In her remarks contained in two media interviews on October 13, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left Israel with little hope – and less faith in her rational thinking capabilities.
But first, the official State Department reaction to the decision of Israel’s government to establish a review board to look into all questions of land ownership status of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria:
Office of the SpokespersonWashington, DCQuestion Taken at the October 12, 2011 Daily Press BriefingQuestion: What is the State Department’s reaction to reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu seeks to legalize outposts on private Palestinian land?Answer: Our position on this issue remains unchanged. The United States has a clear policy – we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. We oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts, which is unhelpful to our peace efforts and would contradict Israeli commitments and obligations.We call again on both parties to take constructive actions to promote peace and avoid actions that complicate this process or undermine trust. We urge both parties to take advantage of the Quartet proposal and return to direct talks.
Afterwards, Clinton said to Reuters and I have interspersed my italicized comments in brackets:...We are always hopeful, Arshad...Otherwise, it’s too depressing to contemplate...[you''re depressed? imagine most Israelis. The attitude of the US towards Israel’s needs and national ethos under this administration has been the most publicly negative since Roosevelt]...the Israelis have accepted without preconditions a return to negotiations. The Palestinians, as you know well, are reluctant because of the settlement freeze issue...[note: Israel agreed without preconditions; Pals. – no. doesn’t that indicate something?]...Now get back into negotiations where you can actually start talking about borders. What’s the best way to end the dispute about settlements? Start talking about borders...[so, even Hillary agrees that no Jews can reside in this new state of "Palestine" which is the logical conclusion to what she just said. Just call Jewish communities "settlements" and they have to be on the other side of the border]
And to the Associated Press she said: ...I think that the situation has changed from a total paralysis or stagnation between the parties, because you do have the Israelis saying that they’re willing, ready, and able to go into negotiations; you do have President Abbas knowing that he cannot get a state through the United Nations [funny but he seems not quite accepting that Mrs. Clinton]...But as I’ve told the Palestinians, and as I think the Quartet is now telling the Palestinians, what’s the best way to end settlement development? Negotiate borders. Come up with a process where what is yours is yours, what is theirs is theirs, and then it becomes moot. The Israelis, if they were sitting on this side of the table, would say to you everybody knows Gilo is going to be in whatever we negotiate. Everybody knows that. So what’s the big fuss? It’s not like we’re building in Ramallah; we’re building in Gilo. And there’s a certain logic to that because, in fact, I don’t know any map that doesn’t have Gilo in it. There are other places that are more controversial, but Gilo is pretty much assumed…[If she thinks that, why didn''t she make it clear two weeks ago or so when the affair flared up over that Gilo construction?]
And here is where she displays diplomatic obtuseness and ignores recent history (and we recall all those who oppose a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria saying “oh, that’s ancient – or Biblical – history):-
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Anne, I think that’s a possibility. And who knows? Look, who knows what would’ve happened if Rabin hadn’t been assassinated? Who knows what would’ve happened if Sharon hadn’t had a stroke? [but why are things worse? if Israel under Sharon handed over territory, greenhouses and emptied out over two dozen communities with some 8000 Jews and we still are suffering terror and Hamas got elected and the PA continues its incitement and the idea of a responsible state is a joke but Hillary and Co. keep playing games on our account, ever "hopeful" but leaving Israel no hope of security, of even peace]In a follow-up note, I read this:-
An Israeli official insisted the government is committed to removing settlement houses on privately owned Palestinian land. The official suggested, however, that Israel is reconsidering what it deems private Palestinian land. The newly commissioned panel was established because members of Mr. Netanyuhu''s government say the designation of settlement land as private Palestinian property was politically motivated, the official said. "We want to make sure that the status of the land is correct," said the official.
There should be, for sure, nothing wrong with investigating the legality of the status of lands.There should be nothing wrong in utilizing the framework of eminent domain. It''s being used now in Illinois and California. The US Supreme Court permitted Columbia University to employ it.Even more so if the lands in question, as in Migron, it has been claimed, were gifts from the King and if the lands had never been used and, as in some cases, the present "owners" didn''t even know they owned the land until someone from Peace Now or Yesh Din came along.The Jewish people, it must be remembered, were granted exclusive political rights to all state and waste lands (League of Nations Mandate, Article 6) after we lost all of TrandJordan, part of the original territory to become part of the Jewish National Home, and after additional partition plans were rejected throughout the 1930s and culminating in the November 29, 1947 recommendation.This is how civilized nations act - within the framework of the law.
That approach will give us all hope.