Please disable your Ad Blocker in order to interact with the site.

It was just two days ago that the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a statement that seemed to indicate that the US Government was throwing in the towel on its unreasonable demands regarding Israeli Settlements.

Clinton praised Netanyahu, saying that “what the Prime Minister has offered… a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described, no new starts, for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations.” She also said that Israel’s freezing construction “has never been a precondition [for negotiations], it has always been an issue within the negotiations.”

Today Clinton seemed to take a step backward and revert back to the Obama administration, “bash Israel” policy.


Her praise Saturday of Israel’s offer, however, drew widespread criticism from Arab nations who interpreted it as a softening of the US position on settlements, which stand in the way of a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

During a photo-taking session with her Moroccan counterpart, Clinton was asked by a reporter about the Arab reaction, and she responded by reading from a written statement that appeared designed to counter the skepticism about the Obama administration’s views on settlements.

“Successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel’s settlement policy,” she said [ignoring the fact that the Obama administration voided a deal that the US had with Israel about building in existing settlements]. “That is absolutely a fact, and the Obama administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal and it has not changed. As the president has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

She also called on the Israelis to do more to improve “movement and access” for Palestinians and on Israeli security arrangements.

The early questions about Clinton’s role in Middle East politics; would she be as  pro-Israel as she was in the Senate or as anti-Israel as she was as first lady and before haven’t really been answered. One thing is for sure, she has been a screw-up, her inexperience as a diplomat, and her tendency toward incautious statements (disguised by a campaign image of “competence”) has really turned into a liability for the administration.

With a Secretary of State who’s opinion on Israel is a mystery, and a president who’s position is anti-Israel, The Jewish State is in big trouble for at least the next three years.

Become a Lid Insider

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to friend