Does Hillary Clinton Support the Clinton Parameters?
"The man crowned by Tommy Franks as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet” just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet."
That's MoDo sweetly reminding a few million readers who Douglas Feith is, what he did to this country, and how utterly unrepentant one of America's leading chickenhawks is.
She calls the piece, "The Dream Is Dead," but I think that may be a tad optimistic. The neocons' dream, and America's nightmare, was to secure Israel ("the Realm," as the neocons called it in their famous "Securing The Realm" blueprint) by taking out Iraq, Syria, Iran and whichever other state they did not like.
Their dream coincided nicely with Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's who didn't much care about Israel but had their own reasons for embroiling us in the Iraq adventure. (If it wasn't for the NIE, Iran would surely have followed).
But is the dream really dead? I don't think so. Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy team consists entirely of neocons of the Feith stripe.
On the Democratic side, Clinton's vote for Kyl-Lieberman and her inclination to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in neocon terms indicates that the dream can, if left unchecked, even be implemented by Democrats.
Obviously, Rudy and the other Republicans are hopeless on this issue. I don't think Hillary is.
However, it's up to primary voters to let her know that the fact that her last name is Clinton does not earn her a pass on this issue. In fact, it makes it it all the more essential for her to endorse the so-called Clinton parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace i.e. a Palestinian state, an end to the occupation, and a shared Jerusalem in exchange for security guarantees for Israel and peace with the Arab world.
Hillary is no neocon. But, unlike Obama, Richardson, and the others, she never strays from the hardline script on Israel. Check out her official position on the conflict.
The Feith/Wurmser/Kristol/Bolton/Libby/Perle/Krauthammer (etc) example should have taught her that those who most loudly deem themselves pro-Israel are, in fact, anything but. If they really cared about Israel (not to mention our own country), they would push hard for ending a conflict that jeopardizes US interests throughout the Muslim and Arab world and which has caused Israel nothing but endless violence.
But they are not pro-Israel. They are, like Feith (whose law partner and best friend is a West Bank settler) only concerned with maintaining an occupation that is killing Israel. Why? Ideological zealotry, which for these guys, trumps the desire of both Israelis and Palestinians to get on with their lives.
Does Hillary really need the approval of this bunch?
She doesn't. It's time for her to endorse the peace proposal drawn up by her husband and which most Israelis, Palestinians and American Jews support. If you bump into her in Manchester, Charleston or Cedar Rapids, would you mind asking her to do that?
You'll be doing us all a favor, especially her. If she becomes President, she will need to address this issue. She can't do that if she continues to send the message that, for her, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only about supporting the Likud line -- even as Prime Minister Olmert says that maintaining the occupation will be the death of Israel.
I believe she does see a two state solution as the best outcome, she has been saying that since the early 90's.
She should endorse the Clinton parameters, and I think she does, but she cannot do so in any public forum because the press and her opponents will bludgeon her with it. The typists at the Washington Post are already sick with fear of a "co-presidency", David Broder will write one of his "I talked to a real person" column and explain again how worried the public is that Bill Clinton will have another term, something that the polls show is not true, her opponents will claim that she is dependent on her husband to define her foreign policy - that's why she should, but she won't.
December 12, 2007 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right. God knows, there are no limits with the media, especially the Washington Post with their series of reviews of her pants suits.
Meanwhile, Rudy skates along!
December 12, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Clinton is in a tough position. As you mention, should she say that she supports the Clinton parameters, she would indeed get bludgeoned by the media, especially the neocon element.
OTOH, many of her recent statements sound far more hawkish on the issue compared to say, Obama's (DISCLAIMER: I am not an Obama supporter, and am still undecided). Some of that hawkishness may be because she is still a NY Senator, and is speaking to that constituency, which includes a large number of more conservative Jewish voters, some may be a result of needing to appear particularly tough on foreign policy as a woman candidate, and some may be compensation - a result of the far-right Israeli supporters' reaction to the infamous kiss, but it's troublesome none the less.
Since she's running for national office, she always has the option of making a statement that supports the Clinton parameters in spirit, without actually mentioning them specifically, but I somehow doubt that she will do that either. The voters are left in a tough position too, because we can't be sure where she stands.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 12, 2007 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very true - all the candidates are in a tough position here - 89% of American Jews live in 12 key electoral college states and in some states they have a swing vote large enough to make a difference. Also, the vast majority of American voters support a "strong Israel" and favour Israel over the Palestinians.
In my opinion, whichever lobbying group gets to the voters first, has a very good chance of "winning" the vote. If the pro two state groups get to the key states with a very good, swift and concise "education" campaign as to why the two state solution is the only viable solution which would benefit the Pal/Is and the U.S. it could make a very big difference. Then moving out to the general electorate with the campaign would be very helpful. It might also have the beneficial effect of forcing the candidates to form a position on the issue.
December 12, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In those 12 states, as in the country at large, Jews vote 75-80% Democratic in the Presidential elections.
Jewish will vote in that range, or higher, in '08
no matter who the Dem nominee is.
They do not vote based on who is the bigger hawk on Israel. If they did the GOP would win and it never comes close.
Jews are economic liberals and doves on foreign policy (the most dovish segments of the electorate on both Iran and Iraq, according to the AJC poll that was just released).
Endorsing I-P peace i.e. the Clinton parameters would offend some donors but there is no way it affects the vote.
December 12, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I see your point, but there is still that swing group of Jewish voters which is too large a group to ignore. I'm not referring to the donors who would be offended, they've already made up their minds, it is this group of voters and the electorate at large who need to be convinced. Why allow the hardliners to control the dialogue? You can't just expect people to see that your solution is better, you have to tell them why it's better.
The electorate at large overwhelmingly favours a hardline support for Israel, there is no getting around it, the two state solution advocates have to get out there and start pounding the streets.
December 12, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right. Thanks, Bev.
December 12, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't need to start pounding the streets, you need to to convince the electorate instead of just "reinforce them in their views".
Who has ability to convince the electorate when your view can be challenged and you can't be just rated 0 your opponent or call him names?
December 12, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you find someone else to bother?
December 12, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, sir. But no, Davai, is my personal parasite.
December 12, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I prevent you from getting your dose of
"reinforcing your views" from MJ?
December 12, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. It's just that your public stalking of him is a little on the creepy side. I just picture that scene in A Beautiful Mind where he has that shed where the walls were loaded with clippings. That's you with MJ's stuff all on the wall....
December 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, why does it bother you? As long as you can get reinforcment of indoctrination, you should be happy.
December 12, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you concede the point.
December 12, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Whatever makes you happy.
BTW, I forget what are we arguing about?
December 12, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, MJ thank you for proving my point. You can rate me 0 , but you can rate 0 anybody outside your tmpcafe Pale.
December 12, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean for Rosenberg himself to go door to door, (although he did really well on Moyer's Journal) I meant a really good advertising campaign, educate the public to the solution of a two state deal. There's a big difference between reinforcing the views on a private forum and convincing the public at large. I'd say for the majority of posters here, he is reinforcing the two state solution.
December 12, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he doing well among the people who already agree with him.
December 12, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not know that. I couldn't find any good poll on what the majority of the electorate favour, although there are plenty of polls that inform us that the majority favours Israel and Palestine has very little support.
I don't know what the Palestinians favour - I read two polls that the favoured plan towards negotiations is the "Clinton Parameters" but all that tells us is that they favour that plan more than others.
December 12, 2007 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Garbage. See above. Also see Clayton Swisher's "The Truth About Camp David."
December 13, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. The deal wasn't fair. Only a group with NO leadership accepts a terrible deal. Ironically, Barak was the one who walked away from Camp David. Can't imagine why you failed to mention that?
December 13, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to argue this issue with MJ.
He asks Hillary Clinton to Support the Clinton Parameters. So I assumes that he likes them. So, I let MJ to convince you.
December 13, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone interested in arguments about whether the recent national intelligence estimate (NIE) means the dream of an attack on Iran is over might be interested in Afrasiabi's take at watchingamerica.com
In "Smart Side to US Intelligence," Afrasiabi speculates something like this:
1. The NIE serves to weaken Europe's policy toward Iran by bringing the policy power on this issue back to Washington (he qualifies this by noting that the US was pulling strings behind the scenes in Europe)
2. The US doesn't need the nuclear threat pretext since the Congress declared the Iranian guards a terrorist group.
3. The release of the NIE coincided with a summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council and undermined Iran's regional stature and perhaps leverage by painting Iran as a paper tiger.
4. The NIC dampened oil prices while a global recession looms and OPEC considers shifting its currency exchange away from the dollar.
Any thoughts on his analysis? When all else fails, the truth is somewhere in one of the middles?
December 12, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That raises an interesting point. Several reports have noted that Bush was aware of the contents of the NIE for several months before the formal paper was released. I wonder if Congress would have been so willing to go along with the designating of the Iranian Guards as a terrorist group, had they also been briefed on the new NIE while the report was in the pipeline. Although the NIE deals with the Iranian nuclear threat, and the terrorist designation had to do with a separate issue of support for Iraqi insurgents, it still seems that had Congress known of the NIE, there might have been fewer votes in favor of the terrorist designation, if only on the basis of Bush's diminished (can it get any lower?) credibility.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 12, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that line of thinking. It would be political suicide for a member of Congress to vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists after the report exposing lies about Iran's WMD status was made public. Interesting that the vote took place before the last Congressional elections when the reps are most vulnerable.
It sure seems plausible that the push to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was because the administration --and probably many in Congress--already understood that the WMD lies would catch up. Probably just another case of preemption: they wanted a back-up argument they could use for war with Iran when the latest WMD lie caught up.
The members of Congress who sit on the intelligence committees must had this information a long time ago.
December 12, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On December 11, 2007 - 6:24pm mjrosenberg said:
I don't write to convince my fellow TMPers but to help reinforce them in their views
Buyer Beware.
December 12, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a good post. I continue to feel, like you, not at all that Clinton is a neocon or even a RINO. Her issue stances are mostly quite progressive, at least apart from foreign policy, and even there she is mostly just evasive or all over the map. It's more that I don't trust her to have the courage and integrity of a leader on key issues. If she can't, as you say, even back up her husband's record (as, ironically, the Wednesday paper suggests is her strategy), we're dealing with a class A triangulator.
Maybe there's something ironic in how Mark Penn, a competent pollster, seems to have acquired (mostly objectionable) policy views about everything, while Clinton, a senator with a decent ADA record, has turned into a pollster.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 12, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Howard likes to remind us
So, Can you remind us what happened to Clinton parameters? Can you give us your views?
What are the official positions of Edwards, Obama and Richardson on I/P conflict? What are the differences with Clinton? Did they endorse Clinton Parameters?
Why does she need to do this?
If most Israelis, Palestinians, Olmer and Abbas agree on a peace proposal, they can just sign the peace right away and move on. Obviously, any American president will support such agreement.
However, I have doubt about your claim that most Palestinians support Clinton Parameters, including no “right of return” to Israel.
Are you talking about two state solution or one state solution?
If you propose to share the capital where significant percent of population of Israel live, you are really talking about one state solution. Can you explain if you support two state solution or one state solution. Do you propose to divide British mandate territory in two states, one Jewish majority and another Arab state, or do you propose a single Arab Majority state shared with Jewish minority?
I appreciate that finally you mentioned the Israeli security concerns.Can you expand on this?
December 12, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Davai, get used to it.MJR will never respond to you because you are an idiot.A guy who is interviewed by Bill Moyers and people like that is not going to respond to a shut-in with emotional problems.Before the internet, people like you would just stand in the park in their underwear screaming (with their Russian accents) at the passersby about world revolution.Are there any parks near you?Does your institution have a yard?
December 12, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand, I envy you, MJR likes, approves and responds to you. I know, I don't belong to the same club that MJ and Sean belongs.
To answer your question, there are many parks around place where I live. Some of them are just gorgeous. We should hike together one day. My institution doesn't have a yard, it's just a parking lot.
FYI, I don't support revolutions, I don't like "change", I like corporations, I like corporate Democtats, all my livehood depends on corporations, the better they are, the better I am. Yes, I have a very heavy Russian accents.
Let me know if you have more questions.
December 12, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean,
SHAZBOT, HUMOR, ar ar! :-)
December 13, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, John, You are not forgotten. You are on the same team wit Sean and MJ.
Blessed are peacemakers, like Sean, MJ and John.
December 13, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHY SHOULD SHE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLINTON PARAMETERS? There are only a thousand voters in the whole country who will vote aainst her because she isn't tough enough on Israel, while there are huundreds of thousands in Florida alone who will vote for Rudy or not vote at all if she says she will make Israel concede territory to a bunch of thugs.
Mr. Rosenberg, has your friend Chris Van Hollen said anything about the Clinton Parameters? Of course not. He knows how utterly stupid your political advice is.
December 13, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emet18.
"there are huundreds of thousands in Florida alone who will vote for Rudy or not vote at all if she says she will make Israel concede territory to a bunch of thugs."
So Hillary won't be bothering the Israelis about removing settlements and stuff? What about AFTER she's elected? Aren't you concerned that she could get convinced to really invest in moving things along between Israel and the Palestinians and apply pressure on Israel?
December 14, 2007 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a very good short article summarizing points I have been mentioning here at TPM for some time on why the Israel/Arab conflict is so intractable and why the Arabs can never accept the Jews' right to self-determination in their own historical homeland.
The writer points out that the mind-set of the Arab/Islamic Middle East is very different than those of the West and that Western ways of looking a conflict resolution are invalid in this particular conflict.
FULL DISCLOSURE-the link goes to what looks like a "right-wing" American web site that I have not seen before. They seem to have a close relationship with Daniel Pipes. For those of you who, on principle, refuse to read anything associated with people like that, you might as well skip the article. Those with more open minds will, I think, find the article very enlightening.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1813
December 13, 2007 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM readers beware: Daniel Pipes is a known Muslim-hater. (That you would find his article "enlightening" is enlightening in itself.)
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 14, 2007 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not true.
MJ and you are not Jew hater, You are Lobby, Zionism, Neo-Con, ..... haters.
The same way, Daniel Pipes is extremists, Islamofashism, ..... hater.
December 14, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me assume the conflict is absolutely intractable in what is assumed to be a historic homeland. In that case, there would be seem to be only three logical alternatives. Israel would have to maintain total military superiority indefinitely, including against people, in the extreme case, against a "different sort of WMD", which I shall explain. The other is to carry out genocide against the Arabs. The third is to abandon Israel. There would appear to be no others.
When I refer to "different sort of WMD", I am not referring to nuclear weapons, but things much more deadly. In many of these discussions, there is an overestimation both of the capabilities of nuclear weapons and the difficulty of making a large number of deliverable weapons. The latter requires a large and highly visible, to modern sensors, industrial base.
No major modern power, other than Japan, ever used nuclear weapons. Japan did use them in China, but used inefficient means of delivery (e.g., rats bearing plague-infected fleas). Even the Japanese, however, seemed to respect one axiom of biological warfare: do not use an organism that can transmit easily from human to human, such that it becomes a self-sustaining epidemic. There are conflicting reports, however, that the Soviets may have prepared such a weapon, with a conscious doomsday machine strategy in mind.
A sufficiently radical terrorist group, expecting to get its rewards in Paradise, suffers from no such constraint against creating a self-sustaining epidemic. Further, such radicals would have no particular reason not to use a genetically modified organism that can wipe out multiple species. There is one well-known approach that certainly could take out all warm-blooded life.
So, assuming you are correct that the Arabs are unable to accept the Zionist historical model, there would appear to be three, and only three, logical alternatives:
This doesn't have anything to do with Pipes per se. It would appear to be the only long-term consequences of your stated original position. Do you see a long-term stable alternative?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 14, 2007 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your option 1 doesn't work. There is no another planet where non-muslims can move:
December 14, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
While there is not universal agreement with Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilization theory, which does involve additional conflicts that do not involve Muslims at all, then are you saying that options 2 and 3 are the only alternatives? Do you have a fourth alternative?
Incidentally, of your list, Huntington considers the Turks as one of the exceptions in conflicts, not really Muslim. He considers Israel another special case, along with Ethiopia and Haiti. Even Huntington suggests that the major civilizations are not completely clear. For example, he is not certain that a distinct Latin American, as distinct from Western, civilization may or may not develop. Some of his other civilizations may not be as homogeneous as he suggests.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 14, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no posibility of conflict resolution, but there are ways to manage this confllict.
While Arabs wouldn't mind to destroy Israel. it doesn't mean that goal is the higest priority for them. The strategy for managing this conflict is very simple, to make destruction of Israel for Arabs less urgent goal without making easier for them to destroy Israel.
December 14, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, how do you implement this simple strategy?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 14, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, get settlers behind the fence,
as a first step, prevent Hamas from getting effective weapons to Gaza, and keep things quiet.
But in general, I understand, there is nnothing "simple".
December 14, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there is no possibility of conflict resolution, but that does not mean the situation is hopeless. I have outlined my scenario several times. It is basically "Jewish tzummud"-which is an Arabic word which I think translates as "steadfastness". Jews standing firm on their rights and everyone, including the US and EU, stopping demanding "peace agreements" which the Arabs can never agree to for the reasons that have been previously outlined. I disagree with Davai because I view the Judea/Samaria Jewish communities as VITAL for showing this "tzummud". Expelling the Jews from there only would inflame the Arabs, as we see happened in Gaza after the destruction of Gush Katif. In the period before Olso, (i.e. during the time of full Israeli occupation of Judea/Samaria) there was generally free movement of Arabs through Judea/Samaria and between there and Gaza (i.e. few of the roadblocks were hear so much about). IF THE VIOLENCE can be stopped, Israel could draw down its security presence in Judea/Samaria. Jewish settlements would continue to grow within the delineated areas for them (outside the Arab populated strip) and some sort of UNOFFICIAL condominium with Jordan could develop. But all of this will happen only when it is made clear to the Arabs that they are responsible for the political impasse and Israel is not going to be pressed to give up its rights.
December 15, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I may, I'd like to ask a question for pure information. What is the effect, if any, of the settlements on water availability to the surrounding Palestinian areas? I really don't know the answer to this and have been wondering if it is part of the problem.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 15, 2007 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! The water issue really is a large part of the problem of the settlements, which in many cases have been located specifically to maintain Israeli control over water resources. Read this article from the Foundation for Middle East Peace:
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 15, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid I can't answer your question, I just don't know enough about the matter. The Palestinian sources Wordie brings have a natural political agenda, so I have doubts about what they say. It is true many of the Jewish settlements are above the aquifer, so are the Palestinian settlements. The Oslo Agreements dealt with the water situation and I presume they agreed on a fair distribution (as much as I oppose the Oslo agreements, it is still necessary to find some way to share the water). The Arabs oppose the existence of the Jewish settlements in prinicple, so the water issue is simply another weapon in the propaganda arsenal.
December 15, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink