Why Hillary will fail to achieve peace in Palestine?

Published Date: 06/03/2009 - 09:40 AM

The new American Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Occupied Palestine in a fresh effort to stir the stagnant waters of the Palestinian-Israeli strife.

However, there is a real likelihood that Clinton will fail to accomplish her mission. We are not prophets of doom and gloom, and we are confident that no Palestinian under the sun hates to see peace hovering over our tormented land.

However, there is no evidence looming on the horizon that Clinton will succeed where her numerous predecessors—from William Rogers to Condoleezza Rice—failed.

One doesn’t have to be a great expert in American politics and policy, especially vis-à-vis the Middle East, to realize why failure will rest on Clinton’s side.

First of all, Clinton should realize that the American policy toward the Middle East is by and large determined by Israel, not by the United States. Maybe it is too much to ask an American official to admit this clarion fact. But nothing is further from the truth.

Clinton’s experience as a New York Senator should be more than enough to make her understand what we are talking about.

The Jews of America, through powerful political institutions such as AIPAC, do call the tune of American policy in the Middle East not only by paying the piper but also by deciding who he is.

Any piper who refuses to be tightly controlled and manipulated to the fullest by the Zionist Mephistopheles will be committing political suicide the next time elections are held. He or she will be smeared, cursed and abused by a thousand mouthpieces loyal to Israel. Only the extraordinarily honest and exceptionally courageous would withstand the hateful torrent of name-calling and abuse.

The list of American politicians, Senators and Congressmen who paid dearly for their “audacity” by challenging Israeli hegemony over the American government or even questioning the veracity of the Israeli narrative is long.

Clinton herself, as First Lady, had been castigated for saying a few words of sympathy with the Palestinians when she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, visited the autonomous Palestinian enclaves in the late 1990s.

But Mrs. Clinton eventually budged, and with little or no resistance, succumbed to Jewish-Zionist pressure. Here excessive subsequent indulgence in political whoredom caricatured a lady who was willing to abandon every iota of human and moral ethics to please and appease Jewish lobbyists—so dramatically disgraceful was her downfall from being morally straight to being politically correct.

Now, Clinton is serving under a new administration that harbours a modicum of independence from the evil Zionist lobby. Hence, she is expected to show a certain semblance of rectitude and evenhandedness toward the enduring conflict in Palestine.

But will she be honest enough and courageous enough to confront the Israelis and their agents back in America and tell them in unmistakable language “Enough is enough?”

We really doubt it, and the reasons are many and overwhelming.

To begin with, as long as the U.S. maintains the scandalously “special relations” with Israel whereby America fully supports Israel—right or wrong—Israel will be under no pressure to change course or even take seriously American pronouncements and declarations on the Palestinian question, however half-hearted and facetious they are.

Indeed, the striking inconsistency of the American policy toward the Israeli occupation and apartheid long convinced Israel that America is not really serious about getting Israel to observe the requirements for peace in the region.

Let us cite some examples. The U.S. often declares its opposition to certain Israeli behaviours e.g. settlement expansion in the West Bank. However, instead of taking Israel to task when new settlements are built and old settlements are expanded, successive American administrations simply turn a blind eye, while continuing to reiterate ad nauseam the same tired platitudes about the need to consider detrimental effects on the peace process.

But the repletion of these platitudes has long been rendered inconsequential, even irrelevant, in light of Israeli defiance and intransigence and America’s acquiescence.

In the final analysis, it is America that always blinks first, and it is Israel—with its 5 million citizens—that nearly always imposes its will on America’s 300 million citizens.

In short, Israel doesn’t really take America seriously as every American President and Secretary of State must have discovered.

In fact, the news from Washington has not been very encouraging. In February, Clinton was quoted as saying that “there will be no pigeon-holing, no exclusivity; we are reaching out to the entire world.” However, less than 24 hours later, State Department spokesman Robert Wood assured Israel that nothing has changed or about to change, adding that the “U.S. has special relations with Israel; it will continue strong with no doubt.”

Well, Mrs. Clinton should really understand that as long as the U.S. maintains “special relations” with Israel, there will be no chance for peace in the Middle East.

Why is that? Because Israel views her “special relations” with Washington as carte blanche to commit every conceivable atrocity—such as the recent genocidal blitz in Gaza—steal Palestinian land and build more Jewish settlements.

“Special relations” are also understood by Israel to imply an unrestricted and open-ended license to defy international law and fly in the face of all efforts to achieve peace. It also means that Israel is allowed to kill the two-State solution upon which all peace efforts are based.

In fact, Israel has killed the two-State solution by dotting the West Bank map with Jewish-only colonies, thus reducing Palestinian population centres to open-air detention camps.

This is not merely a Palestinian hyperbole meant to alert the world to the dire and immediate danger facing peace efforts. It is the harsh and hard reality that the international community dreads facing, let alone come to terms with.

So, will Mrs. Clinton make any difference?

Source: http://www.ptimes.org/