The Financial Times called it “one of the most tense encounters” of the last several years between Israel and the US, and for good reason:
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, clashed face to face with her Israeli counterpart on Wednesday as the two countries remained at loggerheads over the expansion of settlements in occupied territory.
In what appeared one of the most tense encounters between the sides for several years, Mrs Clinton and Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, disagreed on both the US call for a complete freeze on settlement growth and Israel’s contention that the administration of George W. Bush, the former president, had signalled that some expansion was permissible.
“We cannot accept this vision about absolutely, completely freezing all settlements,” Mr Lieberman said.
In response, Mrs Clinton underlined the US call for a “stop to the settlements”, a move she described as “an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement”.
Ed:
While Hillary scolds our democratic ally, she soothes the repressive mullahcracy that is threatened by an uprising of its own people, demanding real democracy for the first time in decades. The best she can offer for the Iranian protestors is a sop to free speech and an acknowledgment that ballots should be counted fairly. Click the image to watch, and to read more reaction from Israel Matzav.
Carl:
You will note that Clinton cited Dan Kurtzer‘s Washington Post article, which agrees with her view of what happened, but not Elliot Abrams‘ article that disagreed with Clinton’s account and warned that the administration’s insistence on the ‘settlement freeze’ would not accomplish anything and would create ‘immediate tension’ between the US and Israel. Abrams’ prediction seems prescient.
One more factor should be thrown in: The administration has unearthed a 30-year old legal opinion by Herbert J. Hansel, the State Department legal adviser during the Carter administration, which claims that the ‘settlements’ are ‘illegal‘ under the Geneva Convention. Now, I could write the legal opinion that explains why Hansel is wrong, but no one asked me to, and no one at the State Department has ever written another legal opinion, so Hansel’s is the only one that’s on the table. And while the Obama administration is declining to discuss it for the time being, my guess is that if the Netanyahu government sticks to its guns, we are going to be hearing a lot more about the Hansel opinion in the future.
What some people in both the US and Israel don’t seem to understand is that the Obama administration wants either a full Israeli surrender or a clash with Israel. By being seen as playing the heavy against Israel, the Obama administration enhances its status with the Arab-Muslim world to which President Obama wants to play. Secretary of State Clinton – notorious for having made kissy kissy with Soha Arafat moments after the latter accused Israel of poisoning Gaza’s water – is more than happy to play along with Obama’s aspirations on this score.
There’s a transcript of the joint press conference here
By the way, Secretary of State Clinton fell and fractured her elbow sometime after her press conference with Lieberman on Wednesday
Comments are closed.