The Flirtations of Hillary, 63, with the 2012 Presidential Elections: The Clintons’ Fantasy
It seems that these days Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state, is going through an odd change of heart.
It was only a few hours before the negotiations between the 5+1 group and Iran, when at the Manama Summit in Bahrain, she suddenly forgot about her habitual and repetitive attacks on Iran’s nuclear activities and declared that Iran possesses the right to enrich uranium. She not only supported Iran’s nuclear program but also made an effort in flirting with, and capturing the heart of, the (now-fired) foreign minister of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki — even if it only resulted in engaging in small talk and greetings with him.
Her odd change of heart continued through last Saturday at a Brookings Institute dinner reception, which included guests such as Ehud Barak, current Labor Party leader and defense minister of the Zionist regime; Tzipi Livni, Kadima party leader and a critic of the Zionist regime’s current administration; Salam Fayyad and Saeb Erekat, officials from self-governing territories and George Mitchell, U.S. special envoy to the region. There, she decisively uttered the word “state” in reference to a Palestine that should come into fruition once the negotiations are concluded successfully. The U.S. secretary of state, speaking hopefully, insisted that whenever an opening in the negotiations is closed, another path should be sought until the ultimate goal of a two-state solution is reached.
It is not clear why Clinton has become so kind and tender in the past one to two weeks — not only recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium but also supporting the formation of a Palestinian state. There are precedents for high-ranking American officials talking one way while in power, and then once they are no longer in power, they begin talking about supporting the formation of human rights organizations in defense of rights for all nations, as if they weren’t the same people and officials they were before. However, it appears that Mrs. Clinton is using this tactic — previously used only by ex-American officials — while still in power.
There is hardly anyone among the observers of international affairs who is not aware of Clinton’s staunch enthusiasm and support for the Zionist regime and her opposition to Palestine, resulting in her bullying and intimidation of Iran. But how in the world did she suddenly change her stance at the Manama Summit and Brookings Institute reception and become an advocate for Iran and Palestine? Is it because — as reported by various sources — she is trying to distance herself from Barack Obama and create an atmosphere for competing with him in the 2012 presidential elections? Does the Democratic Party support this policy and act contrary to its usual backing of the incumbent candidate for the presidency? Has the Democratic Party concluded that Obama wasn’t who they thought he might be as president, failing to maintain the voters’ loyalty and persuade them to continue their support of U.S. government policies? Is the Democratic Party really in the process of transitioning from Obama to Clinton as its candidate in the 2012 presidential elections? Is this why the current U.S. secretary of state has taken such mild stances as compared to before, especially on issues such as Iran and the most complicated international issue, namely the issue of peace in the Middle East?
Is there any real chance for peace in the Middle East with the current policies of the United States and the Zionist regime or not? For Palestine, the minimum condition for peace is the withdrawal of the Zionist regime to the 1967 borders that were crossed as a result of the Six-Day War in June (during Ramadan), resulting in the occupation of the disputed territories by Tel Aviv. Currently, the countries that show interest in the peace process insist on the restoration of these borders. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, three Latin American countries in support of the two-state solution, recognize the 1967 borders. During the Six-Day War waged by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, the Zionist regime succeeded in occupying East Jerusalem (the West Bank of the Jordan River), the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights (Syria) and the Sinai Desert (Egypt), of which the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Golan Heights remain under Zionist occupation. Currently, Tel Aviv shows no intention of withdrawing from these territories. Therefore, it is impossible to be at ease and optimistic about the peace prospects in the region, unless the occupiers withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as they did from the Sinai Desert (1982) and the Gaza Strip (2005). The strategic position of the Golan Heights and the ongoing settlement constructions by the Zionist regime in the Gaza Strip obscures prospects for peace.
Has Mrs. Clinton, 63, found a new way to peace, as she so hopefully spoke of it at the Brookings Institute? Is she really concerned with the peace process or merely plotting her race against her perpetual rival, Obama, 49?
Were she to succeed in becoming the U.S. president, the Clintons would be the first couple in the history of the United States to have both held the office.
It was only a few hours before the negotiations between the 5+1 group and Iran, when at the Manama Summit in Bahrain, she suddenly forgot about her habitual and repetitive attacks on Iran’s nuclear activities and declared that Iran possesses the right to enrich uranium. She not only supported Iran’s nuclear program but also made an effort in flirting with, and capturing the heart of, the (now-fired) foreign minister of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki — even if it only resulted in engaging in small talk and greetings with him.
Her odd change of heart continued through last Saturday at a Brookings Institute dinner reception, which included guests such as Ehud Barak, current Labor Party leader and defense minister of the Zionist regime; Tzipi Livni, Kadima party leader and a critic of the Zionist regime’s current administration; Salam Fayyad and Saeb Erekat, officials from self-governing territories and George Mitchell, U.S. special envoy to the region. There, she decisively uttered the word “state” in reference to a Palestine that should come into fruition once the negotiations are concluded successfully. The U.S. secretary of state, speaking hopefully, insisted that whenever an opening in the negotiations is closed, another path should be sought until the ultimate goal of a two-state solution is reached.
It is not clear why Clinton has become so kind and tender in the past one to two weeks — not only recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium but also supporting the formation of a Palestinian state. There are precedents for high-ranking American officials talking one way while in power, and then once they are no longer in power, they begin talking about supporting the formation of human rights organizations in defense of rights for all nations, as if they weren’t the same people and officials they were before. However, it appears that Mrs. Clinton is using this tactic — previously used only by ex-American officials — while still in power.
There is hardly anyone among the observers of international affairs who is not aware of Clinton’s staunch enthusiasm and support for the Zionist regime and her opposition to Palestine, resulting in her bullying and intimidation of Iran. But how in the world did she suddenly change her stance at the Manama Summit and Brookings Institute reception and become an advocate for Iran and Palestine? Is it because — as reported by various sources — she is trying to distance herself from Barack Obama and create an atmosphere for competing with him in the 2012 presidential elections? Does the Democratic Party support this policy and act contrary to its usual backing of the incumbent candidate for the presidency? Has the Democratic Party concluded that Obama wasn’t who they thought he might be as president, failing to maintain the voters’ loyalty and persuade them to continue their support of U.S. government policies? Is the Democratic Party really in the process of transitioning from Obama to Clinton as its candidate in the 2012 presidential elections? Is this why the current U.S. secretary of state has taken such mild stances as compared to before, especially on issues such as Iran and the most complicated international issue, namely the issue of peace in the Middle East?
Is there any real chance for peace in the Middle East with the current policies of the United States and the Zionist regime or not? For Palestine, the minimum condition for peace is the withdrawal of the Zionist regime to the 1967 borders that were crossed as a result of the Six-Day War in June (during Ramadan), resulting in the occupation of the disputed territories by Tel Aviv. Currently, the countries that show interest in the peace process insist on the restoration of these borders. Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, three Latin American countries in support of the two-state solution, recognize the 1967 borders. During the Six-Day War waged by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, the Zionist regime succeeded in occupying East Jerusalem (the West Bank of the Jordan River), the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights (Syria) and the Sinai Desert (Egypt), of which the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Golan Heights remain under Zionist occupation. Currently, Tel Aviv shows no intention of withdrawing from these territories. Therefore, it is impossible to be at ease and optimistic about the peace prospects in the region, unless the occupiers withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as they did from the Sinai Desert (1982) and the Gaza Strip (2005). The strategic position of the Golan Heights and the ongoing settlement constructions by the Zionist regime in the Gaza Strip obscures prospects for peace.
Has Mrs. Clinton, 63, found a new way to peace, as she so hopefully spoke of it at the Brookings Institute? Is she really concerned with the peace process or merely plotting her race against her perpetual rival, Obama, 49?
Were she to succeed in becoming the U.S. president, the Clintons would be the first couple in the history of the United States to have both held the office.