Hilary flubs about Israel "risking loss of Arab support on Iran"

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8016001.stm

Israel 'risking support on Iran'

Israel risks losing Arab support against Iran if it does not make progress on the Palestinian issue, says US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mrs Clinton told legislators in Washington that the two issues "go hand-in-hand".

Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran as its main threat.

Unlike his predecessor, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not voiced support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a key Arab demand.

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and peace efforts," Mrs Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

"They go hand-in-hand".

Arab nations want "very much to support the strongest possible posture towards Iran," she continued.

"They believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran."

Washington visit

The Obama administration has made clear its determination to push for a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side.

But the right-leaning Israeli government under Mr Netanyahu, who took office on 1 April, has so far refused to endorse a two-state solution like his predecessor Ehud Olmert.

Mr Netanyahu told US envoy George Mitchell on his visit to Israel that he would discuss a Palestinian state only if Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Hamas, winner of Palestinian elections in 2006 and de facto ruler of Gaza, refuses to recognise Israel's legitimacy or give up its armed struggle while Israel occupies Palestinian territory.

Mrs Clinton told the committee that Prime Minister Netanyahu is due to visit Washington in May.

"We think it is important not to prejudge what their view is and how that can best be approached," she said.

Last-I-checked, most Arab nations (Egypt and Jordan being amongst the few exceptions) don't even diplomatically recognise Israel as a nation--which would mean "Arab support for Israel on Iran" is (at best) close to being nonexistant. Perhaps the SecState can explain how to lose nonexistant support.

[mawilson 2,133]

Last-I-checked, most Arab nations (Egypt and Jordan being amongst the few exceptions) don't even diplomatically recognise Israel as a nation--which would mean "Arab support for Israel on Iran" is (at best) close to being nonexistant. Perhaps the SecState can explain how to lose nonexistant support.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

more change.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Good point.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Hilary is an idiot. Like her boss.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Hilary is an idiot. Like her boss.

And her husband.

[scandal 951]

Last-I-checked, most Arab nations (Egypt and Jordan being amongst the few exceptions) don't even diplomatically recognise Israel as a nation--which would mean "Arab support for Israel on Iran" is (at best) close to being nonexistant. Perhaps the SecState can explain how to lose nonexistant support.

OK, I realize I'm posting here with the anti-Clinton, anti-Obama crowd on this thread. And I also realize that everyone after the OP who posted was just a "me too" (LuckyStrike so far has been the most eloquent with a grand total of a 7-word "Me too".). So I thought I'd risk something a little more verbose to actually explain why this is not just crazy talk.

Hillary is not just talking nonsense here. There are linkages between the issues in the region. And there are occasionally dynamics at play that can be exploited.

In this case it's a simple "enemy of my enemy" type of logic. The predominantly Sunni states of the region are terrified of the expansionist Farsi Shiite Iran.

Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf states all have the same strategic fear of an aggressive nuclear Iran that Israel does. That makes for a realpolitik that could, and should, be used to coordinate a meaningful sanctions regime as well as diplomatic pressure in the region. Israel and many of the Arab states, regardless of whether it's those that it has diplomatic ties to, or those it does not, share a common view about Iran.

The trouble is that the governments of those countries are not particularly popular, whereas Iran has made a reputation for itself on the Arab street as the champion of Palestinian right under the (supposed) aggressive Israeli occupation. Hence for Saudi, Egypt etc. to confront Iran means risking the revolt of their populations. That's the logic behind Clinton's statements. If Arab leaders can point to progress on the Palestinian front, it can give them cover for the hawkish stance they'd like to take on Tehran.

I'm not saying I entirely agree with this. I also don't disagree with it. It's fairly nuanced. I do think that it's in Israel's own interest to continue with efforts towards a two state solution. Netanyahu's new government is an unfortunate political development for Israel in my view - we would have been much better off if Livni and Kadimah had been able to pull together a coalition.

As to "change" - yeah, this is change. The Bush policy on the region for eight years was never nearly as nuanced. It was much more blunt and consisted mainly of issuing the Road Map in 2002 and then basically ignoring it and doing nothing about it till his final months in office. We can see where that policy got everyone.

It's still early days for Obama/Clinton/George Mitchell, and results will tell, but there's no doubt that State Department attitudes have "changed".

BTW OP - Israel also has diplomatic ties to Mauritania. It had ties with Morocco and Tunisia that were broken after the Intifada. It also has commercial ties in many Arab and Muslim countries even where it has no diplomatic relations.