"Every" president waits until his last year in office to try to solve it? (0.00 / 0)

This is a lazy and rather dishonest talking point that I blogged about here a few months back, when Obama attempted to draw that equivalence between Bush and Bill Clinton.  

---

by: Haggai @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM CST

Clinton (0.00 / 0)

would first have to renounce her looney support for

"...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."...

Clinton is toying with one of the few most important final-status issues that will have to be resolved as part of any two-state solution. Israel captured the eastern half of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. While Israel has declared the whole of an expanded Jerusalem its capital, the international community views east Jerusalem as occupied territory and the potential capital of any future Palestinian state. In recognition of the contested status of Jerusalem, the United States and other countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv.

"Jerusalem is not only of political, religious, and emotional significance to Palestinians. It's the cultural and economic capital of any future state of Palestine. To carve out east Jerusalem from the rest of Palestine would be to deprive of it the geographic area which traditionally has been the heart of the Palestinian economy," said Philip Wilcox, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer who served as consul general and chief of mission in Jerusalem and is now president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a D.C. nonprofit. "It's an absolute deal -breaker, and there will be no peace if there isn't an agreed political division of Jerusalem."

If opposing a compromise on Jerusalem is a deal breaker, one would think there would be more importance attached to Clinton's words-especially appearing in the unequivocal construction of Israel's "right to exist" that "must never be questioned." If Clinton did, as president, endorse Israel's annexation of all of Jerusalem, it could mean nothing less than a repudiation of the concept of a two-state solution. And while her position mirrors that of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), it actually puts her at odds with some prominent Israeli officials, notably Vice Premier Haim Ramon, who have publicly spoken about the need to cede the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. One explanation for this incongruity, offered by all of the half-dozen experts I spoke to on the subject, is that Clinton's statement is nothing more than election-year rhetoric. That is, her stand may tell us more about the fraught politics of Israel/Palestine in the United States than it does about how a Hillary Clinton administration would approach the conflict.

http://www.motherjones.com/new...

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM CST

OH COME ON (4.00 / 1)

Obama also publicly supported an undivided jerusalem as the capitol of israel.  In front of AIPAC nonetheless!

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And was widely condemned (4.00 / 1)

so much so that he reversed himself the next day.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what do you expect from Hillary? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think politicians should be pandering on this particular point, but it's clear that Hillary's position paper was just that, pandering.

It would be good if she had to clarify her real stance on it in public--which, undoubtedly, is no different from that Obama, or for that matter her husband--but I don't see it being that big a deal, substantively.  You don't think she would actually undermine Middle East peace talks on the issue of Jerusalem, do you?  

---

by: Haggai @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:45:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I expect her to un-pander or perhaps de-pander. (4.00 / 1)

It's funny, tho, both in the SOS thread and here people are defending Hillary by saying she was only pandering--when did that become an excuse?

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought I was clear enough on that point (4.00 / 1)

That is, the point that I wasn't "defending" her.  Like I said, I don't support pandering on this.  Nevertheless, there remains a difference between pandering and substantive disagreement, and pointing that out isn't automatically the same thing as "defending" someone.

So I don't really know if we're disagreeing much here.  I would also like her to de-pander or un-pander on this, but I'm not going to demand that her appointment as SoS (assuming all the rumors are true) must die on that particular hill.  Maybe that's our only disagreement.

---

by: Haggai @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:08:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't say it should (0.00 / 0)

die on this hill, nor when there are so many other hills on which it should die.

---

by: david mizner @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:45:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then I'm not sure what you meant by... (0.00 / 0)

..."Clinton would first have to renounce her loony support for [etc.]", in your first comment.  Sounds like you wouldn't support her nomination whether she de-pandered on this or not (which is fair enough, but different from what I thought you were saying).  

---

by: Haggai @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:15:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed. What has any Secretary of (4.00 / 1)

State since Jim Baker (post Soviet Europe) and George Schultz (independence for Namibia) actually accomplished?  If Hillary Clinton can focus on Middle East peace from day one and make progress she would be up there as one of the Greats.  Obama has too much on his plate to work on Middle East peace (given how needy the players are)?  Obama and Clinton need to focus on one or two objectives and get them done while handling the myriad of crises that will occur.

---

by: jakeproduce @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:36:32 PM CST

I would think (0.00 / 0)

that Clinton would want to define herself in the job with a major project like this.  She went big on healthcare in 1993 and I imagine she'd go big in this case.  Of course, if Netanyahu wins the PM election you can probably forget about peace.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:10:35 PM CST

I've got a different question for you (0.00 / 0)

That said, under a Democratic administration, both Clinton and her husband have the ability and credibility to work on the Israeli government and push it towards peace.

So, will they also work on Hamas and Hezbollah and push them towards peace?  It's not like this is a one sided conflict.

---

by: rickd24 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 00:00:57 AM CST