Clinton: U.N. Palestine Vote ‘Unfortunate And Counterproductive’

[ProSense]

Clinton: U.N. Palestine Vote ‘Unfortunate And Counterproductive’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday had harsh words for the vote by the United Nations General Assembly to recognize Palestine as a nonmember state.

"I want to say a few words about the unfortunate and counterproductive resolution at the United Nations General Assembly," Clinton said at an event in Washington, D.C.

Clinton went on to say that the vote "places further obstacles in the path of peace" and is not a prescription for peace between Palestine and Israel.

"We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and the Israelis achieve the peace that they deserve," Clinton said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/clinton-un-palestine-vote-unfortunate-counterproductive

Why is this the US' position? Seems this is a positive development.

[redgreenandblue]

1. It is unfortunate because it is a symptom of the death of the US empire.

It is unfortunate because it means the world recognizes that it needs to work around the US and Israel if progress is to be made, and is willing to do so.

To quote Chomsky: "Empires don't die by being defeated. They die by becoming irrelevant."

[tama]

76. Why

do you consider the death of the US empire unfortunate? And world working around US and Israel to make progress unfortunate? Do you, on this progressive forum, consider progress unfortunate?

[redgreenandblue]

103. I don't find it unfortunate.

I explain why I think Hillary finds it unfortunate.

[MadHound]

2. Two reasons that this is considered "unfortunate"

First, because it did not go through the US. The US has been used to anything dealing with Mideast peace coming through the auspices of US diplomacy. The Palestinians basically showed us up, showed us that we're not needed.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, with Palestine's new access to the ICC, our lapdop Israel can now be held responsible for its reprehensible actions.

[loli phabay]

4. interestingly this icc thing could be a two edged sword

The palestinian leadership might find themselves in the court also. Wonder how the UN will handle rockets being fired into israel as well.

[redgreenandblue]

5. It would be good news either way.

All crimes should be settled through the ICC.

[MadHound]

7. Same way they'll handle Israel bulldozing Palestinian settlements,

In court, with the rule of law. Is that a bad thing?

[DonCoquixote]

10. only if

the law is imprtial, and sorry to say, there are too many onn both sides of the fence that are ready to piss in the punch before it even gets served, both those who hate arabs and those who hate jews, with Europe simply sitting back hating both.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

16. I've been wondering the exact same thing.

[leftynyc]

21. Israel doesn't recognize the ICC

Neither does the US for that matter. And really, what could possibly be more ludicrous than the people who voted Hamas into power crying about war crimes.

[bunnies]

54. Yeah.

How dare they cry over their dead children. How dare they want someone to be punished. Ludicrous indeed.

[leftynyc]

56. Don't dead Israeli babies count?

You certainly wouldn't think so reading this thread. You want to defend a terrorist organization, knock yourself out. But don't expect the majority of Americans or the American government to turn a blind eye to Hamas.

[bunnies]

63. Dont change the subject.

you said:

And really, what could possibly be more ludicrous than the people who voted Hamas into power crying about war crimes.

I simply pointed out how ridiculous that statement is.

All dead babies count. And EVERY victim of war crimes *should* have access to some sort of legal intervention. But lets not pretend that the death count is even CLOSE to equal. OK?

1,477 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis and 129 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians since September 29, 2000.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html

[leftynyc]

68. If more dead bodies made one side more right,

then the nazis were princes. That's hardly changing the subject. Like antagonizing a pitbull when you're a poodle is not a good idea.

[bunnies]

69. Is that what I said?

uhh, no. Point is: Israel is responsible for a significantly larger amount of death and destruction than Palestine. Fact.

And I certainly did not say that more dead bodies made one side right. By that logic, Israel would be the princes.

[leftynyc]

70. It's a fact with no meaning other

than for those who grieve. It doesn't change the story on the ground one bit. If the Palestinians don't put in their charter, or their constitution or whatever their governing document is going to be called that they accept Israel as a Jewish state side by side with a Palestinian state, then nothing will change. Israel doesn't have to do anything - the Palestinians do.

[Scootaloo]

82. It doesn't matter

If a crime is committed within the territory of a nation that IS party to the ICC, the accused can be brought before the ICC if the violated nation wishes. Basically it's like how a crime on French soil is tried in French courts - except the French can decide that it should go to the ICC instead of those French courts.

The ICC can also be asked to review a case in case the accused cannot be apprehended.

It does not matter if the nation of the accused is party to the court or not. All that means is that said nation cannot seek redress with the ICC. So Israel and the US' non-participation is counterproductive and counterintuitive.

[hifiguy]

59. I think the actual lapdog is the US, not Israel.

Israel could start putting Palestinians up against the wall and machine gunning them and the only thing the US would do would be to issue a "strongly worded protest" and promptly look the other way while continuing the arms shipments.

[quinnox]

3. its unfortunate the rest of the world is going against our wishes

Because after all, we are the kings of the world. The nerve of these countries to do something like this! (sarcasm)

That is my take on what this statement really means.

[ceile]

6. Why?

Because the US didn't get it's way? Or because Israel may have to actually answer for what it's done at the ICC?

[former9thward]

73. No country goes to the ICC unless they want to.

The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians do not recognize the ICC. It will have no role there.

[Scootaloo]

83. The ICC is not retroactive

If Palestine seeks membership to the ICC, the only cases that could be brought to the court are those that occur after yesterday's vote, or perhaps those that are ongoing untried situations. So the expansion of settlements today could count, but hte establishment of said settlements years ago would not.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. Would Israel let us say anything else? N/T

[byeya]

9. Take yout troubles to Micronesia, Kiddo, they trade their votes for a place to live as

global warming is wiping out their countries.

[TrueBlueinCO]

11. This is the US position because it is true.

This is likely to lead to more violence and strife, not less.

[sabrina 1]

13. The US and Israel have failed for how many decades now to deal with this situation in an even

handed way. Nothing has improved under their stewardship. All this is, is the world saying 'you've had decades to show your intentions and over the past few years all we have seen is more violence so now the world is going to step in and move this forward with or without your consent'.

Too bad the US, Israel and Canada did not join the rest of the world. Their actions in this only emphasizes why there has been zero progress on this problem for so long.

[TrueBlueinCO]

15. It has been the US position because the Palestinians are not ready for a state

Not one that coexists with Israel, anyway.

Assuming that a Palestinian state is created, what happens when the next Hamas rocket hits Israel?

Since it is coming from a state, and Hamas is the governing body, that is now an act of war. Israel then can LEGALLY invade, and annex and there is nothing in international law to stop it from happening.

The higher ups in Palestine know this, and that is why they refuse to accept a solution that involves Israel continuing to exist. A two state "solution" is a death knell for the Palestinians.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

17. While Israel can indeed invade,

it cannot legally annex territory. That's why Israel is seen so unfavorably outside of the US and it's closest allies...it has already annexed territory to which it is not legally entitled.

[TrueBlueinCO]

20. That's now, but not if Palestine becomes a state then commits an act of war

At that point Israel can legally invade and annex territory that is gained in the invasion.

Palestine will never accept coexisting with Israel for this reason.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

22. No it cannot.

No one can "win" territories without a formal peace treaty awarding territories to one country or another. The Arab-Israeli Conflict has only had partial treaties and none of them have awarded territory conquered during the Six Day War to Israel. (1979 Peace with Egypt returned the Sinai to Egypt and confirmed follow-up discussions on the Gaza Strip and 1994 Peace with Jordan required Israel to cede the West Bank to a future Palestinian State.)

[TrueBlueinCO]

23. When facing total annihilation in all out war...

and make no doubt about it Israel could annihilate the Palestinians without breaking a sweat, giving up the land in a peace treaty is a no brainer.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

40. Do you think Israel and Palestine operate in a vaccum?

[TrueBlueinCO]

44. I don't think that there is any country in the middle east that can stop Israel

Iran and Syria like to talk tough, but they don't want to get nuked. The only support they give to Hamas is under the table because they are afraid of Israel. They would remain as ineffectual then as they are now.

The UN has no reach without the US. The average UN country can't project power beyond their own borders. The ones that do have the limited ability to fight a war out side their own borders, France, UK, Germany, Russia are not going to get involved either.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

67. By 2020

The US will be the world's largest producer of oil.... What do you think is going to happen over there when we no longer care about oil in the Middle East. It's foolish to think that the US will continue to support Israel when it is no longer needed to take the heat for the unrest in the region. Or that the British or French would be opposed to nuking Israel if they felt the need.

It is foolish in the extreme to think that Israel is somehow invincible.

[TrueBlueinCO]

95. Now that's just so ridiculous that it's funny

The French and British wouldn't dream of nuking Israel. They wouldn't even get involved in a conventional conflict. Not now, and not 20 years from now.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

99. You're correct...

it was meant as hyperbole, to emphasize that they would not object to Iran behaving badly when no one much cares about ME oil any longer.

[TrueBlueinCO]

100. and if Iran behaves badly enough

then Israel will nuke them. Problem solved.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

102. If you say so....

[Scootaloo]

84. Keep going. I find your views to be... intriguing

[TrueBlueinCO]

25. Besides, who is going to stop them if the gloves came off?

The UN? The can hardly tie their own shoes without US assistance.

Syria, Iran? They don't want to get nuked, so no.

There is simply no way for a Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel until there is a radical shift in the mindset of the Palestinians.

[cpwm17]

86. Israelis support Apartheid against Arabs

http://morallowground.com/2012/11/06/poll-majority-of-israelis-support-apartheid-against-arabs/

What mindset of the Palestinians are you referring to? Israel and the Israelis are the obstacle to peace.

[TrueBlueinCO]

97. I'm referring to the Palestinian mindset

that all Jews must be killed and/or driven into the sea.

The governing bodies of the West Bank and Gaza have the destruction of Israel as part of their charters. Until the Palestinians accept Israel's existence and the general presence of Jews in the Middle East, there will be no peace.

[TrueBlueinCO]

26. Also, conquering it is winning it if there is no one to force it to be otherwise.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

42. So you condone an outlaw nation?

Interesting position.

[TrueBlueinCO]

45. Israel is much less outlaw than the Palestinians.

I think that with the exception of the US, the UN is largely anti-Israel and that Israel has no reason to be bound to their unjust laws.

[bunnies]

46. Unjust laws?

Such as?

[TrueBlueinCO]

51. Such as requiring Israel to give up land that is

strategically necessary for their defense.

The "1948 borders" that the Arabs an their antisemitic sycophants in the UN would have Israel return to are indefensible and completely unrealistic.

[bunnies]

58. They have a military, nukes and unlimited US support.

I dont see how defending themselves is an issue. When, exactly, will Israel have enough land to be satisfied?

[hifiguy]

60. When there is no place left whatsoever for

the Palestinians, that's when.

[bunnies]

64. exactly. nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

62. Perhaps

the rest of the world is anti-United States and Israel is seen as an easy surrogate target. Exactly which laws do you consider unjust?

[sabrina 1]

49. So what you are basically saying is that the Palestinians are inferior 'not ready for a state'

and that there never was any hope of a peace agreement, a decision was made, and all we've watching is games to create an illusion of negotiations. Looks like time has run out and the illusion is not working anywhere except with the US.

And that is precisely why outside observers, who have been watching this for so long, realize there was no intention of resolving this issue because Israel is perfectly happy with the way things are. The US has done nothing to push the issue forward, but simply takes Israel's lead.

It was inevitable that this became an issue that required outside intervention. The US has been one-sided in this always siding with Israel. It wasn't hard to see.


And out of interest, just when do you think the Palestinians might be ready for a state?

[TrueBlueinCO]

52. The Palestinians will be ready

when they are fully prepared to peacefully coexist with Israel and give up on the idea of "right of return".

[Agony]

104. That might work

if Israel also gave up the idea of "right of return".

[TrueBlueinCO]

105. The Israelis are already there,

but nice try. Or you simply have no idea of the history there.

The Israelis don't need to return because they didn't abandon the country so that neighboring armies could wipe it off the map like the Palestinians did. Thats's what they did, and that's why they aren't being allowed back. Ever.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

18. Why such a lopsided view?

While the US and it's closest allies have supported Israel much of the rest of the world, including Russia and now China have been backing the Palestinians for decades. Perhaps it's time for everyone to back off?

[sabrina 1]

57. In what way has Russia supported the Palestinians? And maybe China finally had it just like

the rest of the world. Neither was ever able to get the UN to enforce the sanctions violated by Israel eg. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese elected officials taking oaths to support Palestine no matter what. Nor have I heard any Palestinian leader claim, as Netanyahu has regarding the US Congress, that they 'have the Russian Government in the palm of their hands'.

The US has not once condemned any action taken by Israel no matter how wrong. In fact when it becomes apparent that the rest of the World is growing increasingly impatient with Israel's violent attacks on Gaza and Lebanon and peace activists, the US Congress rushes to take yet another oath of support for Israel. All this has done is to anger the rest of the world even more.

Israel therefore has not been served well by the US' biased and one-sided position on this situation. Having alienated the world ourselves with Bush's brutal wars killing untold numbers of Muslims, the world is no longer surprised when the US cheers on brutal invasions of other populations.

I hope one day the US and Israel will get over the false belief that the world respects violent invasions of other people's countries. They do not. So using such intense violence no matter what excuses are used 'Saddam was a Brutal dictator' 'the Palestinians are to blame' etc., obliterates any moral superiority they might have had. People abhor watching these bombings and do not believe that MORE Violence is the answer.

If it was, the world should be the most peaceful it ever was in its history. Instead, after all the 'Wars for Peace' the world is unstable and violent than ever.

Someone other than the current players who believe in using WMDs to solve every problem, need to take over.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

65. And who would you suggest?

We alienated much of the world long before Bush.

You certainly view the world through rose colored glasses. Why would the US condemn Israel for doing exactly what the US wants it to do? Take the heat for the oppressions of millions across the Muslim world. The US policy in the Middle east, indeed all US foreign policy, is not based on a desire to be respected, but rather to be feared. Don't listen to the words, watch the actions.

By 2020 the US will be the largest oil producer in the world.... I would posit that if the Palestinians haven't found a way to co-exist with the Israelis by then, they are in for a very rude awakening.

As to the world being more violent now, you may find this interesting:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war

[sabrina 1]

74. Maybe Norway or Iceland eg.

I don't disagree that Israel is being used by the US. Nothing else explains the one-sided support for them regardless of what they do. Maybe Israel should look at the US's history with its many former allies. We don't have a good record of being loyal to those who fell over backwards, even harming their own citizens, thus alienating them, on our behalf, (and their own of course, there's always a pay-off). Once the US has no more use for former allies, such as Saddam Hussein or Noriega to use some of our more extreme 'betrayals', we dump them and either leave them to their fate, or ensure that fate ourselves.

Same thing with Mubarak, Ben Ali and so many others who were dropped like hot potatoes once they could not be of any more use to us and left to deal with the results of their own betrayal of the people they should have been building up relationships with.

If Israel is being used by the US, they are doing things to alienate just about everyone in the world but mostly their neighbors and IF the US follows its usual pattern, once we are done with them, they will be left to face alone, without their protectors, the wrath of those they are currently alienating.

It might be better for them to face reality. Once the US is free from the need for oil in the ME, Israel may very well be on its own and now might be the time to start making friends with their neighbors as an investment in their own future.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

91. When the US

no longer needs the ME oil they will let loose the dogs of war and it is not the Israelis who will be unprepared for that. In fact, it would serve the US oil industry very well if ME oil production was totally disrupted or destroyed. Years ago, while in high school, I learned about the Texas Railroad Commission. The TRC has little to nothing to do with railroads, but everything to do with oil production. The long term plan has been to hold down US production of oil until the oil supplies of other nations had been exhausted or very seriously depleted...then once again the US would rule the world through oil.

It is all about the oil Sabrina 1, for everyone, including the 138 who voted to raise the status of Palestine. Canada, for example, wants that damned pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico...if the US decides to paint the ME in blood, Canada won't offer anything more than a token objection. The other nations will follow suit.

Right now China imports the most ME oil....If that supply is disrupted, our trade imbalance with China suddenly tilts in favor of the US. Realpolitik rules the world, not ideological or humanitarian concerns.

The Palestinians have much more to lose by remaining intransigent ... the Israelis just need to hang on for another decade and if Hamas is still launching rockets into Israel 10 years from now, Gaza becomes a memory. That is the sad reality.

[cali]

71. yeah, China's "had it". It's a moral position. Ever hear of Tibet?

I'm glad Palestine has been recognized by the U.N., but c'mon.

[sabrina 1]

72. Ever hear of Iraq, Afghanistan, Mai Lai, etc. etc.

Too bad we lost our moral authority, or gave it up actually, then we could slam China for its lack of moral authority in situations like this with a straight face.

Since moral authority is not a factor anymore, China now has as much credibility to weigh in on these issues as we or Britain, or any of our allies, considering their own histories.

Not sure why you didn't realize that already. There are no standards by which any nation has the right to speak about injustices.

[cali]

87. yes, dearie- and I bring that up frequently- as you very well know.

I was simply pointing out the obvious- that YOU seem to think that China's position is a moral one when it is purely political. I'm consistent. I never claimed we have any moral authority, sweetie. You're the one that claimed moral authority on China's behalf. Try being a little consistent. duh.

[sabrina 1]

89. Lol, no, I did not claim they had moral authority, just standing which they are using.

At this point though considering how we've running around the world killing people, including American citizens without charges or trials, while China has been using money to buy what they want, they do have more than we do at this point. International polls on who is the biggest threat to world peace name Israel and the US. People do not fear that China is going to invade anyone's country. And when the US State Dept had the gall to criticize China for human rights abuse, they responded with a list of human rights abuses still in progress in this country.

And that is sad because the world needs a country that can speak out against human rights abuses and we could have been that great country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Why, of course, we respect majority rule...except when they vote against us.

[Lucinda]

14. The notion behind it seems to involve Pakistan using the International Criminal Court

(with their new nonmember state status) to lodge complaints against Israel - rather than directly dealing one to one.

Editing to pop in I.C.C. for UN

[bunnies]

32. But who can blame them?

Dealing one to one is getting them nowhere. And since Israel shows no signs of stopping their relentless land-grab, I dont see what other choice the Palestinians had. At this rate, it wont be long until Israel takes every inch of land they have. *Someone* who gives a damn about the people of Palestine should step in & it certainly isn't us.

[Lucinda]

43. I think statehood is the right thing to do and is long overdue. Even the SOS,

who is getting beat up here today, believes in a two state solution for peace.

This whole situation feels to me like there is a lot of maneuvering going on behind the scenes. The Palestinians now have a bigger bargaining chip. We are still officially on record supporting Israel, AND the notion that the two states must work towards their own peaceful resolution.

[bunnies]

48. It seems bizarre to me that if we support a two "state" solution...

we would oppose the recognition of Palestine as a "state". Im beginning to question whether peace is even the real goal here.

[sabrina 1]

53. If statehood was a goal of the US, they apparently have fooled the rest of the world. The world

has become sick of watching this situation and have apparently concluded there was no intention ever of any peace agreement. Now they have gone around the US which many people have predicted would happen considering the actions taken by Israel in Lebanon, twice now in Gaza and with the killing of the peace activists. The world was horrified at these actions and many people who cared at all about Israel warned that these actions would result in Israel losing any credibility at all regarding their claims to want peace. Bombing large populations is not a peaceful action. And yes we heard all the excuses. The Palestinians made them do it etc. Like or not the world didn't buy them.

[LittleBlue]

19. Clinton is unfortunate

Geffen had it spot on about her: "ambition is not enough."

Please Hillary, after you are relieved of your position, please fade into the obscurity you've always deserved.

[leftynyc]

24. What utter bullshit

SOS Clinton is following the wishes of the President. The man I assume you just voted to reelect. And "relieved of her position"? What ridiculous nonsense are you spewing?

[LittleBlue]

30. Don't think I let him off the hook

Voted against Romney, not for Obama. He is a mediocre president at best and I hold him partly responsible for this.

[leftynyc]

55. Party responsible for what?

The fact his employee did what she was told?

[Enrique]

28. based on this knee-jerk response

I am guessing your low opinion of Clinton is not based on facts.

[LittleBlue]

31. Geffen was a family friend and huge Clinton backer

He knows her better tha either of us and jumped ship for Obama immediately. "Ambition isn't enough of a reason to be president", I'll never forget that because it describes her perfectly.

[Enrique]

33. obviously a lot of people don't like Hillary

but it doesn't make sense to quote random criticisms of her in response to this thread. You realize Clinton did not make this decision, that this is U.S. policy?

[LittleBlue]

39. When I voted for Obama in 2008

And cheered his selection of Hillary for SOS, I expected more from them than to slavishly adhere to previous policy.

Please stop acting like Hillary is a mere tool of the presidency. She is one of the most influential people in America and could walk away from that job in a heartbeat if she didn't feel comfortable with Obama as her boss. Other SOS have done it.

Don't act like your superior knowledge of Hillary makes me misinformed when Geffen knows her better than you ever will.

[Enrique]

50. are you talking about David Geffen?

i'm not sure why his opinion of Hillary dominates your thinking so much, but do you know what his position on the Middle East is? He might very well be completely behind both Obama and Hillary on this.

[sabrina 1]

61. We elected Democrats in 2008 remember? That was after eight horrible years of US Policy

under Bush. We did that to CHANGE those policies, that was what we were promised. I did not support Clinton because it was already apparent by then that she was a supporter of Bush's policies, of invasions and wars and even, 'under certain circumstances, torture'. There was no way my conscience would have allowed me to so quickly forget those Dems who voted for Bush policies.

So I supported the only one who had opposed the Iraq War and hoped that things would begin to change since US Policy was weakening this country around the world, we had lost so much respect and moral authority which is needed if a country is going to be able to work for a better world.

Even Desmond Tutu was horrified by Clinton's remarks after the war crime committed in Libya with the slaughter of Gaddafi, an African leader the West may not have cared for, but African nations, including Nelson Mandela, called 'brother'. She could have condemned the manner in which he was killed, or remained silent, instead she almost took partial responsibility for it with her cold, callous statement 'we came, we saw he died'. Cringe-worthy considering the way he died. And if Americans think these comments go unnoticed in the rest of the world, they do not. As Bishop Tutu said in his statement, that 'no decent person could have viewed that war crime and approved of it'. I agreed with that wonderful man.

[Beacool]

78. Regarding your last comment,

That brief video of Hillary was taken out of context. CBS was in the process of setting their equipment and lights when Hillary was told that Gaddafi was captured and killed. She had been in Libya 3 days prior to the capture. The CBS reporter asked her during the interview whether her presence in Libya had sped his capture. Hillary laughed and made the now famous comment. She was being sarcastic, laughing at the reporter's suggestion that her visit had had anything to do with Gaddafi's capture.

[sabrina 1]

88. I and most of the civilized world were sickened by that brutal war crime.

Yes, she was in Libya, where we had not place to be. After viewing that murder on TV I could not sleep it was that horrific. I cannot imagine saying anything other than to condemn it regardless of what anyone said to me. The normal reaction to such horror is not to joke in any way about it.

As I said, Gadaffi was an African leader who while the West may not have liked him, was a hero to many other African nations because he provided money to help build up African nations and to form alliances to strengthen their defenses against what has destroyed that continent for centuries now, Western Imperialism. Bishop Tutu and Mandela called him 'brother' Mandela because of his help for South Africa during Apartheid.

We here in the West have no clue about other cultures and look very much like the old British, Belgian, French and other imperial powers who ravaged that continent in the past. Her remark, regardless of why she made, shocked most Africans. Bishop Tutu was restrained in his criticism, being such a decent human being, but that he commented at all, shows the incredulity that anyone could react in any way other than horror and condemnation.

Also, many people do believe her visit to Libya was to push the 'rebels/Qatar troops and the rest of the 'boots on the ground' there to hurry up and finish the job.

We need to leave these countries alone. Reading the African media after Gadaffi's death and their reaction compared to the Western media, shows that we share now the old Imperialist view of 'brown people' and they know it. As one well respected African writer said, the killing of Gadaffi, 'our brother and champion of African independence' was a 'tragic return to the old Imperialism and a very sad day for Africa'. We are so arrogant really and that was personified by Hillary's behavior throughout that entire travesty.

[Beacool]

93. You are aggrandizing a person that does not deserve it.

Gadaffi was nothing more than a tyrant and a dictator, don't glorify him as some form of demigod to the people of his country. He brutally oppressed them, just as much as Saddam Hussein and others of their ilk did in their respective nations.

The US did not directly kill Gadaffi, his own people captured and killed him. The same as the Syrians will do with Assad whenever they finally get him.

[sabrina 1]

96. Lol, what I posted were facts about his place in Africa. I fyi, was always opposed to

'bringing him back into the fold'. Africa is none of our business, so what are we doing there?

Talk to the world leaders who, if as you say he was a brutal dictator, had no problem strengthening his power right up to the beginning of the invasion. And we do not know who killed him. Which is, we are told, why no one has been arrested yet for that war crime.

?w=360&h=235














Just a few of the world leaders who regularly dealt with this dictator over the objections of people like me. Not to mention all the Big Corps who were in Libya making money, who didn't have much to say about what he was doing to his own people.

And all of the US Entertainers who regularly performed for him and his sons.

Were you yelling then about associating with and taking money from and paying this man you are now so outraged over? The time to be outraged was then.

We have a few other brutal dictators many of us have been asking that the US stop supporting right now. Karamov of Uzekistan eg. Why are we sending him money as he brutalizing and kills his own people?

We have been asking for years that the US stop supporting dictators, like Mubarak and Ben Ali and the Bahrain Royal family, the Kuwaitis.

I take seriously people suddenly having a problem with supporting dictators who have always had a problem with it.

I imagine you will be calling, as many people do, Congress to ask that we stop supporting one of the world's worse dictators, who is currently one of our best friends, Karamov. That man should be on trial for genocide and torture among other things and he makes Gadaffi look like Santa Claus.

We have zero problems with dictators until they get out of line. So long as they are willing to cooperate, it is US policy to support them. So don't dare accuse me of supporting dictators, I have been opposed to those policies ever since I first found out about them.

[Beacool]

94. And Geffen was wrong, as proven by her tenure at State.

She has been a good manager of her Dept. Despite not coming from that kind of background, she has steered the ship of state effectively and used her celebrity to push ahead US policy and issues she holds dear, such as the rights of women & children and the GLBT community. Hillary's iconic speech to the UN in Geneva was as much of a milestone as the one she delivered on women's rights in China in the 90s.

There are few people nowadays who, even though they may not agree with her politics, would say that she could not handle the presidency.

So, Geffen can go and screw himself.

Furthermore, I sincerely hope that Hillary chooses to enter the fray in 2016. I wish it not for herself, but for the good of the country.

[white_wolf]

41. And take the President with you.

I may have supported him against Romney, but he is not a good president. He was simply the lesser of two evils. I hope once his term is up, he and the rest of the centrist New Democrats will fade into obscurity.

[Beacool]

77. Are you serious?

The SOS's position is the position of this president and previous US presidents.

Geffen's remark was not accurate and sexist. Are only men allowed to be politically ambitious?

Hillary is not being relieved of her position. She has chosen to leave that position and has been saying so for months.

[Whisp]

27. and clinton should get the Nobel Peace Prize?

sorry, but wtf did she do except carry on the same old lopsided 'concerns'.

ineffective as ever. trying to talk tough doesn't work on you, Mrs. Clinton. We are seeing things clearer.

[Enrique]

35. you do realize, Obama made this decision

don't you?

[Whisp]

47. yes, I do.

Coming from him, I still don't like it but I can understand it being in the position he is.

I just don't like Clinton, I guess that's no big surprise. I just cannot stomach these feeble attempts at 'being tough' - that tough shit is what made her vote for the Iraq war, makes me fucking puke. Maybe she should have hired Obama's speech people, or something.

[Beacool]

79. Oh, I see.

You like Obama so he can say anything and you'll be fine with it. Hillary is saying the same thing and you attack her.

Some objectivity............

[Lucinda]

36. She has done quite a lot actually.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/

Lots of info about what she has been doing there.

[Beacool]

80. And she would deserve it far more than Obama who got it just for being elected.

You may not like Hillary, but she has been one of the best SOS we had in a long time and she will be sorely missed at State and abroad.

Hillary doesn't need to try to talk tough, she IS tough when she has to be. As one world leader put it: she's tough, but compassionate. She also happens to be, along with Bill, the most popular politician in the nation and has been so for quite a while now.

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. Comments and an illustrative video at this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1897522

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Clinton's vote to support Bush's wars were "unfortunate and counterproductive."

[Capt. Obvious]

37. Kosovo

[bunnies]

38. Its not nearly as counterproductive as Israel building more illegal settlements.

So the Palestinians get their aid threatened for wanting to be recognized while Israel gets a slap on the hand for stealing more land. The US has no hope of brokering any sort of peace when it so blatantly favors one side over the other. Its a joke.

[The Traveler]

66. It's not like the status quo has worked so well

And I just don't believe that formal recognition of statehood was being opposed by Israel and the US out of concern for Palestinian interests, specifically. And Israel's reaction (let's grab more land!) is very poorly considered in my view.

In my view, elements of both sides are prone to over reacting and doing stupid, vile things. However, if we want Palestine to learn to act as a responsible state, then we need to allow that experience by allowing them statehood! Let them make progress by establishing formal diplomatic relations and alliances. And, yeah, they need to step away from the guns, bombs and rocket launchers while they do that.

Trav

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. those who make the two-state solution impossible are making the single state solution inevitable

Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose.


By Meron Benvenisti (former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem)|

And there's a fourth model, which can be called "undeclared binationalism." It's a unitary state controlled by one dominant national group, which leaves the other national group disenfranchised and subject to laws "for natives only," which for the purposes of respectability and international law are known as laws of "belligerent occupation." The convenience of this model of binationalism is that it can be applied over a long period of time, meanwhile debating the threat of the "one state" and the advantages of the "two states," without doing a thing. That's the situation nowadays. But the process is apparently inevitable. Israel and the Palestinians are sinking together into the mud of the "one state." The question is no longer whether it will be binational, but which model to choose.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/which-kind-of-binational-state-1.106273

[JDPriestly]

81. I agree with the position of the Obama administration.

Recognition of two countries neighboring each other that don't have agreed boundaries is a recipe for trouble. Palestine and Israel must negotiate secure borders and then enforce security at those borders, each on their own side. The alternative is perpetual war. Each side will have to give up its claims to some of the disputed territory, whether that be giving up the so-called "right of return" or giving up settlements on disputed land. That is, in my view, the only way to peaceful co-existence. The UN action this week just confuses things further and gives false hope to the Palestinians.

[Scootaloo]

85. There is no "disputed territory," JD

There is Palestine, there is Israel, and there is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel. This isn't a "both sides have valid arguments" situation, it's not in dispute. it's occupation by a foreign power.

I would say that it's odd to see you backing the arguments of Syria, Turkey, and China regarding Lebanon, Cyprus, and Tibet... but, it's not. The only odd thing would be if you actually realized that's what you're doing.

[TeamsterDem]

90. In theory you're right, but in practice isn't that sorta naive?

I hope you don't take offense because I don't mean it that way. I admire a lot of your posts. But I disagree with this one inasmuch as a non-state actor has an inherently more difficult time conducting border security operations than does a nation state. Right now the fate of Palestinians seems to be in the hands of Hamas, and that of course is trouble. But even if you could wave a magic wand and remove Hamas and Hezbollah, I still don't see how Palestine secures its borders without the real ability to raise, train, and keep a proper army.

You're right of course insofar as ill-defined borders are a problem. But it seems to be a perpetual cycle no matter which way you turn because you either concede in negotiations that borders will be left more or less unsecured (on the Palestinian side) or you say that until they agree to borders and then secure them that negotiations can't go anyway, ignoring that of course they don't have that ability without statehood.

I don't propose a solution because I can't work my head around a doable proposition. But it seems as though we put unrealistic "demands" on either Israel or Palestine that neither can actually accept in the real world, and then we're stunned that they don't succeed at it. My own view is that even if Hamas were to ever truly want Palestinians to stop firing rockets into Israel that they lack the power to enforce such a thing ... and that's assuming they'd want to which of course I highly doubt they ever will. Similarly, I'm not sure where we'll ever find a border agreement between those two sides given that they both truly believe that a certain area is theirs by order of God. How you resolve that dispute is way beyond me.

[leveymg]

92. An unfortunate capstone on her approach to the ME. Sums it up. Counterproductive.

[Comrade Grumpy]

98. Grumpy: Clinton's pro-Israel bias "unfortunate and counterproductive."