We've all seen the endless accounts of the firestorm that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has created with her sharp verbal attacks on Israel following their announcement of new settlements in Jerusalem. The Obama administration has found itself trying to dig themselves out of the hole that Clinton dug with this latest attack on the Israelis and some have been trying to figure out just WHY Clinton flew off the handle like this. Well, it has been no mystery to me since the story broke and Hillary's statements were publicized. It's all about revenge, it's all about a completely personal vendetta by Hillary Clinton against the Israelis and more specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu.
So, you are asking...what "vendetta" Holger? Well, it all goes back to the feud that then President Bill Clinton had with then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...back when Bill Clinton was adamant about penning a big peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians and when Netanyahu saw the kind of slanted, biased agreement that Clinton wanted him to swallow in the process, Netanyahu pissed Bill Clinton off...big time.
From the article at the BBC, we see what happened back in 1996:
And it only got worse from there and we all know what ended up happening after this...Bill Clinton's Middle East peace plans completely fell apart and the situation got worse than when he entered the fray.
And the whole time, Hillary Clinton stewed about this embarrassment that Netanyahu caused her husband. And knowing Hillary Clinton, she was pissed off at what it eventually might do to HER reputation when she vied for the Presidency.
If you scour the internet about Hillary's reaction and outlash against Israel last week, you will see countless accounts of what pundits and journalists deem a "surprising" and "heated" overreaction against the Israelis. Well, it's all about the scorn of Hillary Clinton and it brings up a dangerous idea. What happens when an official of the United States can seriously damage the relationship between America and one of its biggest friends and allies all due to a personal grudge?
When Barack Hussein Obama installed George Mitchell as a special envoy to handle the whole Middle East negotiations, I saw this as Obama's way of taking Hillary out of the equation, knowing she could cause more harm than good. But in the end, Hillary Clinton couldn't pen up that rage she has been carrying around since 1996. This was a perfect storm and the 15 years of anger got the best of our Secretary of State.
We have now seen, as exposed here at the article from Google News, that some are even hinting that part of the Obama administration are seeking a "regime change" in Israel...all from the scorn of the wife of a President:
The fascinating part of all of this is how Hillary Clinton has endangered the relationship between Israel and the U.S. for the sake of a husband shit on THEIR marital relationship. This shows the focus of a true Leftist - the fact that the cause is utmost to a Marxist like Hillary...that she can look past the head of a White House intern bobbing up and down in her husband's lap and only see a man, like Netanyahu, who damaged the mission of the Clintons back in 1996.
So, when it's all said and done...we have seen firsthand how the very foreign policy of America can be affected by the personal bias and grudges of a person in one of the top positions of power. And at the same time, it shows just how negligent Barack Hussein Obama was in his choice of Hillary as Secretary of State - it shows a real neglect for America's best interests when it is more important to take out of the picture a potential political opponent than to safeguard an alliance with a nation that has transcended 60 years.
So, you are asking...what "vendetta" Holger? Well, it all goes back to the feud that then President Bill Clinton had with then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu...back when Bill Clinton was adamant about penning a big peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians and when Netanyahu saw the kind of slanted, biased agreement that Clinton wanted him to swallow in the process, Netanyahu pissed Bill Clinton off...big time.
From the article at the BBC, we see what happened back in 1996:
During their first meeting in 1996, Bibi lectured Bill about the Arab-Israeli conflict, drawing an angry reaction from the American president, according to a book, Much Too Promised Land, by a former special envoy to the Middle East, Aaron Miller.
Mr Clinton is quoted as saying: "Who the [expletive deleted] does he think he is? Who's the [expletive deleted] superpower here?"
And it only got worse from there and we all know what ended up happening after this...Bill Clinton's Middle East peace plans completely fell apart and the situation got worse than when he entered the fray.
And the whole time, Hillary Clinton stewed about this embarrassment that Netanyahu caused her husband. And knowing Hillary Clinton, she was pissed off at what it eventually might do to HER reputation when she vied for the Presidency.
If you scour the internet about Hillary's reaction and outlash against Israel last week, you will see countless accounts of what pundits and journalists deem a "surprising" and "heated" overreaction against the Israelis. Well, it's all about the scorn of Hillary Clinton and it brings up a dangerous idea. What happens when an official of the United States can seriously damage the relationship between America and one of its biggest friends and allies all due to a personal grudge?
When Barack Hussein Obama installed George Mitchell as a special envoy to handle the whole Middle East negotiations, I saw this as Obama's way of taking Hillary out of the equation, knowing she could cause more harm than good. But in the end, Hillary Clinton couldn't pen up that rage she has been carrying around since 1996. This was a perfect storm and the 15 years of anger got the best of our Secretary of State.
We have now seen, as exposed here at the article from Google News, that some are even hinting that part of the Obama administration are seeking a "regime change" in Israel...all from the scorn of the wife of a President:
The Obama administration's row with Israel over settlements has prompted some analysts to wonder whether it seeks "regime change," a new government that can make peace with the Palestinians.
In unusually harsh words, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday that his right-wing government's plans to build new settler homes in east Jerusalem sent a "deeply negative signal" about Israel's ties to its top ally.
"Is this about regime change, or is it about (Israeli) behavior modification?" asked Aaron David Miller, a Middle East peace negotiator in past Republican and Democratic administrations.
The fascinating part of all of this is how Hillary Clinton has endangered the relationship between Israel and the U.S. for the sake of a husband shit on THEIR marital relationship. This shows the focus of a true Leftist - the fact that the cause is utmost to a Marxist like Hillary...that she can look past the head of a White House intern bobbing up and down in her husband's lap and only see a man, like Netanyahu, who damaged the mission of the Clintons back in 1996.
So, when it's all said and done...we have seen firsthand how the very foreign policy of America can be affected by the personal bias and grudges of a person in one of the top positions of power. And at the same time, it shows just how negligent Barack Hussein Obama was in his choice of Hillary as Secretary of State - it shows a real neglect for America's best interests when it is more important to take out of the picture a potential political opponent than to safeguard an alliance with a nation that has transcended 60 years.
US may be seeking Israel 'regime change'
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's row with Israel over settlements has prompted some analysts to wonder whether it seeks "regime change," a new government that can make peace with the Palestinians.
However, the analysts doubt that President Barack Obama's administration, which has made Arab-Israeli peace a national security priority, will achieve anything if it has indeed adopted such a strategy.
In unusually harsh words, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday that his right-wing government's plans to build new settler homes in east Jerusalem sent a "deeply negative signal" about Israel's ties to its top ally.
"Is this about regime change, or is it about (Israeli) behavior modification?" asked Aaron David Miller, a Middle East peace negotiator in past Republican and Democratic administrations.
"Because either way, it's going to be a rocky ride," Miller told AFP.
"If it's the former, then I think we're naive in the extreme in thinking that we will be able to produce and somehow manage that," said Miller, now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
Miller said Obama and Clinton may be trying to create the impression Netanyahu is "mismanaging the relationship" with Washington in order to shake up Israeli politics.
After all, he said, former president George H.W. Bush and his top diplomat James Baker did much the same thing with then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir and helped pave the way for Yitzhak Rabin to become prime minister.
"But there are no more Rabins," Miller said.
Rabin, who was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist in 1995, sealed a short-lived peace deal with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the White House in 1993 under then president Bill Clinton.
Under another scenario, if the Obama administration defuses the row and even wins some concessions from Netanyahu, he warned, it may still be impossible to bridge the Israeli-Palestinian divide, say analysts,
Miller and others like Daniel Kurtzer, the former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel, have long wondered whether the Obama administration has a strategy to revive Arab-Israeli peace talks suspended since 2008.
Both noted that the Obama administration, in its first year, demanded a total halt to Jewish settlements, only to yield to Netanyahu's call for a 10-month moratorium on construction in the West Bank but not in east Jerusalem.
The Palestinians want east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war, to be the capital of a future state; Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital.
Kurtzer, who is now at Princeton University, could not rule out that the Obama administration might be contemplating a way to change Israel's political landscape.
"I would like to say 'no' because we don't do that with Israel and with friends and democracies," Kurtzer told AFP when asked whether "regime change" might be part of the Obama strategy.
"But I don't doubt that there are some (Obama) people who are angry enough to want to see the (Netanyahu) government fall," he said.
The previous George W. Bush administration embraced "regime change" for Iraq, Iran and North Korea, although the term referred to the violent overthrow of dictatorships.
"In people's heart of hearts, they probably want somebody other than Netanyahu but I can't imagine that anybody really believes that they have a strategy or a real chance of effecting it," the former ambassador said.
To be sure, he said, Netanyahu might be able to drop a right-wing party and bring in Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister and candidate for premier who once mulled joining his government, and her centrist Kadima.
"But to do this under siege, as he (Netanyahu) feels right now, is not going to happen," Kurtzer said.
Haim Malka, a top analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told AFP "there is no obvious or viable alternative to Netanyahu at the moment" when asked if "regime change" could work.
"And trying to trigger a reshuffling of the Israeli political landscape will more likely lead to paralysis rather than a coalition willing to make political compromises with the Palestinians," he said.
He said he would not speculate however on whether the Obama administration might be considering "regime change."
5 comments:
Vince Foster was unavailable for comment!
Uh! The Regime Change should occur here.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the ruling party changes often. If the US were serious about Israel changing anything all we'd have to do is stop the next multi billion dollar welfare check from heading their way and watch Israel sing a different tune. Maybe they would be OK without my tax money.
But yeah - Hillz is bitter and holds grudges - glad she lost.
Prop,
Regarding your first comment - Israel doesn't need our money. Hell, it isn't our money anyway, it's China's. But the Israelis won't turn the dough down if we wanna give (much like the money we send to Hamas).
But bottom line is this - if the U.S. stopped all contributions to Israel, the U.S. will be bankrupt long before the Israelis.
I think of it this way...Leftist politicians in America state that the "poor" in America won't survive unless we sustain the current entitlements - but I would assert that if the entitlements were indeed cut in half, those "poor" would indeed survive...they just wouldn't have the 52" plasma tv and four cells phones they have now.
:Holger Danske
Post a Comment