Iran

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday that the Arab countries need Israel to 'enter into discussions' with the 'Palestinians' in order for the Arab countries to 'deal with' Iran.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process.

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

"They (Arab countries) believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran," she added.

Clinton's testimony is rather odd. First, it is in the Arab countries' interest for Israel to 'deal with' Iran or for the US to do so on Israel's behalf. The Arab countries, especially the countries in the Gulf and 'moderates' like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are at least as threatened by Iran as Israel is. It is entirely possible that Iran would use its first nuclear weapon to destroy Arab oil assets in the Persian Gulf rather than using it to try to destroy Israel. Why would the Arabs sacrifice their own interests for the 'Palestinians,' who despite being a convenient excuse for despots maintaining their respective holds on power are viewed by the Arabs with nothing but utter contempt?

Second, what support have the Arab countries offered Israel? Clinton acts as if the Arab countries are providing Israel with troops, funding, logistical support, flyover rights (Jordan? Iraq?) or other tangible measures of support for an Israeli strike against Iran - and that the US is attempting to coordinate that strike. But the US - which controls Iraqi airspace - has thus far denied Israel rights to flyover Iraq on the way to a strike in Iran. And Israel has never asked Jordan for those rights, assuming that if necessary it could fly over Jordan and the Jordanians - who have plenty to fear both from Iran and from a second 'Palestinian' state (Jordan being the first itself) to which it pays lip service - would be fools to even try to shoot down Israeli planes or warn Iran they were coming. So what did Clinton mean by that statement?

Third, why does Israel entering into negotiations with the 'Palestinians' strengthen the Arab countries' hands in 'dealing with' Iran? How do the Arab countries propose to 'deal with' Iran? So far, the only measures I have heard - cowering in fear and setting off a nuclear arms race themselves - are not in Israel's interest, and there is no reason Israel should support them. And accepting Clinton's statement at face value, why is it in Israel's interest to strengthen the hands of the Arab countries at all to 'deal with' Iran, when in fact it is not the Arab countries who will ultimately 'deal with' Iran, but Israel or the United States?

Secretary of State Clinton's testimony on Thursday raised far more questions than it answered. It would behoove the Israeli government to insist on getting those answers before making any commitment to enter into any kind of new negotiations with the 'Palestinians.' The connection between 'progress' on the 'Palestinian track' and 'dealing with' Iran is tenuous at best and imaginary at worst.

If anything, it appears that the Israeli government got it right when it insisted that dealing with Iran is a precondition to being able to make 'progress' with the 'Palestinians.' Iran is providing military, financial and tactical support to the most rejectionist among the 'Palestinians' and their allies, including Hamas and Hezbullah. Removing Iran from the picture could have the effect of toning down 'Palestinian' demands and making a settlement possible. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:01 AM 4 comments links to this post
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Congress may restrict aid to 'Palestinians' to prevent Obama from dealing with 'Palestinian unity government'
This is from the Washington Post's report of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony on Thursday. I discussed another aspect of her testimony here.
Clinton took flak from some lawmakers about the administration's efforts to keep its options open regarding the creation of a Palestinian unity government. The government is split between Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas, which the State Department considers a terrorist group, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, but the United States has refused to deal with the group until it meets conditions, including recognition of Israel.

Clinton indicated that if a unity government is formed, the administration would be willing to deal with that government, even if it contained Hamas ministers, as long as the government agreed to those conditions, much as the United States currently deals with the elected Lebanese government in which the militant group Hezbollah controls 11 out of 30 cabinet seats. But several lawmakers, including Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) indicated that the House may seek to restrict aid to the Palestinian Authority, which would limit the administration's flexibility.
In other words, if Fatah and Hamas reunite without Hamas accepting the quartet conditions for contact with Hamas (renouncing terror, recognizing Israel, agreeing to be bound by past agreements), Congress will step in to prevent the Obama administration from dealing with that 'Palestinian unity government.' Good for Congress! posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:09 PM 0 comments links to this post