Our Secretary of State threatening Israels survival?

[Thinkingstuff]

Whats going on here? What if Obama orders and attack on Israel? What then? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5e4a218-35b4-11df-963f-00144feabdc0.html

 

[windcatcher]

Any other links? Without a quote, no idea whats posted.
This link requires registration and subscriber info.
Thanks

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry here is the article.

Israel’s survival at stake, Clinton warns
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: March 22 2010 14:07 | Last updated: March 22 2010 21:43

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, on Monday warned Israel that its survival could be in jeopardy unless it reached a peace deal with the Palestinians.
Her warning came in an address to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, and followed days of tension between the US and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
In depth: Arab-Israel conflict - Feb-24Philip Stephens: A Middle East peace plan - Mar-18Global anger at Israeli settlement policy - Mar-19Editorial Comment: Obama must be robust with Israel - Mar-16US mulls Middle East arms supply - Mar-21News file: Mid-East business briefing - Sep-01The Aipac, a powerful lobby group, recently rebuked the Obama administration for its criticism of Israel over the proposed expansion of a Jewish settlement in occupied East Jerusalem. But Mrs Clinton argued that Washington’s concern for Israel’s ultimate security had led to the clash with Mr Netanyahu.

In remarks that earned her one of several standing ovations from an audience of 7,500, she said: “Our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever.”

But she received a more guarded response when she outlined the administration’s reasoning behind its push for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. “The conflict with the Palestinians and with Israel’s Arab neighbours ... threatens Israel’s long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state,” she said.

Mrs Clinton referred to the “belief among many” that better security and fewer suicide bombings in Israel meant “the status quo can be sustained”. But “the dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology make this impossible”.

Citing Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, she said: “The inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland.” She argued that the continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict strengthened “rejectionists” and helped Iran.

The ever-evolving technology of war was making it harder to guarantee Israel’s security, she added. “For six decades Israelis have guarded their borders vigilantly. But advances in rocket technology mean that Israeli families are now at risk far from those borders.”
In her speech Mrs Clinton said that US objections to the planned expansion of a settlement in East Jerusalem were not about “wounded pride”. Describing the final status of Jerusalem as an issue to be settled by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, she said: “This is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it and staying there until the job is done.”

But some of the tensions were clear in a speech delivered by Howard Kohr, executive director of Aipac. Arguing that it was better for the US to deal with any disagreements with Israel “privately, as is befitting close allies”, he attacked the “specious”, “insidious” and “dangerous” argument that US-Israeli relations rested on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians.

Mrs Clinton used her speech to urge Mr Netanyahu to take concrete steps to aid peace talks with the Palestinians, including “demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. The Palestinian leadership and Israel’s Arab neighbours also needed to do more.

She underlined Washington’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the US drive for “sanctions that will bite”.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

BTW that last about Iran is already an opportunity missed. Iran has Nuclear weapons.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Where do you get any idea the US was going to attack Israel?

 

[Trotter]

I doubt King Zero has the cojones to attack Israel, but he is petty enough to stand back and let the Muslim world do so unimpeded.

I am fed up with Hillary's BS and Zero's approval of it. Israel is building on its own land... land it wrestled from the clutches of others that was rightfully theirs. And now our government wants them to give up the land for the Palestinians (and that goes back before Zero took the throne).

I say more power to Israel. I would have put the Palestinians out a long time ago and told them where they could stick their homeland.

 

[Steven2006]

If I was Netanyahu I would tell the USA, "sure we will stop building in Jerusalem, as soon as America also promised to cease any and all construction done in Washington DC."

 

[Steven2006]

Where do you get any idea the US was going to attack Israel?

Yeah, I don't get that part either.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where do you get any idea the US was going to attack Israel?

No, I got the Idea that the United States would takes its vested interest in Israel and go home. Ie stop providing military hardware and intelligence allowing for them to be at a disadvantage with Palestine and other arab nations. There is also the insinuation we may provide the same support to their enemies putting them all on an even playing ground either way the Secretary of state said that Israel's survival is in jepardy. This is what I mean attack not militarily.

 

[rbell]

Why are we fussing about Israel doing stuff with land they acquired? You or I may not like it...but to the victors go the spoils of war. It doesn't seem to stop us here in the US from building on lands acquired from the Indians.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, I got the Idea that the United States would takes its vested interest in Israel and go home. Ie stop providing military hardware and intelligence allowing for them to be at a disadvantage with Palestine and other arab nations. There is also the insinuation we may provide the same support to their enemies putting them all on an even playing ground either way the Secretary of state said that Israel's survival is in jepardy. This is what I mean attack not militarily.

Apologies, 'Obama orders an attack' sure sounded like more than 'taking its vested interest and going home.'

I still don't see any indication that the US will be arming Israel's enemies. Perhaps I missed it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Apologies, 'Obama orders an attack' sure sounded like more than 'taking its vested interest and going home.'

I still don't see any indication that the US will be arming Israel's enemies. Perhaps I missed it.

In my mind they are almost the same thing. Especially for a state so reliant on our nation.
I think Obama want's a peace with Islamic nations so much that providing for them military hardware (as we do with Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc...) is a simple compromise from him.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think we are a long, long way from the US turning its back on one of its most trusted allies.

Even pure pragmatism would dictate otherwise.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think we are a long, long way from the US turning its back on one of its most trusted allies.

Even pure pragmatism would dictate otherwise.

I honestly hope you are right but the world can change quickly.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Lets just say for argument's sake that the current State of Israel has nothing to do with Biblical Israel. Even then doing anything to anger this powerful ally would be nothing shoot of foolish. Even the current administration, for all its problems, is not that stupid.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Lets just say for argument's sake that the current State of Israel has nothing to do with Biblical Israel. Even then doing anything to anger this powerful ally would be nothing shoot of foolish. Even the current administration, for all its problems, is not that stupid.

The dialogue sure has changed. Who would have thought our secretary of state would say anything close to that?

England has dismissed a diplomat over the Mossad assasination of a Hamas leader. World opinion has never really been that much in favor of israel. But now relationship with its friends seem strained.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

T

England has dismissed a diplomat over the Mossad assasination of a Hamas leader.

That is because Israel was guilty of identity theft in forging passports of British (as well as Irish and Australian) citizens to mask the identities of their operatives. These people are still alive and did not know that their identities were being used on forged passports.

 

[Robert Snow]

No, I got the Idea that the United States would takes its vested interest in Israel and go home. Ie stop providing military hardware and intelligence allowing for them to be at a disadvantage with Palestine and other arab nations. There is also the insinuation we may provide the same support to their enemies putting them all on an even playing ground either way the Secretary of state said that Israel's survival is in jepardy. This is what I mean attack not militarily.

Why is it our job to protect Israel. Where in the Constitution is this mandated?

 

[just-want-peace]

I think we are a long, long way from the US turning its back on one of its most trusted allies.

Even pure pragmatism would dictate otherwise.

I strongly disagree with this conclusion; in fact I think (JMHO of course) this admin. is itching to dump on Israel, and is just looking for an excuse to do so and try to pin the blame on Israel.

Pragmatism is immaterial to the "0" - he's got bigger fish to fry right now.
Unfortunately, we'll never know what his precise plans are until it's too late to prevent; save some direct intervention from God Himself, as the "0" and his minions keep the focus on everything but his agenda.

Like I say, once we know his master plan (or those of his superiors) it will be too late for the citizenry to do squat to avoid it.

In fact, I would not be at all surprised to see the "0" declare martial law prior to the Nov elections! Hope I'm totally off base here, but----!

 

[Chessic]

I think we are a long, long way from the US turning its back on one of its most trusted allies.

Even pure pragmatism would dictate otherwise.

We already have, many times.

Our government will sell Israel military hardware because we need the cash and jobs and because they use the hardware to keep mutual enemies in check. Keeping them strong keeps the Middle East focused on its hatred of Israel, diverting some of the focus of its hatred from us. And we, like the rest of the world, need their exports, mostly of farm products.

If it weren't for a vocal minority on the religious right in our country, we'd have long ago sacrificed this relationship in an attempt to appease our Middle East enemies. We did not stand by the Jewish people in WWII and we do not stand by Israel now in any of its conflicts. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefits, which it may already have, and as soon as the U.S. administration of the time believes it can get away with it, we as a nation will sell this relationship for whatever we can get for it.

Just yesterday, our president thought so little of our relationship with Israel he humiliated its leader:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sraeli-prime-minister-dinner/?test=latestnews

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We already have, many times.

Our government will sell Israel military hardware because we need the cash and jobs and because they use the hardware to keep mutual enemies in check. Keeping them strong keeps the Middle East focused on its hatred of Israel, diverting some of the focus of its hatred from us. And we, like the rest of the world, need their exports, mostly of farm products.

If it weren't for a vocal minority on the religious right in our country, we'd have long ago sacrificed this relationship in an attempt to appease our Middle East enemies. We did not stand by the Jewish people in WWII and we do not stand by Israel now in any of its conflicts. As soon as the cost outweighs the benefits, which it may already have, and as soon as the U.S. administration of the time believes it can get away with it, we as a nation will sell this relationship for whatever we can get for it.

Just yesterday, our president thought so little of our relationship with Israel he humiliated its leader:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sraeli-prime-minister-dinner/?test=latestnews

Thanks for a thoughtful and articulate post.

The 'humiliation' discussed was seen from an Israeli perspective. Our government leaders regularly humiliate foreign leaders in the eyes of foreign governments.

Obama and Nethenyahu differ on this aspect of Israeli policy. Of course they are going to view Obama's actions as humiliating. I don't see how this disagreement over settlements can be seen as a general 'thinking poorly of Israel.'

I am not so sure that the current State of Israel has anything to do with Biblical Israel. My support for Israel comes from the fact that she has been a solid ally through the years.

Curious as to why you say the US did not stand by the Jews in WWII?