First there is the incredible gag factor that comes with her gushing. I think nothing is more ludicrous and outrageous than:
..and I sometimes look at the President when I’m with him and talking about some issue or another, and think about a grandfather who marched in Patton’s Army and a great-uncle who helped to liberate Buchenwald. And I know how rock solid and unwavering his commitment is to Israel’s security and Israel’s future.
But then, there are all the positions that have become standard -- the lies, misrepresentations and canards:
The way she has it, world peace depends on our making peace with the Palestinian Arabs:
lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians threatens that future, holds back the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and destabilizes the region and beyond. (emphasis added)
[Previously] it was rare that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was raised. Now it is the first, second, or third item on nearly every agenda of every country I visit.
I don't believe this last sentence.
What does that mean? Well, it means that this conflict has assumed a role in the global geostrategic environment that carries great weight. And it also means that there is a yearning on the part of people who have never been to Israel and never met a Palestinian that somehow, some way, we create the circumstances for this to finally be resolved. (emphasis added)
Worst, there's the link to Iran:
And what I worry about is that a failure to act now when there are changed circumstances, including the Arab Peace Initiative, including the very broadly shared fear of Iran’s intentions and actions, will not just set us back, but may irreversibly prevent us from going forward. (emphasis added)
As to the mention of the Arab Initiative, as we know this would be something akin to a death knoll for Israel, her mention of it (hardly the first time) and active promotion of it ring bells.
And there is her outrageous evenhandedness, with everyone represented as trying equally:
Every step back from the peace table and every flare-up in violence undermines the positive players across the region who seek to turn the page and focus on building a more hopeful and prosperous Middle East. (emphasis added)
There are so many actors right now who are willing to make commitments and take actions that would have been unthinkable one, two, three, four years ago. I see my friend the foreign minister of Jordan, Nasser Judeh. (emphasis added)
She fails to mention the refusal of Arabs states to make any gestures to Israel, in spite of Obama imploring them to do so. Fails to mention it? Blatantly misrepresents the situation. This is simply a lie. And Jordan has been impossible.
She makes it sound as if the obstacles to peace come equally from both sides. No finger pointing at the genuine obstructionists, perish the thought:
Those in the region most hostile to peace, those in the region most opposed to compromise and coexistence, are those who do not have Israel’s best interests at heart and do not have the Palestinians’ best interests at heart. (emphasis added)
This is her vision, the vision of the administration:
Formation of a contiguous independent Palestinian State based on '67 lines will benefit Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. We all have to help the PA get stronger so this can happen. Israel has done some good things, but must do more. All the familiar demands are here, including settlement freeze and the situation in Gaza.
Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results..
But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. So we encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza, and to refrain from unilateral statements and actions that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks. (emphasis added)
After all Fayyad is working to build a state:
today hope is stirring in the West Bank because of strong leadership and hard work
Very problematic is her representation of Hamas as obstructionist and the PA as a partner for peace:
unfortunately, Hamas appears set on continued conflict with Israel... President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad have produced very different results in a relatively short period of time.
President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad and the Palestinian Authority argue for the two-track approach of pursuing a political settlement and institution building.
the Palestinian Authority has staked its credibility on a path of peaceful coexistence.
There are outright lies in her position:
The PLO has emerged as a credible partner for peace. It has rejected violence, improved security, made progress on combating incitement, and accepted Israel’s right to exist.
Fatah endorsed violence in its Conference last Aug. Fayyad and Abbas have escalated incitement of late -- making threats about a religious war in the area and the possibility of another intifada. Combating incitment? It's been very "in your face" of late, with the naming of the square and all the rest. As to the PLO accepting Israel's right to exist, not as a JEWISH state. And what about the PLO charter which explicitly denies that right?
The Palestinian Authority’s two-year plan envisions a state that is based on pluralism, equality, religious tolerance, and the rule of law, created through a negotiated settlement with Israel, and capable of meeting the needs of its citizens and supporting a lasting peace. Under the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, the PA is addressing a history of corruption and building transparent and accountable institutions.
Come on! A state based on pluralism and religious tolerance? Not according to the proposed constitution nor according to how the PA is acting now. As to a two-year plan based on a negotiated settlement, Fayyad threatens to go to the Security Council (which, admittedly, Clinton says they shouldn't do), and refuses to come to the table (which Clinton says they should do). Addressing a history of corruption? This is a joke.
Missing from this is any vision of what will happen to Hamas in Gaza. She -- as is the Obama administration-- is promoting a three state solution.
The good news here is that at least on the surface Obama is still promoting negotiations and does not seem inclined to support a motion for a state in the Security Council.
The really big change, which was also reflected by Obama in recent days, is the position that that the parties have to want this and the US, which will still help and "encourage" can't force it. Presumably there will be no Obama peace plan now. Looks like Obama has been advised to pull back so as to not look like a total failure and idiot. Looks like he's waking up to what's impossible.
We not only know we cannot force a solution, we have no interest in forcing a solution. The parties themselves are the only ones who can resolve their differences