Hillary Clinton’s Inverted Logic

by Patrick Seale

Released: 3 May 2010

In a development which bodes ill for Middle East peace, the Obama presidency is beginning to adopt the vociferously pro-Israeli, anti-Arab rhetoric of its predecessor -- the neocon-dominated administration of former President George W. Bush.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be leading the trend. In a speech on 30 April to the American Jewish Committee, she had no qualms in declaring: “The threats to Israel’s security are real, they are growing, and they must be addressed.” Israel, she added, was “confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history,” because of the danger from Iran, Syria and from groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas.

Syria’s transfers of increasingly sophisticated weaponry to Hizbullah, Clinton charged, could spark a new conflict, while a nuclear-armed Iran would profoundly destabilise the region. Ignoring Syria’s firm denial of such transfers and Iran’s repeated statements that its nuclear programme was for purely civilian purposes, she used unusually strong language to warn the two countries that America’s commitment to Israel’s security was unshakable. They should understand, she said, the consequences of threats to the Jewish state. “President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region,” she warned.

Statements such as these are, almost word for word, the same as those made by Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak on a visit to Washington last week. New rockets reaching Hizbullah, he claimed, were upsetting the regional balance of forces. In a barely-veiled threat to Lebanon, he warned that it would be held to account if the situation worsened.

To any independent observer, the statements by Mrs. Clinton and Ehud Barak are an extraordinary inversion of the situation on the ground. It is not Israel which faces “real and growing threats,” but rather its neighbours, who live in constant fear of renewed attack from an incomparably stronger and better armed Israel.

Lebanon has not yet recovered from Israel’s devastating assault of 2006, which killed some 1,500 civilians, while Gaza -- under cruel siege and denied building materials for reconstruction -- still lives in the rubble caused by Israel’s invasion of December-January 2008-2009, which killed another 1,500 people, and wounded thousands more. As for Iran, it faces a constant -- and publicly stated -- threat of attack on its nuclear sites.

Quite apart from Israel’s nuclear arsenal of some 200 warheads, some of them deliverable by its Dolphin class submarines, the American-supplied Israeli Air Force is by far the most powerful in the region, able to attack targets up to 1,500 miles away with air-to-ground missiles and “bunker-buster” GBU-28 bombs.

As is well-known, the United States has pledged to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over any combination of Arab states, and never to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear military capability in any public statement.

The inescapable conclusion one must draw from Mrs. Clinton’s remarks is that Israel’s neighbours have no right to defend themselves, but must meekly submit to Israel’s repeated blows and to its overall military hegemony. When Barak refers to a change in the balance of forces he means that some of Israel’s neighbours are trying to acquire the means to deter further Israeli attacks -- a development which, although still in its infancy, is evidently considered intolerable by Israel and its American backer.

On a visit to Damascus on April 30, Iran’s Vice-President Mohammad Rida Rahimi, vowed to stand alongside Syria against any Israeli threat. Tehran, he pledged, “will back Syria with all its means and strength.”

Quite apart from its major military operations, Israel’s assaults on its captive Palestinian population continue on a daily basis. Last week, B’Tselem, the brave Israeli human rights organisation, reported that a 19-year old unarmed Palestinian youth was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers near the border fence with Gaza, when he and others were demonstrating against the broad “death zone” Israel has created along the border inside Gaza, depriving the Strip of some 20 per cent of its arable land.

According to B’Tselem, a Jewish settler opened fire on Palestinian demonstrators near Nablus, but Israeli soldiers present at the scene did nothing to stop him. In March, Israeli soldiers came at night to the home of Nancy Hamdiya near Jenin, and took her, her husband and their four young children outside, including a 5-day old baby, where they were held in the bitter cold for three hours, while their house was searched and property destroyed.

Mrs. Clinton must surely be aware that these are just random examples of the “real and growing” threats which Israel’s neighbours face on a daily basis. One must wonder whether she understands that her statements fatally undermine President Barack Obama’s attempts -- as in his speech in Cairo last year -- to convince Arabs and Muslims that the United States is seeking reconciliation with them. She should perhaps ponder that flagrant bias against Arabs and Iranians such as she openly expresses inevitably breeds anger and hostility in return.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press).

Copyright © 2010 Patrick Seale – distributed by Agence Global

---------------
Released: 03 May 2010
Word Count: 809
----------------

Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, rights@agenceglobal.com 1.336.686.9002, or 1.212.731.0757

Topics:

Afghanistan

Africa

Arab World

China

Europe

Iran

Iraq