(AP) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ,right, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu react during a press conference in Jerusalem. Saturday, Oct. 31. 2009. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says Israel is making "unprecedented" concessions on West Bank settlement construction.The U.S. administration had previously demanded Israel halt all settlement building before negotiations could resume.But speaking at a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, Clinton said "there has never been a precondition. It has always been an issue with negotiations."(AP Photo/ Rina Castelnuovo, Pool)

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

On a day when Hillary Clinton, in Israel to restart peace negotiations, could claim that "what prime minister [Netanyahu] has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements is unprecedented...", the Haaretz columnist, Gideon Levy, came back with an appropriate admonishment: 'stop sucking up to Israel.'

What turns out to be Netanyahu's unprecedented offer is nothing less than the promise to continue expansion of existing settlements, like the 150 illegal villages, towns, and cities built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as shown in the map above. Not shown are the hundred or so illegal outposts that have yet to be dismantled as promised. Hillary's statement again shows that America bends to Israel's will and it is presently this fawning stance that impedes peace, at least according to Levy.

more and map of settlements at mydd

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=108207&categ_id=17

(and had trusted her) he might have created an uber-Secretary of everything but State and Defense and put her "I'm not a quitter" ethic to work. Oh well.....

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

NYT (op-ed)[snips] -
According to media reports, the president’s advisers are searching for ways of reassuring Israel’s public of President Obama’s friendship and unqualified commitment to Israel’s security...

The White House is about to set a new record in the number of reassuring messages and video greetings sent by an American president to Israel, as well as to Jewish organizations in the United States, on this subject. Plans for a presidential visit to Jerusalem are under discussion.

Presidential aides worry that the hostility toward President Obama among Israelis can be damaging to his peace efforts. This is undoubtedly true.

Israelis do not oppose President Obama’s peace efforts because they dislike him; they dislike him because of his peace efforts. He will regain their affection only when he abandons these efforts.

I imagine this last paragraph is intended to and may get more than a few comments on nytimes.com. Complete piece at the link

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

Repeat after me:

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Again--
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Again--
"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal."

What has to happen to allow this idea to sink in? Changes around the edges while the fundamental things remain as before is not a justification for continued support. Banker lobby AIPAC, beggar man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Taft and Hartley are the chiefs of this little tribe. There's plutonium seeping out of Los Alamos and all's well. We take picnics there several times a summer...

... are belong to US!

The most unethical dimension of this, well, a leading contender, if the US is caving on 3000 settlements and East Jerusalem generally, all those Palestinian refugees entitled to finally get resettled in the same West Bank & Jerusalem areas.

Because that moral claim is of course Hillary's to give away. Both jolly hill & jolly bibi can agree -- in that marvelous photo above.

--
Hongpong.com

gagging...

Clinton backs Israel on settlements stance

Agreement would allow settlers to finish 3,000 houses plus public buildings

By Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem

Monday, 2 November 2009

Palestinian leaders angrily accused Hillary Clinton of undercutting Middle East peace prospects yesterday after she endorsed Israel's plans to continue expanding West Bank settlements

The US Secretary of State for the first time voiced support for Israel's argument that since a freeze on settlement construction had not been a precondition for previous peace talks, it should not be one during the negotiations the US is now trying to convene.

Instead of a freeze, Mrs Clinton urged the Palestinians to accept what she termed an "unprecedented" Israeli offer of "restraint" in settlement construction and to go to the negotiating table as soon as possible without preconditions. "What the Prime Minister [Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu] has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements is unprecedented," she said in a clear departure from the Obama administration's former position that there needed to be a total freeze. Mrs Clinton was speaking during a joint appearance with Mr Netanyahu. He said that his government would conduct a policy of "restraint" while at the same time enabling "normal life" for the settlers.

more

As soon as someone can explain to me what strategic purpose our relationship serves, i might start believing a small slice of the spin.

We already have 13 aircraft carriers, and Israel doesn't even float. As far as i can see, our relationship actually hurts our interests. It certainly doesn't win us any friends in Islamic countries.

Nor do i buy that we do anything much to restrain Israel. Not restraining Israel would just hasten its slide into an international pariah.

But i don't have any issue with Israel's existence; what i cannot fathom is how willing we are to let the neozionist Likudniks appear as the whole of Israel.

Finally, i think Clinton gives Rice a run for the "Worst Secretary of State" in a long time award. Stupid, stupid, stupid giving the post to a domestic politician with her record if there was any hope of movement on this issue.

Was it Clinton's poor choices of words or is she going to take the hit for an Obama misstep?

Clinton backtracks on Israeli settlements after Arab anger

David Usborne | November 3

The Independent - Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, was forced into an awkward diplomatic pirouette yesterday, insisting to Arab foreign ministers that Washington had not capitulated to Israel's continuing hunger for new Jewish settlements even if statements she had made 24 hours earlier seemed to imply exactly that.

Arab anger had flared after Mrs Clinton departed from the script of President Barack Obama at the weekend, suggesting that the Palestinians should agree to resume peace talks without preconditions, including that Israel first stop all settlement construction in the West Bank. She appeared to endorse the offer by the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to institute merely a limited suspension of construction in some areas.

While not backtracking entirely, Mrs Clinton attempted in Morocco last night to massage those remarks. Saying that Israel had expressed to her "a willingness to restrain settlement activity," she added: "This offer falls far short of what our preference would be, but if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth."

Mrs Clinton, who travelled from Israel to meetings in Marrakesh, also offered fulsome praise to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, for taking steps to meet Israel's demands, notably for increased security, and said that "Israel should reciprocate".

Fears are growing on the Arab side that Washington is going soft on Israel out of an overwhelming desire to get talks started again. In the summer, Mr Obama plainly demanded that Israel cease all settlement construction to allow peace talks to go forward.

Mrs Clinton's words, spoken while in Israel on Sunday, prompted a particularly stark warning in Marrakesh from Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League. "I am telling you that all of us, including Saudi Arabia, including Egypt, are deeply disappointed ... with the fact that Israel can get away with anything without any firm stand that this cannot be done," he said. "The Palestinians say that a viable state for their people will not be possible with more settlements."