Ygorl

My comments in red



While arrogantly guaranteeing that she would be the next president, Hillary Clinton promised to stop America from being an "arrogant power."
Notice that Hillary didn't say we "appear" to be arrogant, or that other nations misperceive us as an arrogant nation.
She said, "When I'm president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back - we're not the arrogant power that we've been acting like for the last six years."
For those of you who doubted John Kerry was expressing a common democratic sentiment when he called America an "International pariah," here is your confirmation. Indeed, democratic national committee chairman Howard Dean, when running for president himself, said of America, "We find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented." President Bush, he contended, had "created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits."
Are these people singing from the same hymn book, or what ?

They do tend to sing the same songs and do the same dances, don't they ?


Since before we attacked Iraq, they have mercilessly excoriated Bush for his "radical unilateralism," his "go-it-alone" approach. It never occured to them to criticize, say, France or Germany, for not doing the right thing by joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein, despite believing the exact same things we believed about his weapons of mass destruction, his dangerous ties to terrorism and his serial violations of post-war treaties and U.N. resolutions.

Very interesting isn't it ?


Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of these people ceaselessly, instinctively siding with Americas foreign critics and slamming the United States ? Sometimes it seems that Hillary and company are as concerned about their poll numbers in France and Germany as in the United States.
Hillary said, "We want to be an admired country again in the world. There is a lot of work to be done."
When in recent history has America been greatly admired by other nations ? When haven't we been the object of resentment and jealousy throughout the world, and quite underappreciated, considering our record of philanthropy ?
What other great nation in history - let alone the worlds lone superpower - has been so willing to use its power for the good and so cautious, contrary to conventional wisdom, about using its power to impose its will on other nations ?
While no one wants America gratuitously to alienate the international community, should the primary focus of our foreign policy be to ingratiate ourselves to foreign nations ?

Perhaps according to democrats.

Democrats indignantly deny they are soft on defense. But we are engaged in a protracted war, and when campaigning, their leading presidential candidates choose to dwell on how America is faring in international polls.

Yes, they have their priorities in proper order don't they ?

I don't know about you, but I'd just as soon our next president - like the current one - be a little less preoccupied with international popularity contests and more dedicated to keeping America secure.

other comments ?

Emmanuel Goldstein

I don't think you want to go there...
Link to list of resolutions

__________________

Golly

France and Germany are the ones who did the "right thing." Most Americans agree that France and Germany were right and we were wrong.

The number of Americans who still believe this war's been handled right is dwindling daily.

I believe that the context of Clinton's comments are that under Bush, the US has been a bully, and this has soured our international relations with probably every nation.

Ygorl

Don't I ?

After the Holocaust, Western liberals cannot look kindly upon genocidal terrorism; but they can embrace warmly and enthusiastically the deep and heartfelt yearnings of an oppressed people struggling to be free. Hence, Arafat’s terrorist propagandists needed to invent the lies of Palestinian National Identity and Israeli occupation and oppression.

It is legal for the defensive party maintaining occupation in the absence of a peace treaty to take necessary measures to maintain security.

UN Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) makes it clear that the purpose of the resolution is to create a just and lasting peace, with guarantees for the territorial inviolability, mutually recognized borders, and political independence of every state in the area. According to Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of 242, the plain meaning of the resolution is that Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza is completely legal until a just and lasting peace is achieved. Such administration, in the absence of a peace treaty, and in the face of continued hostility from Arab nations and terrorist groups, can include the development of unoccupied segments for housing a growing population. Such activity is not the same as transporting population to the territory for resettlement. So the third type of settlement (C) is also legal.

Since the West Bank and Gaza were never legally part of any sovereign nation (they were part of British Mandatory Palestine till November 29, 1947, were intended by the UN to be part of a Palestinian State, and were over-run and illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in the 1948 war, in stark and defiant violation of the UN partition plan, UN resolutions 181 and 194, and international law), Israel’s occupation of these territories after the 1967 war does not violate the legal claims of any nation.

The role of the settlements in the context of the current conflict, and in the contentious issue of applying the “Road Map” to future peace negotiations, is perhaps the most complex and difficult issue to deal with. This is precisely because Arab propaganda has been so effective in establishing as axiomatic that the settlements are:

a. Illegal

b. A symptom of Israel’s intent on conquest of Palestinian land and are thus inherently an obstacle to peace

c. A harbinger of Israel’s permanent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and hence make territorial compromise impossible

d. Signal Israel’s inherently obvious unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace.


Therefore, it will be most useful to look at these Arab contentions, and see how they correspond to historical reality.

Are the settlements illegal? We have already seen that they are not.

Are the settlements an obstacle to peace? From 1949-1967 there were no settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Nor was there peace. Arab belligerence was unrelated to West Bank and Gaza settle*ments. The settlements to which the Arabs objected at that time were Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hadera, Afula, etc.

In June, 1967, immediately after the Six Day War, and before there were any Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel proposed its dramatic peace initiative both at the UN and in sub rosa

talks with Jordan. This initiative was rejected by all Arab states and the PLO at the Khartoum Conference in August-September, 1967. The obstacle to peace was the very existence of Israel, not settlements in the West Bank.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israeli settlements in Sinai were evacuated. In the context of a peace treaty, settlements are negotiable, can be, and were, dismantled.

In 1979, as part of the accord with Egypt, Israel froze settlement expansion for three months, in order to encourage entry of Jordan into the Egypt-Israel peace process. Jordan refused. The freezing of settle*ments did not stimulate peaceful interaction. Arafat (then engaged in creating a terrorist state in south Lebanon) was invited to join Egypt at the peace talks, and this settlement freeze was intended to encour*age his participation. He refused. The existence of settlements in Sinai did not interfere with the Israel-Egypt peace accords; and the freeze on settlement activities did not encourage Jordan or the PLO to enter into peace accords.

In 1994, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, while settle*ments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were growing in size and increasing in number. The existence and expansion of the settlements in no way impaired the peace process with Jordan.

Do the settlements make territorial compromise impossible? The accords discussed at Madrid, Wye, Oslo and Taba all include the acknowledgement that settlements (a few, some, many, prob*ably not all) will be dismantled in the context of a peace agreement. Those accords were discussed while settlements were expanding. Settlements did not impede negotiation then.

Currently, about 250,000 Jews live in a total of 144 communities scattered through the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 80% of them could be brought within Israel’s pre-1967 borders with only a very minor re*arranging of “green line” boundaries.

Part of Barak’s offer to Arafat in 2000 was the exchange of land such that the Palestinians would be compensated for the small num*ber of settlements that would not be dismantled by the ceding of Israeli land within the pre-1967 boundaries to the Palestine National Authority. This offer was in addition to the approximately 95% of all the disputed land in the West Bank and 100% of the territory in Gaza which were to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Arafat rejected this offer, much to the surprise and chagrin of President Clinton.

Does Israel’s violation of international accords by building the settlements show Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate a fair peace? In regard to the Geneva Convention and UN Resolution 242, we have seen that the settlements do not constitute violations of international law. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The Oslo Accords say nothing about settlements. It was tacitly and informally agreed upon that a moratorium on settlements would be one of 16 “confidence building” measures that Israel and the PNA would undertake. The provision about not changing the “status” of the territories refers to the agreement that neither side would unilaterally annex the areas (or declare them an independent state). In the pres*ence of glaring, overt, and provocative violations of every one of the Oslo Accords by the Palestine National Authority almost immediately after its signing, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government felt itself under no obligation to maintain the tacit informal agreement. Since the Palestine National Authority was not building confidence by end*ing terrorist attacks (it was actually behind them), why should Israel compromise its security and position for future negotiation?

Most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are legal and violate no international laws or relevant UN resolutions. Most do not involve the theft of any Palestinian land. The settlement movement has provided enormous benefit to the Arabs of those areas and fueled a tripling of the Arab population and a skyrocketing West Bank economy -- until the onset of Arafat’s rule. Settlements do not create stumbling blocks to peace or hindrances to peace negotiations. They can be, and have been, dismantled in the context of negotiations with an honest peace partner. Concessions about settlements should be made only in the context of negotiations, which can begin only after Palestinian leadership stops the violence, ends the terror war, and ends the hate speech, hate preach, and hate teach that have permeated Palestinian society since 1994.

DAVID MEIR-LEVI: BIG LIES. Demolishing The Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel

Resolution 446 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore is generally considered to have no binding force under international law.

Learn more about this issue before you start defending Arab aggression in the name of Hillary Clinton. Learn more about this issue before you start comparing Israel to Iraq.

F L A M E : Facts&Logic About the Middle East

Ygorl

Is that a fact ? Or would you be relying on what some media pollster tells you ?

I DO agree with that.

Mrs. clinton made some asinine and poorly considered comments. Of COURSE she would like to convince us that she actually made a good point. She did NOT.

Emmanuel Goldstein

Not defending, nor comparing except to say you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to claiming UN resolutions as justification for our actions.

__________________

Ygorl

Fair enough. Remember that this is a writing about Hillary Clintons preoccupation with international popularity though. It's about the general, democratic preoccupation with always blaming America FIRST. For EVERYTHING.

The paragraph you're referring to:

Since before we attacked Iraq, they have mercilessly excoriated Bush for his "radical unilateralism," his "go-it-alone" approach. It never occured to them to criticize, say, France or Germany, for not doing the right thing by joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein, despite believing the exact same things we believed about his weapons of mass destruction, his dangerous ties to terrorism and his serial violations of post-war treaties and U.N. resolutions.

Is only pointing out this attitude. France and Germany believed the exact same things we believed about his weapons of mass destruction.

It points out Saddams serial violations of post-war treaties AND U.N. resolutions. So, U.N. resolution violations were, of course, not the ONLY reason(s) we decided to unseat sadman insane.

Also, lets not forget that Hillary voted TO enter Iraq with the information everyone ELSE in the govt. had as WELL.

So, what's she doing ? She's doing a pathetic crawling, attempt at repenting her OWN past decisions. That she seems to think that Americans are so stupid and ignorant to BUY her little side show, shows just what an arrogant, nasty snag of a woman she really IS.

Her chance of becoming the next president ?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's right around zero :-)

Think for myself

Awesome. The failure of Israel to comply with a single UN mandate is often overlooked in the argument that Iraq was not complying.

Ygorl

Overlooked is it ?

Or would it be that these are two, very different countries facing two VERY different situations and issues ?

No ?

Yes ?

.... ?

Golly

I think you would like to convince us that you actually made any point at all. You did not.

It's not possible to argue with you -- all you're saying, basically, is "Clinton is wrong, this is stupid, this is dumb..." Do you have anything rational to say about Senator Clinton's comments?