Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
13 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Clinton's press conference supports Israel and demonizes Iran

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to None 3/7/09

opednews.com

This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on a visit to the Middle East and Europe to mobilize support for U.S. imperialism. On March 3, 2009 she gave a press conference in Israel. In the press conference, she made clear that the new Obama administration is dedicated to pursuing continued U.S. dominance of the Middle East. In the pursuit of this dominance, Clinton emphasized that Israel is a key U.S. ally and Iran is a key enemy. 

Clinton stressed the importance of Israel at the conference when she stated, “President Obama and I believe that the bond between the United States and Israel, and our commitment to Israel’s security and to its democracy as a Jewish state, remains fundamental, unshakable, and eternally durable.” She talked about the need for a “durable ceasefire” between Israel and Gaza and then blamed Hamas for the war on Gaza.  She said, “But that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks. No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territories. These attacks must stop and so must the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. These activities put innocent lives of Israelis and Palestinians at risk and undermine the well-being of the people of Gaza.” 

This is part of the big lie put forth by Israel and the U.S. in justifying the Israeli war against Gaza. The unified line is that the war was one of self-defense. Israel was only defending itself when it killed 1300 Palestinians in Gaza. The four decades of brutal Israeli occupation of Gaza should be ignored. The Palestinians in Gaza should accept what the Israelis allow them to have and ignore the fact that Gaza is treated as if it is nothing more than a vast prison. The code words “durable ceasefire” really mean that the Palestinians must give up all resistance to Israeli occupation and control.

Clinton then went on to pretend that the new administration cares about the “humanitarian needs in Gaza.”  She stated, “We believe we can also work together to further the obligations that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and help pave the way for a viable Palestinian state that can be independent, accountable, and live at peace.”  But when the people of Gaza were under attack by Israeli shells, bombs, and missiles, the U.S. showed no such concern.  When Israel refused to let in humanitarian aid and medical supplies, the U.S. did not condemn these Israeli crimes. The U.S. stood idly by allowing the attack to continue, while occasionally mouthing the word “durable ceasefire” and using diplomacy to delay any real ceasefire. Obama, while waiting to take office, maintained almost complete silence about the massacre that was occurring, except to support the big lie mentioned above. 

To the U.S., the words “a viable Palestinian state that can be independent, accountable, and live at peace” mean something totally different than they appear.  Any Palestinian state acceptable to the U.S. and Israel would have to be totally subservient to both the U.S. and Israel. Israeli settlements presently on Palestinian land and Israeli security arrangements would make any Palestinian state a totally divided “country” at the mercy of Israel. 

Clinton pledged, “…the United States will be vigorously engaged in the pursuit of a two-state solution every step of the way. Our Special Envoy Senator Mitchell is here with me today.” The U.S. will be actively involved alright, but only to ensure that any deal will protect the interests of U.S. imperialism. It will also continue to apply pressure on the Palestinian negotiators to capitulate to U.S and Israeli demands.
 

Clinton did not confine her remarks to Palestine. In the press conference, Clinton also discussed Iran. “We share Israel’s concerns about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its continued financing of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. As we conduct our policy review and consider areas where we might be able to productively engage with Iran, we will stay in very close consultation with our friends here in Israel, with the neighbors of Iran in the region and beyond with those countries that understand what a threat Iran poses today, and what a greater threat it would pose were it ever to be successful in its pursuit of nuclear weapons,” she stated. Notice how she assumed that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.  She also managed to mention terrorism.  (Weapons of mass destruction and alleged support of terrorism were excuses used for the Iraq invasion.) 

Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the various U.S. intelligence agencies (in a National Intelligence Estimate) acknowledge that there is no proof of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Yet under the Bush regime, and now under the Obama administration, various high-level U.S. government officials keep making statements to the contrary, as if we should all accept such an alleged program as fact. (Dick Cheney was a master of this tactic. He repeated the big lie often enough to fool millions into accepting the lie as fact.) 

Yesterday Clinton further stated, “As I pledge again today, and as President Obama has said, we will do everything necessary to ensure Israel’s security now and into the future.”  I guess we should be grateful she did not re-state that she would “obliterate” Iran in defense of Israel. She made this statement in April 2008.

But Clinton did say that the U.S. and Iran do have “an understanding that we share about the threat that Iran poses. We intend to do all that we can to deter and to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is our stated policy. That is the goal of any tactic that we employ.”

“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused. Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel, but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do. And as President Obama has said in his inaugural address, we will stretch out our hand to any country that unclenches its fist. But that is yet to be seen. Whatever we do will be done thoughtfully, in consultation with our friends and allies – most particularly Israel.”
 

One of the differences between the Bush regime and the new Obama administration is that it is likely under Obama that the U.S. will use more diplomacy to achieve its goals. But as Clinton makes clear above, diplomacy is a tactic. That does not mean that the U.S. has abandoned achieving total domination in the Middle East in order to achieve world-wide hegemony overall. In regard to Iran, the U.S. has used sanctions, military threats, and diplomacy.  This was true under Bush and will remain so under Obama.  Just because the tactics emphasized at any given time change, does not change the nature of U.S. imperialism. As Clinton said, the “goal remains the same.”  

The Obama administration will likely forgo the unilateralist approach often taken by the Bush regime in international affairs.  Bush often projected and used U.S. power with minimal attention paid to U.S. allies.  This has put U.S. imperialism in a bind, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In both hot spots, the U.S. now needs more assistance from it allies. The unilateralist approach of the Bush regime makes such assistance less likely. That is why Clinton now emphasizes “consultation with our friends and allies.” 

But once again I emphasize that a tactical change does not change the goal of achieving U.S. hegemony. The people of the world should not support U.S. imperialism, just because it involves other imperialist powers in achieving its goals.  Would the second invasion of Iraq been more legitimate if George W. Bush had mobilized the coalition that his dad had used in the first Gulf War?  

We will undoubtedly see other departures from the Bush regime tactics as Obama conducts foreign policy as the new president and commander-in-chief of U.S. imperialism. But it would be foolish to expect Obama to abandon strategic U.S. goals. He knows who he serves.  He is not where he is to serve the interests of the vast majority of the people of the world or even of the U.S.  This will become clearer with every move he makes on both the domestic and foreign front. 

 

worldcantwait.org

Kenneth J. Theisen is veteran activist of movements opposing U.S. imperialism, its wars and domination of countries throughout the world. He wrote his first op-ed piece against the Vietnam war when he was only 12 and has been writing on various (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Clinton's press conference supports Israel and demonizes Iran

U.S. State Department report exposes extensive human rights abuses in Afghanistan by U.S.-backed government

Iran, the "silent war," heats up

Obama moves to avoid Supreme Court case in order to preserve indefinite detention of "terrorism" suspects

Remembering the past to change the future – We must hold the torture state accountable

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 people are discussing this page, with 13 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

"We will undoubtedly see other departures fro... by William Whitten on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:50:43 AM
It's time to get out the heavy artilliry and g... by Snoopy on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:38:06 PM
I thank Kenneth Theisen for seeing through the Isr... by syed mahdi on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:57:23 PM
Who's committed the most wars of aggression in... by eileen kuch on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 2:51:17 PM
Getting wrong Iran can bring the house of cards do... by Arktig Silver on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:06:33 PM
Sec. Clinton has provided other signals which indi... by Jim Dawson on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:10:02 PM
Obama will affect any real 'change' when i... by Paul Magill Smith on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:03:39 PM
This is a very good digest of the history here. Th... by William Whitten on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:51:48 PM
It's so refreshing to read an article that is ... by Mike Baldwin on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:11:09 PM
We need to keep exposing the truth of our imperial... by Michael Dewey on Saturday, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:59:25 PM
 The world was recently treated to the atroci... by cosmic J. on Sunday, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:16:59 AM
A crime is a committed by a criminal, even if it's... by emily horswill on Sunday, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:53:17 PM
would be disgusted by what her people have evolved... by Paul Magill Smith on Monday, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:03:46 AM

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum