When Hillary Clinton doesn’t make sense

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

U.S. President Barack Obama will be a lame duck next year and the officials in his administration, especially his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are hilariously doing their best to make sure that they haven’t spared any effort to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and sabotage the stability and security of those whom they call “enemies”, like Iran.

On October 27, Hillary Clinton gave an exclusive interview to the UK’s state-funded, state-run BBC Persian TV and in an attempt aimed at reaching out to the Iranian nation, made bombastic remarks which have certainly infuriated the Iranian nation and demonstrated that the hostile behavior and antagonistic stance of the U.S. government toward the Iranian nation is a manifestation of the idiom “the leopard can’t change its spots.” Continue reading

Hillary Clinton’s Empty Words Inspire Pessimism

From left, National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, Tony Blair, the international Middle East envoy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, talk in the Blue Room of the White House, Sept. 1, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Palestine Monitor, 11 December 2010

Yesterday found Hillary Clinton clutching at straws in her talk on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process at the Brooking Institute, Washington D.C. Following the US’s failure to secure a settlement freeze Clinton’s superficial positivity about the peace process demonstrated a lack of understanding and sincerity. Clive Granger explains.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke yesterday to the Brooking Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Her speech comes just days after the Obama Administration admitted that it had failed to secure a second moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Much of the talk was an attempt to gloss over the recent diplomatic failings of the US as Hillary urged the parties to continue on the path to peace.

Much of her speech was directed at the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, encouraging them to continue to strive for peace and focus on the core issues. “In the days ahead, our discussions with both sides will be substantive, two-way conversations, with an eye toward making real progress in the next few months”, she told the audience. In light of recent events however, her words rang hollow. The US with all its international clout was unable to stop Israel from expanding its settlements, let alone abandoning some of them, a step which will be necessary for the brokering of any future peace deal. Urging the Palestinians to continue down the road to peace with no moratorium screamed of hypocrisy.

A worrying new development from a Palestinian perspective was the announcement by Clinton that the Obama Administration is to incorporate the settlement issue as part of the wider border dispute. This strongly suggests that certain settlements, and thus large swathes of Palestinian land, will be incorporated into Israel following any future peace deal.

More concerning however was Clinton’s comment, “we will deepen our support of the Palestinians’ state-building efforts, because we recognize that a Palestinian state, achieved through negotiations, is inevitable”. If the past 43 years have taught us anything it is that a Palestinian state through negotiations is anything but inevitable. This was the mistake Arafat made at Oslo. Believing that to protect the Jewish nature of Israel he would simply be given a state he became complacent. Instead Israel tightened their control of the West Bank and increased settlement construction.

The Secretary of State also made reference to Barak Obama’s recent comment that Israel recognises that a two-state solution is the only option for Zionism. A two state solution however would signal the end of Zionism. As SOAS lecturer Mushtaq Khan recently said “as a Zionist the last thing I would want would be a solid border”. Zionism is an expansionist ideology, it requires undetermined borders to enable it to absorb more Jewish immigrants, it is also unlikely ever to give up Judea and Samaria, considered the core of Eretz Israel.

The chief Palestinian negotiator was understandably dismayed by the talk, “The Israeli government had a choice between settlements and peace” he told reporters “and they chose settlements”.

See how far US ambition has plummeted by comparing their current position with Obama’s seminal speech in Cairo last year http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/u…

Wikileaks leaks toxic acid in every direction, except to Israel

Julian Assange, from Wikileaks, at the SKUP conference for investigative journalism, Norway, March 2010
Julian Assange, from Wikileaks, at the SKUP conference for investigative journalism, Norway, March 2010

Julian Assange, from Wikileaks, at the SKUP conference for investigative journalism, Norway, March 2010

Tariq Shadid, 1 Dec 2010

Let us ponder for a second about the meaning of ‘leaking’. When something is leaking, it is usually understood that some fluid substance that is supposed to be flowing in a certain direction, is escaping from its designed route because of a defect in the structure that was built to guide it. Usually, if you have a leaking pipe in your water system, your main problem is that you are unable to control the flow of it, and water goes into directions where you don’t want it to be going.

However, the definition of ‘Wikileaking’ seems to be following entirely different laws of nature. Indeed, the information is flowing away from the secret pipelines it was originally guided into. However, the strange thing about ‘Wikileaking’ is that Israel, a country widely known for its secret dealings and cunning intelligence service, is managing to keep dry feet in spite of the massive political flooding allegedly caused by Wikileaks’ founding father, Julian Assange.

The lack of control that is so typical of other forms of ‘leaking’, certainly does not seem to apply to ‘Wikileaking’ – instead it looks like it is under perfect control, and carefully guided in such a way that it only serves the interests of one state, namely that of Israel.

Assange takes a leak, the world jumps up

Barely a country in the world that is actively involved in Middle East and other international affairs, either by choice or by geographical location, has been spared by Assange’s latest opening of his Pandora’s box of revelations. It is hard to visit a news source these days, without the word ‘Wikileaks’ jumping into your view at least once, and revealing some scandalous backdoor deal, secret agreement or embarrassing hidden relationship between governments who on the surface seem to be diametrically opposed to each other in the political spectrum.

Since the list of countries that have faced these embarrassments includes Obama’s United States, many anti-imperialist activists around the world have been anxiously awaiting the latest leaks, and are now engaging in discussions about the implications of many of these so-called astounding revelations. Julian Assange is being hailed worldwide by people who are critical of their governments as the activist who was able to embarrass governments, helped only by a small group of independent supporters. His star is rising rapidly, and although sounds of cynicism can be heard here and there, the overwhelming noise resounding in progressive circles is one of loud cheers for this long-awaited ‘champion of the ordinary man’.

What many seem to fail to be noticing however, is that although the list of countries that were painfully embarrassed by the publication of their secret cables, memo’s and meetings, includes the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Egypt and the United States – where Obama is suffering from serious problems from a ‘Tea Party’ he was not invited to – one of the main actors in the dirty political game of Middle East animosities and alliances is remaining completely unharmed: Israel.

Much ado about old news

What are Wikileaks telling us? That Saudi Arabia poured oil on the flames against Iran? We already knew that. That Abbas’ administration as well as the Egyptian government were very well informed about Israel’s genocidal military assault on Gaza in the winter of 2009? There is nothing new about that either. The list goes on and on, and the main victims of embarrassment are leaders of Arab governments. But what is so new about that? Doesn’t almost every Arab in the world who reads newspapers, watches Al Jazeera and has a certain degree of understanding of Middle East politics, already know about the extent and scope of secret relations in the region? Even many people living outside of the Arab world are largely aware of this.

Oana Lungescu, spokeswoman for NATO, called Wikileaks’ revelations about the presence of American nuclear missiles in Europe – mainly the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany – ‘dangerous’ on November 29. Why exactly would something be dangerous, if it is a commonly known fact that has now only been confirmed yet again? Didn’t earlier revelations have no effect, so why would these new ones do that? Does the fact that Obama, Sarkozy, and the Chinese leadership all have condemned Wikileaks and its founder, make any significant difference?

The answer to these questions is: yes, these revelations are indeed causing unpleasant domestic situations all around the world, and creating electoral problems and other political embarrassments for governments everywhere – except in one place, namely Israel.

No worries: Assange will tell you who to trust

Julian Assange, ‘master revealer’ of international conspiracies, apparently also is highly irritated by people questioning the events of 9/11. In an interview in the Belfast Telegraph on July 19, 2010, he was asked about the 9/11 attack, and answered: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

Apparently Julian ‘Robin Hood’ Assange finds the story of pilots who fly an airplane full of people straight into a humongous skyscraper full of unsuspecting citizens, just because some hysterical hijacker is holding a box-cutter against their jugular veins, perfectly believable. He apparently also believes that when you fly an airplane into the top floors of one of the world’s largest buildings, in a horizontal direction, the building will not only spontaneously collapse all the way down to its basement in a vertical direction, but will indeed be transformed into a powdery dust, not leaving behind even one piece of debris that is larger than a ballpoint pen – except of course the completely undamaged passport of one of the alleged hijackers, that was miraculously found among the ruins of the World Trade Center.

Unless you, dear reader, also believe in fairy tales, this should certainly make you wonder. So much for your credibility, mr Assange.

Cui Bono?

In politics there is a golden rule for understanding what may be the driving force behind unexpected mysterious events. This rule is known as ‘Cui Bono’, which is Latin for: ‘who benefits?’

Browse through all the news sources available on the latest Wikileaks revelation, and try to find even only one revelation that actually damages Israel, even though so many of the revealed documents are directly or indirectly connected to Middle East politics, and to a large extent to Israeli affairs. Did you find any document among them that either creates difficulties for the government of the zionist entity, or even slightly embarrasses it? Think about it well, you will find that the answer is a very simple “No”.

Does it not strike you as interesting or remarkable, that many of the revelations about Middle East affairs are of direct benefit to Israel? If it hasn’t, read them again, and give it some thought.

Cui bono? Israel. Therefore, who is the prime suspect behind the phenomenon ‘Julian Assange’? You tell me, or just prove me wrong by showing me one Wikileaks document that would make Binjamin Netanyahu and his rogue companions scratch their heads, or even become only slightly uncomfortable. My suspicion grows stronger every day, and is not deterred by Interpol’s announcement on December 1 that Julian Assange is wanted for an alleged sexual harassment case in Sweden. It is obvious that he is a man who has angered many people of power, regardless of whether he is actually guilty in that harassment case or not. The problem however is that none of these people of power are Israeli, and that says a lot. You never bite the hand that feeds you, do you, Julian?

Tariq Shadid

Tariq Shadid

Tariq Shadid is a Palestinian general surgeon, currently working as the head of department in a hospital in the Middle East. He was born and raised in the Netherlands, and wrote numerous articles of political analysis for the Palestine Chronicle in the first years of the Al Aqsa Intifada, which are now bundled in the book “Understanding Palestine“, available on Amazon. For several years, he was an active board member of the Dutch organization “Stop de Bezetting” (Stop the Occupation) headed by prominent pro-Palestine activist Gretta Duisenberg. For almost five years, he was the official media spokesperson for the board of the Palestinian Community in the Netherlands (PGN), and became a well-known defender of the Palestinian cause in Dutch national media such as television, radio and newspapers. He is also a prolific singer/songwriter and producer of songs for the Palestinian cause, which can be found on his website at http://www.docjazz.com.