Following her arrival in Israel, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated at a press conference Tuesday that America's commitment to Israel's security is "rock solid," adding that "the goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike."... Israel is prepared to escalate its offensive but would prefer a long-term diplomatic solution, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday. "If there is a possibility of achieving a long-term solution to this problem with diplomatic means, we prefer that," he said in a public statement alongside Clinton. "But if not, I'm sure you understand that Israel will have to take whatever action is necessary to defend its people."Obama himself reiterated over the past days Israel's right to defend itself. Very good. However, he very quickly began pressuring Israel to restrain itself and not take Hamas out. It was a pretty quick turnaround from "right to defend yourself" to "de-escalate," "reach a truce," and "show restraint." Clinton herself was clearly immediately sent to to Jerusalem to achieve this purpose.
The House and Senate have, by the way, unanimously adopted resolutions in support of Israel. Each resolution "expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes and strongly supports its inherent right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism." That should be the US policy and how Israel chooses to defend itself should be left completely up to Israel.
I certainly would not complain if Clinton were not sent to Israel right now. Does anyone think Israel requested a visit from Clinton during hostilities? If so, I would support it, but for some reason I doubt that especially given the reports that Israel is holding off on a cease-fire currently because they do not believe it would be lasting. In fact, I don't think you can read about how Hillary Clinton this past April pushed through funding for Palestinians against a hold placed by a member Congress and then read about Hillary making her personal visit so soon after this round of hostilities began and conclude this is a wonderful sign.
I would prefer statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself and condemning Hamas, and letting Israel make the calls when its security is at stake. Sending America's top diplomat, the Secretary of State no less, personally after only days to me is actually a much worse move than leaving Israel to decide its strategy for itself as it begins to face a new wave of attacks. We'll have to wait and see what kind of agreement Hillary can come up with to bring about her cease-fire, but I don't think a cease-fire that relies on the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt's support will be lastingly meaningful by any stretch of the imagination.
It's not typical, as far as I remember, for the Secretary of State to personally travel to Israel as hostilities begin to push for a cease fire. She was not there just to stand with Bibi and show solidarity and "commitment." She was there to start placing pressure, and much of that means pressuring Israel. I don't like the U.S. pressuring Israel on her own defense from abroad, so why would I like this? I personally don't like the idea of green or red lights on Israel's security decisions coming from the U.S. at all, no matter the President in power, whether it's Bush, Obama, or whomever. And if you read the news from only a couple days ago it was saying Obama was giving Israel a "blank check" to respond as it wished. That was ridiculously untrue in retrospect, though it seemed to be the case as of the weekend. It took only days into this conflict for the U.S. to start publicly meddling and placing immense pressure on Israel not to "escalate," with Hillary going to the Middle East for that purpose. That was the wrong move. Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)
No comments:
Post a Comment