Clinton finks out on Israel

Just a few days earlier Egyptian TV aired a video in which a man was beheaded for the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity. But it wasn’t worthy of a protest by Clinton

Sunday, July 15, 2012
[Disturbing absence of strong statement on honoring Egypt-Israel treaty: SECRETARY CLINTON Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr
[Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA:

When the U.S. Secretary of State walks up to a microphone you can be certain that every word in the prepared remarks was carefully chosen and reviewed. For that matter, practically every word in the Q&A was carefully prepared. That’s why if you compare across Q&A’s you find virtually identical sound bites.

So let’s review the carefully prepared messages from Secretary of State Clinton – followed by a remark from he Egyptian foreign minister:

SECRETARY CLINTON: From prepared statement:

More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war. And on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two people with peace, security, and dignity for all.

We believe America’s shared strategic interest with Egypt far outnumber our differences.

From Q& A:

Obviously, we think it’s important for all the nations in the region to try to maintain peace and stability, especially with so many economic challenges facing the region. And we certainly support the continuation of the peace agreement, because we think, as I said, it has brought great benefits to Egypt and will continue to do so, enabling the President to focus on the economic conditions and the internal political situation here in the country.

FOREIGN MINISTER AMR: (Via interpreter.)

I would like to add something about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.

That’s right. In her prepared remarks, Secretary Clinton put the treaty into the context of being a “foundation” for pushing for the creation of a Palestinian state. And that with a reference to the Obama teams favorite concept “dignity”.

A reminder: “dignity” in the Obama lexicon has as much weight as
“security”. So while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have no problem that Granny and a 4 year old going through an American airport may be subject to a random full body search, they have a problem with “humiliating” checkpoints designed to detect bombs being carried across by a population of which, according to their own polls, a large portion supports bombing Israeli civilians inside Israel. And if you think that the “dignity” provision has been a problem until now – just wait and see how “dignity” could be used as an argument against a broad variety of security related final status arrangements.

And the very next words out of her mouth?

“We believe America’s shared strategic interest with Egypt far outnumber our differences .”

So in her prepared remarks, Secretary of State Clinton did not include an explicit reference to Egypt having to honor the treaty, and she then gave a heavy hint that the U.S. interest in Egypt go well beyond Egypt-Israel.

In the Q&A we have

“we think it’s important for all the nations in the region to try to maintain peace and stability” instead of “we think it’s important for all the nations in the region to maintain peace and stability”

And then

“we certainly support the continuation of the peace agreement”.

Yes. That’s the strongest thing she could say.

This followed by what has now become a disturbing Egyptian sound bite that has become the standard Egyptian line;

“that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. “

And then we have an extremely dangerous addition that indicates how Egypt may justify the position that Israel has not respected the treaty:

“Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Does this mean that it is now Egypt’s position that Israel is not respecting the treaty if it declines to divide Jerusalem and retreat to the green line?

This is what Secretary Clinton said in response: [NOTHING].