What does Hillary Clinton think about the Barack Obama attacks on Israel? There is a concerted campaign of lies and deception about Hillary Clinton and it’s coming from Israel haters, Hillary Clinton haters, and Barack Obama lovers. The attempt is to glue Hillary Clinton to the Obamination which is Barack Obama’s treacherous speech last Thursday attacking Israel.
We wrote about why Barack Obama went to the State Department to deliver his TelePrompTer attack on Israel. It was an attempt to create the impression that Hillary Clinton was on board with his treacherous attack on an ally as well as an attempt to shut down any State Department/Hillary Clinton pro-Israel moves.
The hausfrau foreign policy non-expert Israel haters and the professional Israel haters are lying about Hillary Clinton and Israel. Furious because Joe Scarborough on his MSNBC show declared that Hillary Clinton would never have said what treacherous Barack Obama said last Thursday, the Israel Haters resorted once again to lies.
The Israel Haters and Obama apologists cited this butchered quote to buttress Barack Obama’s treacherous attack on Israel as somehow backed by Hillary Clinton:
“Hillary on 11/25/09: “We [support]…the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps.”
By doctoring, removing the bulk of what Hillary Clinton actually said, these Barack Obama lovers and Israel Haters lied. Here is what Hillary Clinton actually said in 2009:
“We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
In 2009 Hillary stated the Palestinian position and the Israeli position, not the American position. It was “through good faith negotiations” that the Israelis and the Palestinians would arrive at an outcome beneficial to both parties. That quote and context is very different from the “We [support]” lie that Obama apologists, Israel haters and Hillary Clinton haters are trying to manufacture.
What Hillary Clinton said is extremely different from the treachery of Barack Obama: “What Obama did in his speech was make the Palestinian goals of a “viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps,” the American goal as well.”
Barack Obama has stabbed Israel in the back. Barack Obama wants to be the “Arabs’ lawyer”. We wrote about Obama’s long term desire to be the “Arabs’ lawyer’ around this time last year:
“With his Cairo speech, a speech in which for the first time an American president went to the Middle East without a stopover to consult with our Israeli allies, Obama signaled to many in the Arab world that he is on the Arab side. Obama snubbed Israel and the whole world saw that snub and were encouraged in their aggressions.
Indeed Obama has made it clear he wants to be the Arabs’ lawyer.
This dangerous Obama goading of Arabs and Muslims against American ally Israel has led to the current politics of Hopium and delusion we are now in. [snip]
Arabs, Muslims, and Israelis know Obama wants to be the “Arabs’ lawyer”. The former Israeli Mossad Chief knows Obama is weak and weakening America. Politico discussed Obama’s desire to be the Arabs’ lawyer in March of this year:
“Obama’s new focus, and the intense pressure his administration has placed on Netanyahu, have stirred deep concern among Israel’s allies on Capitol Hill, they say, because it represents an acceptance of the Arab narrative that Israeli intransigence lies at the heart of the Middle East conflict. And some observers see it in the context of a subtle, but major, shift in American strategy toward resolving it.” [snip]
“The new model drawing attention from Democratic foreign policy hands, he said, is to build support among Arab leaders for a U.S. plan and then present that to Israel — to serve as the Arabs’ lawyer, rather than as Israel’s, in one formulation used to describe the effort in the region.”
That Politico article written by JournoLister Ben Smith in March 27 of last year discussed Obama’s “logic” before a group of American Jews who love Obama more than they love Israel:
“Obama explained the logic of his actions in a private meeting with Jewish leaders that July, explaining the need to give Arab leaders “credibility” with their “street,” according to detailed notes taken by a participant in the meeting, “by creating space between us and Israel.”
Barack Obama had a TelePrompTer with him when he spoke last Thursday. Barack Obama did not misspeak or ad lib what he said. What Obama said last Thursday was on the TelePrompTer and the words were calculated to create “space between us and Israel” so that Barack Obama could be the Arabs’ lawyer.
One year later, last Thursday, JournoLister Ben Smith and his cohort attempted to hoodwink the American public with high praise for Barack Obama boldness while at the same time saying not much had changed. Almost immediately however the narrative broke apart. Some of Barack Obama’s strongest supporters essentially gave the game away:
“This is the first clear statement by an American president that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed territorial swaps,” said former Rep. Robert Wexler, who now leads the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.
Though former presidents and secretaries of state have referred to those lines, widely assumed to be central to the shape of a final settlement, “it’s different because now it is the official policy of the United States of America,” Wexler said.”
Bibi Netanyahu, aware of Obama’s Pearl Harbor style attack on Israel did not remain quiet. The JournoListers tried to help the hoodwink along, but the Obama treachery and boobery, like a badly built skyscraper, began to list, tilt, fall:
“[T]he president’s comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will lead nowhere. It is striking that he suggested no action: no meeting, no envoy, no Quartet session, no invitations to Washington. About the new Fatah-Hamas unity agreement he said this: “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.” Indeed they must, and they won’t, so this is perhaps an acknowledgment by the president that negotiations are simply unrealistic right now.”
By Friday, the JournoListers were routed by logic and reality from the “Obama gave a brilliant and bold speech that really didn’t do much but was prudent, wise, and stated what everyone knows and what a great leader Barack Obama is and he gives a tingle to our nether regions” defense of the boob:
“Glenn Kessler today has a good explanation of why, for many — and contrary to my immediate reaction and that of many other close observers — Obama’s words yesterday represented, in a narrow context, a big deal:
He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.
Obama did not go all the way and try to define what his statement meant for the disputed city of Jerusalem, or attempt to address the issue of Palestinians who want to return to lands now in the state of Israel. He said those issues would need to be addressed after borders and security are settled. But, for a U.S. president, the explicit reference to the 1967 lines represented crossing the Rubicon.”
For those that think these are just word games, think of the difference between describing someone as African-American, black, or the “N” word. Words matter and in the Middle East they matter with energy.
The Glenn Kessler article in the Washington Post was a stick of dynamite in the flophouse skyscraper Barack Obama was trying to build. Kessler examined in detail the sentences that raised red flags of danger for supporters of Israel:
“For people not trained in the nuances of Middle East diplomacy, the sentence might appear unremarkable. However, many experts say it represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and it is certainly a change for the Obama administration.
As is often the case with diplomacy, the context and the speaker are nearly as important as the words. Ever since the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, it has been clear that peace with the Palestinians would be achieved through some exchange of land for security. [snip]
So, in many ways, it is not news that the eventual borders of a Palestinian state would be based on land swaps from the 1967 dividing line. But it makes a difference when the president of the United States says it, particularly in a carefully staged speech at the State Department. This then is not an off-the-cuff remark, but a carefully considered statement of U.S. policy.”
Obama read off his TelePrompter so he has no excuse that he “misspoke”. This was a deliberate attempt by Barack Obama to be the “Arabs lawyer” and a premeditated attack on Israel. Kessler does a good job of explaining why the Palestinians want the Obama formulation to be the accepted narrative:
“From an Israeli perspective, the de facto borders that existed before 1967 were not really borders, but an unsatisfactory, indefensible and temporary arrangement that even Arabs had not accepted. So Israeli officials do not want to be bound by those lines in any talks.
From a Palestinian perspective, the pre-1967 division was a border between Israel and neighboring states and thus must be the starting point for negotiations involving land swaps. This way, they believe, the size of a future Palestinian state would end up to be — to the square foot — the exact size of the non-Israeli territories before the 1967 conflict. Palestinians would argue that even this is a major concession, since they believe all of the current state of Israel should belong to the Palestinians.”
The Obama words come straight out of the Palestinian playbook and Israel has been stabbed in the back. Kessler also notes that the lack of the word “the” from United Nations Resolution 242 means that the land Israel won in the Six Day War is not necessarily all at play. If Resolution 242 had stated “from the territories occupied” instead of “from territories occupied” the Palestinian case would be stronger. But Resolution 242 does not employ the word “the”. As Bill Clinton well knows, words matter, even little words like “is” or in this case “the”.
Kessler performs a service by publishing quotes from past presidents whose goal was not to be the Arabs lawyer:
“Nevertheless, until Obama on Thursday, U.S. presidents generally have steered clear of saying the negotiations should start on the 1967 lines. Here is a sampling of comments by presidents or their secretaries of state, with some explanation or commentary.
“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.” — President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” — President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
“Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.” — Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988
Starting with President Lyndon Johnson, right after the Six-Day War, U.S. presidents often have shown great sympathy for Israel’s contention that the pre-1967 dividing line did not provide security.
“I think there can be no genuine resolution to the conflict without a sovereign, viable, Palestinian state that accommodates Israeli’s security requirements and the demographic realities. That suggests Palestinian sovereignty over Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank, the incorporation into Israel of settlement blocks … To make the agreement durable, I think there will have to be some territorial swaps and other arrangements.” — President Bill Clinton, January 7, 2001
In his waning weeks in office, Clinton laid out what are now known as the “Clinton parameters,” an attempt to sketch out a negotiating solution to create two states. His description of the parameters is very detailed, but he shied away from mentioning the 1967 lines even as he spoke of “territorial swaps.”
“Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.” — President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002″
American Presidents, until the treacherous Barack Obama, have supported Israel. Kessler discusses the W. Bush exchange of letters with Sharon “that supported the Israeli position that the 1967 lines were not a useful starting point.” Barack Obama, Kessler notes “has refused to acknowledge the letter as binding on U.S. policy.” Treachery.
Kessler also discusses the Hillary Clinton comment from 2009 which Obama apologists are twisting in a perverse attempt to steal Hillary’s golden glow and her vast knowledge (and that of Bill Clinton) of the Middle East into some twisted sort of support for Obama’s latest treacheries:
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nov. 25, 2009
When the Israeli government announced a partial settlement freeze, Clinton responded with a statement that specifically mentioned a state based on 1967 lines, but as a “Palestinian goal.” This was balanced with a description of an “Israeli goal.”
Kessler’s conclusion undermines all attempts by the Obama apologists and Israel haters to perfume the Obama stink:
“In the context of this history, Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” — code for Israeli settlements — that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.”
The Obama apologists, Hillary haters and Israel haters have also attempted to link Hillary to Obama’s Thursday speech. Bill Press and others are saying that by delivering the speech at the State Department this is clear proof that Hillary helped write the speech. But, as we have noted, that was the deceptive aim of treacherous Barack Obama, not what really happened. Indeed, it is well known that Hillary enemy Tom E. Donilon also known as “Obama’s enforcer” was the writer of the Obama speech, not Hillary. The New York Times has confirmed much of what we have long written about the war between the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department.
The hausfrau Israel haters and the piano players in the whorehouse will continue to write fictions about Israel and Netanyahu even as they protect the players who can achieve a state almost immediately but only after they renounce the goal of the destruction of Israel.
The Harper government of Canada has refused to join in the Israel hate initiated by Barack Obama. More surprising than our best friends to the north refusing to participate in Obama’s treacheries is Harry Reid’s appearance last night at AIPAC:
“The most powerful Democrat in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Monday night publicly rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to use a recent speech to lay out aspects of a potential peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table – and nowhere else,” Reid declared in a speech to an annual gathering in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “Those negotiations … will not happen – and their terms will not be set – through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”
When the Senate leader added, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” the lights quickly came up on the vast audience and most in the crowd at the Washington Convention Center rose to their feet and applauded.
Harry Reid, the most powerful Obama Dimocrat in Congress wisely abandoned Barack Obama. Harry Reid rejected the “preconditions” that Barack Obama wanted to impose on Israel. Does anyone find it odd that Barack Obama rejected “preconditions” in meeting with America’s enemies in 2008 but now wants to impose “preconditions” on America’s friend and ally Israel? Why is that Barack?
Aaron David Miller, who can be counted on to find something good to say about Obama at any time, makes excuses but adds that the Obama boobery is too apparent:
[I]t’s about whether the Obama administration is acting dumb or smart, and let’s just say events of the past several days suggest the president isn’t being real smart. [snip]
To pick a fight with the Israelis on the eve of the visit of an Israeli prime minister with whom you don’t have a relationship (but who you need if you want to get anywhere on the peace process) is dumb; to put out June 1967 lines without any backgrounding after the speech is dumb; to take a position in non-existent negotiations and identify your position as a would-be mediator is dumb; and to send a message to the Palestinians that “you really have me sacred about your virtual statehood initiative so maybe I’ll identify my position on Jerusalem next” is dumb. [snip]
Right now the president has gotten the worst of all worlds: He’s pissed off the Israelis, failed to satisfy and preempt Palestinians from their initiative and given the Republicans a ready-made issue to hammer him. And for what? Applause from the Europeans at the G-8? That’s not smart.”
What Miller does not understand is that Obama lives for applause to fill his shrunken little boy emptiness. It’s all about applause. It’s all for applause.
“In a region where women are stoned, gays hanged, and Christians persecuted, Israel stands out…free press, open courts, rambunctious Parliamentary debates.” [snip]
“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is RIGHT about the Middle East. [snip]
A Middle East that is GENUINELY democratic will be truly of peace. But while we work/hope for the best, we must recognize that powerful forces opposes this future, oppose modernity, oppose peace. Foremost is Iran.”
Attacks troops, subjugates people, sponsors terror worldwide, nuclear threat. Militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its own demise…The threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand.” [snip]
“When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.”
Clarity: The debate over a Palestinian state is not really about the existence of a Palestinian state. It’s about opponents undermining the existence of a Jewish state.”
[The complete speech on video:
While Barack Obama made a fool of himself in Europe, Netanyahu spoke before an enthusiastic Congress eager to show support for Israel, even if that meant mocking the boob and the sleeveless boob. As noted at HotAir, David Frum, who likes Obama, wrote something smart today:
“That wasn’t Benjamin Netanyahu speaking. That was Congress speaking. [snip]
Congress’ reception of Netanyahu doused the Obama speech with ice-water realism.”
While Barack Obama made a fool of himself by not even knowing the year we live in, raising the question of whether Obama is in his right mind or some disease has taken hold of his faculties, Netanyahu spoke to America. While Barack Obama made a spectacle of himself thereby flummoxing the proceedings at a state dinner, Netanyahu was bringing clarity and demonstrating what a real leader is to the American Congress.
Netanyahu stated what Joe Biden did not want to applaud: Jerusalem must never be divided. Why Joe Biden did not applaud this line will be something he has to explain. At least Biden did not applaud the pro-Hamas activist who insulted the Prime Minister and inadvertently revealed even more of why Americans support Israel.
Like that heckler, Barack Obama tried to shut down Netanyahu and Israel last Thursday. But Barack Obama failed to understand the American character and ideas such as trust and loyalty. Obama also failed to understand the concept of Judeo-Christian values which both America and Israel share.
America will not abandon Israel - that is yet another simple truth that Barack Obama does not understand.