Clinton Says 2 State Solution is Inevitable
Posted in Public Affairs, Israel, Terrorism, war, wordpress, Politics, Clinton, syria, United States, Iran, Palestine, obama, hillary, Foreign Affairs, Islam, Muslim on March 5th, 2009 by Stanford Matthews 
The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.
Without serious impediments placed on groups like Hamas and their rocket attacks from a wide variety of nations in the world including Arab countries asking for cease fire agreements is just more of the same that has accomplished nothing worthwhile over decades. It is obvious the vast majority of nations in the world are not interested in solving this conflict. At least not in a way that would benefit all involved. When all the opinions vary and feature self-serving proposals or strategies as solutions there can be little optimism for the illusive prize some call peace. It would appear that most do not really seek peace but having their own way.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Clinton Tells Israel a Two-State Solution is Inevitable |
|
Jerusalem 03 March 2009 |
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States will press for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mrs. Clinton met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem Tuesday as part of her first foray into the region as Secretary of State.
Secretary Clinton’s pledge of support for a two-state solution may put the Obama administration at odds with Israel’s new leadership. The country may soon be led by the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused to declare his support for a totally independent and sovereign Palestinian state.
At a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Tuesday, Secretary Clinton said the White House believes that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests.
“It is our assessment as I expressed yesterday and again today that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable,” Clinton said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective and from the perspective of the Obama administration time is of the essence.”
Clinton’s schedule on Tuesday included a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, who has been designated to form a coalition government after last month’s inconclusive elections. Mr. Netanyahu has said he wants to focus less on negotiations with the Palestinians and concentrate more on shoring up the Palestinian economy. He also supports the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - something the United States sees as an obstacle to peace.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the road ahead will be difficult. She said the process of peace must start with finding a solution to the Gaza conflict. She called on Hamas to cooperate.
“The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable cease fire, but that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks,” Clinton said. “No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territory. These attacks must stop.”
Israel’s defense ministry says militants in Gaza have fired more than 120 rockets at Israel since the end of Israel’s 22-day assault in January.
Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday also sought to ease Israeli concerns over the new U.S. approach to Iran. During his campaign, President Barack Obama said his administration would be open to dialogue with the Iranian leadership, triggering concern among many here that Washington might soften its position on Tehran.
Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.
“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused,” Clinton said. “Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do.”
Regarding Syria, she announced Washington plans to send two envoys to Damascus soon to begin discussions on improving relations with the U.S. and furthering peace efforts in the region.
On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton is due to travel to the West Bank for meetings with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.
Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.
Some of the promises made by Barack Obama may have disappeared. Much talk of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle leading up to the stimulus package and his administration in general along with transparency have faded. Quotes like the one above needed to generate debate on the stimulus before it became law. As cited by many in Congress, mostly from the GOP, no one may have had time and no one certainly read the 1000 plus page document. Hundreds of politicians voting on something they know little if anything about. And the public was shut out. Where is the promise from Obama that the public would be able to view and comment on the ‘proposal’?
Going out on a limb the view at this blog is there is no politician alive who will not take the money. If Obama maintains a policy of use it or lose it you can bet staffers of every politician have already compiled a variety of public statements to cover every possibility. Either they will take the money and offer an excuse or offer the excuse and then take the money.
President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.
There have been too many instances lately in which Barack Obama invites criticism. This is just too easy. If you haven’t yet done the heavy lifting to develop a plan to increase jobs how did you choose a number like 2.5 million? Better yet, if you haven’t officially put together an economic team, how do you know they can deliver? Will this be another announced plan which afterwards must be scaled down because reality will not allow it to happen as advertised? As Mr Obama stated in his speeches after the election, his time as President will not be without setbacks and mistakes. Maybe to ‘hit the ground running’ in January he thought it might be helpful to get some of those pesky mistakes out of his bag of tricks early.
Those supporting the new President-elect most heartily urge others to withhold judgment at least until his first official day in office. But that may be the only urging his support can muster as nothing since the election suggests an Obama Administration will be change outside of the fact that President Bush will be leaving office and Barack Obama will be entering.
Napolitano presides over a southwest border state and has been praised for her handling of immigration and homeland security issues. The governor’s Web site says Napolitano is a national voice in calling for the federal government to take responsibility for securing the nation’s borders.
In Washington, incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is to meet with Congressional Republican leaders to discuss how best to work together. Emanuel has said Mr. Obama plans to govern in a bipartisan fashion during his term in office.
In other Cabinet selections, Democratic officials say Mr. Obama’s pick for the Department of Health and Human Services, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has accepted the job.
Separately, there is still speculation that Mr. Obama’s former Democratic rival for the White House, Senator Hillary Clinton, will join his Cabinet as secretary of state.
diplomat.
When the abstract alone of the candidate tax plans describes them as poor or poorly targeted a closer look would be needed to find support for the NYT claim that Obama’s plan is better for anyone. In the excerpt below one caveat comes from the NYT’s own description that ‘Mr Obama would GENERALLY cut taxes more’ and leaves one with the feeling someone is splitting hairs on this appraisal. And where does the so-called independent analysis state those under $250K would not see a tax increase? And this doesn’t even come close to explaining where Obama gets the money to pay for his trillion dollar spending proposal. Gouging the small group of wealthy citizens who pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country won’t cover it.
The summary and review includes the well known fact that the FBI is investigating ACORN. Anita Moncrief, a former ACORN employee turned whistleblower, has testified in PA state court of ACORN’s wrongdoing. Obama has lied but Obama is tied to ACORN back to 1995 and maybe before then.
Using just the ACORN estimate of 1.3 million registrations gives another estimate of over a half million illegal registrations. And that is not even a precise measure of how bad this thing could be. And Obama gave $800000 or more dollars to ACORN for ‘get out the vote’ efforts. How about calling it what it is, a stuff the ballot box effort by the Messiah.
Amid all the videos presented on this blog recently and that will be from now on until the 2008 Presidential election has concluded a post from time to time providing some explanation of views should be presented. We are all familiar with the many arguments, campaign presentations, media reports and other sources offering attempts to persuade voters in the coming election. This blog has made an effort to convince people to vote for candidates also and will continue to do so. But a break from the usual or typical method may be useful.
John McCain on the other hand has been around for a long time and with varying degrees of familiarity to the details most people know him quite well. Simply because their careers have some similar details both McCain and Biden are frequently described by others in the business of politics as Senators in good standing with the typical number of glitches in their histories. Both McCain and Biden are known to irritate others from time to time and while Biden has more of a reputation for speaking before thinking, McCain’s temper has been known to cause him a problem from time to time. Biden is hamstrung to some degree by the plagiarism scandal and McCain although only mildly admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee has the Keating Five episode on his resume’. Beyond that the two Senators have what could probably be referred to as what one Democrat and one Republican would have for records after many years in Congress.
long. But most of her history minus the media and other sources who have muddied the water is not much concern for the voter. No one seems to have challenged her stature as the most popular Governor in the country. No one seems to challenge the fact that she is responsible for attending to her state constituents including negotiating significant annual residuals from energy revenues as income for residents. And there still are a great many people who view Sarah Palin as more like the ordinary citizen than the majority of those who populate Washington elected offices. And whether true or not most of her history is out there. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama.
Of the associations for which Barack Obama has received criticism why was he initially reluctant to respond? Why did he try to minimize his relationship with Rev Wright and only severed ties when the political liability became too risky? Why did he do the same about William Ayers in referring to him as just a guy in the neighborhood until the story grew legs? Even subsequent responses were less than candid and could even be characterized as lies when follow up reports were released. He shrugged off his ties with Tony Rezko and the real estate deal with him only to describe it as a bonehead move later on when he could no longer distance himself from it. These are just a few of the problems people see with Barack Obama. Not necessarily so much the associations and events but the way he responds to inquiries. Especially when those responses are later replaced with admissions of some guilt or error.
The view from this blog is that the House was unable to pass the massive bailout bill because those fearing election defeats voted for the bill. When it failed, Congress in their 12% approval rating mentality decided to hand it over to the Senate as re-election is viewed as not a problem for them. With that in mind this blog finds it reassuring that in the NO vote area below, Senators Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are listed. If memory serves, their voting records on illegal immigration and other issues were respectable as well.
Remember how it all started for John McCain’s VP selection? 
The less than inspiring tactics of the kook fringe were not lost on their Messiah either as one of his campaign ads criticized John McCain as being out of touch for not using technology like the PC and email. Did they really not know that Mr McCain is not able to do some of those things as a result of injuries sustained while a POW? McCain was also criticized for referencing his service to country by what those critics claimed was overuse of the topic. Perhaps the reason why they did this is that their own candidate has no similar history to report. And the Messiah is all too willing to sidestep questions about his affiliations with domestic terrorist William Ayers as well as Rev Wright and Tony Rezko. Which makes it hard to believe that his campaign reference to ‘lipstick on a pig’ was not a shot directed at Sarah Palin especially when he used it so soon after her campaign quip about hockey mom’s and pitbulls.
For a very rich woman to call Barack Obama an elitist can put a smile on your face. It seems a bit strange for one rich person to call another elitist. Isn’t that reserved for the have-nots to call those who have? That aside, the real story is that Lady Rothschild was on the DNC platform committee, so it’s not like the well heeled are not as likely to be liberals as conservatives. Rothschild resigned her membership when endorsing the McCain/Palin ticket indicating Barack Obama gave her no reaosn to trust him.
The Lady R has more great quotes which is probably a prerequisite for being that rich. 
With the fish wrap NYT has reported in their version of the story that Lady R and the Queen of Cringe are tight it may explain the public defection of a prominent Democrat to the GOP ticket. Hillary cannot politically afford to openly cause trouble for Barack Obama but she can use a surrogate to get the job done. But she makes it believable with the following quote on the Dems….