Bill Clinton: "Russians" - the main problem of Israel

Bill Clinton: "Russians" - the main problem of Israel

Former US President Bill Clinton believes that Israel has not yet made peace with the Palestinians, including because of the new immigrants who came from the former Soviet Union. In his opinion, it was their massive presence that ensured the predominance of the national idea over common sense. Clinton said this at a meeting with bloggers in New York.


“It doesn’t matter which government is at the helm of Israel ... The most devoted citizens in Israel are Arabs. This is so from all points of view. After the Arabs are the Sabras, the people of Israel. Those who are most against the world are repatriates who recently arrived in the country and do not know her storiesas well as the Orthodox, who are ready to defend the idea of ​​the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria to the last, "said the former US president.

Bill Clinton, who was actively involved in the conclusion of the Norwegian agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, also blamed Netanyahu for "torpedoing the peaceful aspirations of the people of Palestine," writes cursorinfo.co.il.

According to Clinton, in recent years, the Middle East process has experienced two tragedies - the murder of Yitzhak Rabin and the stroke of Ariel Sharon. The ex-president called these Israeli leaders "true heroes of the world" and expressed the opinion that "demographic processes have turned Israel from a supporter of peace into a country of right-national idea."

According to Clinton, the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority is the most benevolent towards Israel. He described Israel’s claims about the absence of a partner for peace negotiations as “untenable.”

Clinton said he still cannot understand why the Israelis rejected the so-called Saudi initiative, which implies universal recognition of the Jewish state by the Arab world in exchange for proclaiming Palestinian independence within 1967, and with its capital in East Jerusalem. In place of the Israelis, he would have taken this initiative without hesitation.

Clinton considers it right to veto the initiative of the Palestinians in the UN Security Council. In his opinion, without this, the security of Israel cannot be guaranteed.

Harsh statements regarding new immigrants from the former USSR Clinton admitted before. 22 September 2010 said in an interview with Foreign Policy magazine that "an increasing number of young people from the Israel Defense Forces are children of Russians and settlers, the most uncompromising opponents of land division. This is another Israel.

16% of Israelis speak Russian. They just came there, this is their country. They associate their future with it and cannot provide sufficient historical or any other reasons that would justify its division. "
Originator:
http://rus.delfi.lv
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Skarte
    Skarte 27 September 2011 11: 24 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Somehow everything and at the same time about nothing! Who is Clinton !? The same pea jester as Yeltsin! Sales in the photo with Yeltsin similar)
  2. Skarte
    Skarte 27 September 2011 11: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yeah, and the Americans are the problem of the whole World!
  3. Banshee 27 September 2011 11: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Bill clearly visited Monica again ...
    1. Denis 28 September 2011 00: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      a clown, he couldn’t even create quietly with her
  4. merkawa
    merkawa 27 September 2011 12: 27 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I catch up with these Americans, at first they seduced our Jews abroad (in the same Israel) (such as their historical homeland) Now they don’t know what to do with them. And really, Monika removed Bilu’s brains through one place. fellow
    1. Vadivak 27 September 2011 13: 34 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Wherever you go everywhere Russia is to blame, now they don’t like our Jews, notice how praises the Arabs - The most loyal citizens in Israel are Arabs
      Did you forget Benya? So we recall
      How divided Palestine
      I must say that attempts to provide Arabs and Jews living in Palestine with their own states have been undertaken before, and long before the State of Israel was created. In 1936, when the friction between the Arab and Jewish populations of Palestine (then British-controlled territory) developed into an uprising of the Arab population against British rule and Jewish immigration (the uprising quickly took the form of Jewish pogroms), the British authorities created the Royal Commission for Palestine, led by Earl William Peale. She presented the first ever plan to divide Palestine into two states - Jewish and Arab - with the preservation of the British mandate over a small territory that included Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, as well as the city of Nazareth and its environs. Jews, at the suggestion of Count Peel, were allocated a smaller part of the mandate of Palestine, from Tel Aviv in the south to Haifa and the border with French mandate territories (Syria and Lebanon) in the north. Arabs rejected this plan, and the British abandoned him as hopeless.

      A second attempt to divide Palestine was made in 1947, when on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that still remains the main international document on Arab-Israeli relations, resolution 181 on the future governance of Palestine. The plan also called for the creation of two states - Jewish and Israeli - while maintaining UN control over Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Arabs rejected the plan again, however, the Jews living in Palestine received. On May 15, 1948, when Britain announced the termination of its mandate over Palestine, Israel declared independence, and the armies of the five Arab states crossed the Palestinian border. The Arab-Israeli war of 1948 began.
  5. подводник 27 September 2011 13: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes! I'm just dumb!
  6. подводник 27 September 2011 13: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, in general, if you take it “in an American way”, then everything is true, the Russians are to blame for everything, and you need to deal with them. It is very pleasant to be the “irritant” of all Pindos!
  7. ars_pro 27 September 2011 13: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The first associations that come to mind at the word pendostan is a lie and a credential !!! You will not envy Israel
  8. Agnislav
    Agnislav 27 September 2011 15: 32 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    our Jews fellows, at first the union fell apart, now they have taken up Israel)))
    1. Whole 27 September 2011 15: 58 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      When will the states get there?
    2. Tyumen
      Tyumen 27 September 2011 17: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why are you happy?

      Is it by chance in many centuries
      With the glow of countless bonfires
      The Jew is a member of everyone on this world.
      Alien national disasters.
      1. Agnislav
        Agnislav 27 September 2011 18: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And I’m not so happy
        Such a fact seems to me like that.
        I got to Israel
        Jews - destroyers detachment))
        1. подводник 27 September 2011 20: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          burn Agnislav !!!!!!!!!!!
  9. svvaulsh
    svvaulsh 27 September 2011 15: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Another attempt to make white is black.
  10. Motherland
    Motherland 27 September 2011 16: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: submariner
    Well, in general, if you take it “in an American way”, then everything is true, the Russians are to blame for everything, and you need to deal with them. It is very pleasant to be the “irritant” of all Pindos!

    It’s just that the nation itself is afraid and will not calm down until the last one dies.
    In general, in the USSR I personally saw the future of the world, and the United States destroyed the future of the world in order to rule only 20-30 years, and bring the whole world to the brink of chaos.
  11. zczczc
    zczczc 27 September 2011 23: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What kind of Russians are in Israel? Here is the paradox - in our country they are called Jews, in them - Russians. Who are they?
    1. oper66
      oper66 28 September 2011 16: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Said says Abram, you’re wrong, don’t go to my wife, Said you go the same to my wife, I’m even, No Abram, I make you Jews, and you tell me Arabs.
  12. Pole 28 September 2011 00: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I recalled a joke (I immediately say - no offense, the main point !!!):
    The great-grandfather says to the young Tatar:
    "take care of the Jews!"
    He asks: "why?"
    "You will know later"
    Great-grandfather died.
    Grandfather says: "take care of the Jews!"
    "Why?"
    "You will know later"
    Grandfather is dead.
    Father says to his death: "Take care of the Jews!"
    He asks: "why?"
    "as soon as there are no Jews, they will take on us !!!"

    So what am I doing - let's take care of the Russians at last!
    1. zczczc
      zczczc 28 September 2011 12: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Pole, and from whom will you be? :)
      1. Pole 17 October 2011 19: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        RUSSIAN I AM Proud OF IT!
  13. Russian officer
    Russian officer 28 September 2011 18: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Motherland
    It’s just that the nation itself is afraid and will not calm down until the last one dies.

    Houston Project
    10 years - from the collapse of the USSR to the dismemberment of Russia
    In the early 80s, Soviet intelligence managed to extract materials from the so-called "Harvard Project", which consisted of three volumes: "Perestroika", "Reform", "Completion".
    At the beginning of the first volume there was a large preamble, which stated that on the verge of the 10th and XNUMXst centuries, humanity is facing a terrible crisis due to a lack of raw materials and energy resources. Anglo-Saxon environmental analysts have come to the conclusion that saving humanity depends on how much it will be possible to solve common problems after the destruction, as the then US President Ronald Reagan said, of the “Empire of Evil”, that is, at the expense of the USSR, with a planned population reduction of XNUMX times and the destruction of the nation state.
    The program was designed for three five-year periods. In the first five years from 1985 to 1990, it was planned to carry out “Perestroika” with its publicity, the struggle for socialism “with a human face”, and the preparation of reforms “from socialism to capitalism”. "Perestroika" was to be led by one leader, presumably the Secretary General.
    The second volume was devoted to "Reform", its time was 1990 - 1995, and the goals are as follows:
    1. The elimination of the world socialist system.
    2. The liquidation of the Warsaw Pact.
    3. The elimination of the CPSU.
    4. The elimination of the USSR.
    5. The elimination of patriotic socialist consciousness.
    “The reform should have been led by another leader.
    The third volume was called "Completion", it was supposed to be led by the third leader, his time - 1996 - 2000. It contained the following items:
    1. The elimination of the Soviet army.
    2. The elimination of Russia as a state.
    3. The elimination of the attributes of socialism, such as free training and medical care, and the introduction of the attributes of capitalism: you have to pay for everything.
    4. The elimination of well-fed and peaceful life in Leningrad and Moscow.
    5. The elimination of public and state property and the introduction of private property everywhere.
    "Completion", according to plans, should be accompanied by freezing of the hungry population of Russia, the construction of good roads to seaports, through which the raw materials and wealth of Russia should be exported abroad. At the expense of Russia, the West hoped to solve a lot and squeeze it like a lemon, and "give the territory to the Anglo-Saxon race."
    In August 1997, the Harvard Institute through Nezavisimaya Gazeta (No. 9 “NG Scenarios”) informed the Russian public about the development of the “New Harvard Project”, while it was recognized by default that the Old could not be fully implemented and on time. To help Harvard analysts understand what is happening in Russia, Andrei Kokoshin, Valery Manilov, Andrei Kortunov, and other representatives of the “pseudo-scientific” education rushed. Apparently, their help did not go in vain, the guys from Harvard “the mighty of this world” expressed distrust and recently information has begun to appear about the existence of the Houston project.
    The newspaper "Tomorrow" in number 25 of 20. 06. 2001 published an American document circulated at the end of 2000 in the office of US Vice President Richard Cheney. The document was received by special structures of the Russian Federation and reported "up." There was no reaction from the Russian leadership. On the contrary, the entire policy of the official authorities of our country over the past few months has been in line with this document. There is reason to argue that this document is just a fragment of the Houston project.
  14. Russian officer
    Russian officer 28 September 2011 18: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Motherland
    It’s just that the nation itself is afraid and will not calm down until the last one dies.

    In the near future, the United States and its allies will face a qualitatively new challenge from Russia, caused not by its strength, as in Soviet times, but by its weakness. This challenge is not in the danger of a new expansion by the former strategic opponent, but in the danger of the consequences of a new round of his uncontrolled disintegration.
    The development (or rather, the rapid and comprehensive, although largely hidden impairment) of Russia during the period of Boris Yeltsin is largely the result of the inability of the Russian mentality to accept the system of democratic values ​​and a civilized way of life. Faced with modern achievements and toughening international competition in a globalizing world, the Russians respond to this challenge not by a natural desire for representatives of most peoples to increase their well-being and take their rightful place in the world community, but characteristic of archaic societies rejecting the very challenge of modernity, nostalgia and powerful urges to self-isolation. At the same time, the brief Gorbachev period of “fascination with democracy” has been replaced by the fundamental rejection of democratic, universal values ​​and the attitude of the Communist USSR that is characteristic of them as ideological sabotage and manipulation of public opinion.
    This reaction is superimposed by “tiredness from democracy”, a deeply alien Russian social culture, and an almost general disappointment in Western values, which Boris Yeltsin tried to inculcate with such unreasonably and inconsistently with the unjustifiably optimistic assistance of the irresponsible part of the Western establishment.
    The most striking manifestation of this conservative reaction was the coming to power of the new President of Russia, a KGB staff member and former FSB director Vladimir Putin, supported by a majority of both the population and elites of Russia.
    His strategy was to strengthen state power for the sake of liberal reforms in the economy.
    However, its implementation indicates a low level of competence and a lack of skills to solve even simple tasks. The lack of a culture of effective administration in Russia did not pass by its leader, who continued the chaotic personnel policy of Boris Yeltsin in an even more exaggerated form, reminiscent of farce. His whole strategy today is reduced to the mechanical distribution of the most significant posts in public administration and big business between his personal acquaintances, those who worked with him during the communist period in the KGB or in the post communist period in the city hall of St. Petersburg.
    An analysis of the ongoing and planned reforms indicates such, in all likelihood, irreparable shortcomings of the modern Russian state, such as the inability to delegate responsibility, the lack of competent and responsible managers, the tendency to establish corruption-promoting state control over private business, the suppression of dissent, and ignoring strategic problems in order to preserve personal psychological comfort of various officials.
    At the same time, a demonstration of sympathy for the past goes far beyond what is necessary for the simple exploitation of nostalgia of the population. Vladimir Putin, obviously, is not an ordinary political speculator, apparently, he is sincerely trying to return the country to its political past, without experiencing, like the majority of the population of Russia, interest in the fact that this past is neither democratic nor competitive.
    Given the psychological and business characteristics of President Putin, who personalizes the modern Russian state, Russia will most likely not cope with the debt and investment crises expected at the beginning or middle of the current decade, which will be aggravated by lower prices for oil and other traditional Russian export goods.
    The point of view that liberal economic reforms, touted by the new leadership of Russia for more than a year, can bring tangible results and ensure the country's progress, is by no means dead. However, the half-heartedness of political transformations and the continued lack of “political will” in Russia do not allow even the best intentions to be realized.
    Therefore, when developing practical Russian policy, it seems that we should focus on the most likely option, according to which by 2004 the Putin team will finally demonstrate its inability to solve Russia's growing problems.
    The most important of these is territorial disintegration. It is the threat of the transition of this disintegration into an uncontrolled regime with unpredictable political and environmental consequences that is the main challenge that Russia poses to the world community, and therefore to the United States.
    This review is devoted only to the formulation of the problem, the identification of the main directions of this challenge and possible answers to it. Of course, the topics raised deserve a comprehensive detailed study.
    North Caucasus and Central Asia: rationalization of Islamic radical expansion.
    The direction of further expansion of the Taliban movement is the most important of the influential factors.
    The issue of this direction should be decided on the basis of a shift in the focus of American strategic interests. They do not consist in accelerating the already irreversible processes of the collapse of the degrading Russian society, but in deterring the strategic adversary of the United States - China. Therefore, after the democratization of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, which will require a decisive refusal by the Taliban leadership to support international terrorism and the policy of destroying the cultural heritage of mankind, the expansion of the Taliban should not go to the north, where it will inevitably drown in the steppes of Kazakhstan, not reaching the Muslim Volga region, but to the East , to achieve independence of Uigurostan from China.
    This in no way should slow down the process of gaining independence and statehood by the peoples of the North Caucasus, who for centuries were oppressed by the Russian Empire and the communist Soviet Union.
    It is the readiness of the Russian leadership to leave the once organic part of the North Caucasus that should be considered by the world community as the main evidence of its break with the vicious imperial tradition.
    Immediately after the factual independence of the peoples of the North Caucasus, effective support should be provided for the formation of their state formations. Otherwise, the lack of trained managers and financial pressure from Russia can lead to a decrease in management efficiency and a drop in living standards, as was the case in the states of the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, Moldova, and also Albania.
    Siberia and the Far East: balancing Chinese expansion
    Vigorous Chinese expansion, for all its scale, is carried out spontaneously and directed by the leadership of the northern provinces, but not by the central Beijing authorities, who now consider the development of the territories of southern Eastern Siberia more likely as a way to solve the local problem - weaken the social consequences of the restructuring of large, including military factories, lost competitiveness and located mainly in the north of mainland China. The main direction of Chinese expansion is the south, which is undergoing vigorous development of Southeast Asia and Australia. Australian experts already note the difficulty in confronting the Chinese interests of the Australian government within the current political system.
    In this regard, it should be noted that it is inadmissible to maintain the current situation, in which, in contrast to counteracting financial and Arab expansion in the past, as well as the “Euro-threat” in the present, no means have yet been developed to effectively counter Chinese ethnic expansion.
    This situation is unacceptable, because the preservation of Southeast Asia and Australia in the zone of Western, not Chinese influence, is a fundamental condition for maintaining global equilibrium. It is necessary to stop the Chinese expansion in Southeast Asia and Australia, otherwise all efforts to balance Russia will be meaningless due to the emergence of a new global imbalance.
  15. Russian officer
    Russian officer 28 September 2011 18: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Motherland
    It’s just that the nation itself is afraid and will not calm down until the last one dies.

    In the near future, the United States and its allies will face a qualitatively new challenge from Russia, caused not by its strength, as in Soviet times, but by its weakness. This challenge is not in the danger of a new expansion by the former strategic opponent, but in the danger of the consequences of a new round of his uncontrolled disintegration.
    The development (or rather, the rapid and comprehensive, although largely hidden impairment) of Russia during the period of Boris Yeltsin is largely the result of the inability of the Russian mentality to accept the system of democratic values ​​and a civilized way of life. Faced with modern achievements and toughening international competition in a globalizing world, the Russians respond to this challenge not by a natural desire for representatives of most peoples to increase their well-being and take their rightful place in the world community, but characteristic of archaic societies rejecting the very challenge of modernity, nostalgia and powerful urges to self-isolation. At the same time, the brief Gorbachev period of “fascination with democracy” has been replaced by the fundamental rejection of democratic, universal values ​​and the attitude of the Communist USSR that is characteristic of them as ideological sabotage and manipulation of public opinion.
    This reaction is superimposed by “tiredness from democracy”, a deeply alien Russian social culture, and an almost general disappointment in Western values, which Boris Yeltsin tried to inculcate with such unreasonably and inconsistently with the unjustifiably optimistic assistance of the irresponsible part of the Western establishment.
    The most striking manifestation of this conservative reaction was the coming to power of the new President of Russia, a KGB staff member and former FSB director Vladimir Putin, supported by a majority of both the population and elites of Russia.
    His strategy was to strengthen state power for the sake of liberal reforms in the economy.
    However, its implementation indicates a low level of competence and a lack of skills to solve even simple tasks. The lack of a culture of effective administration in Russia did not pass by its leader, who continued the chaotic personnel policy of Boris Yeltsin in an even more exaggerated form, reminiscent of farce. His whole strategy today is reduced to the mechanical distribution of the most significant posts in public administration and big business between his personal acquaintances, those who worked with him during the communist period in the KGB or in the post communist period in the city hall of St. Petersburg.
    An analysis of the ongoing and planned reforms indicates such, in all likelihood, irreparable shortcomings of the modern Russian state, such as the inability to delegate responsibility, the lack of competent and responsible managers, the tendency to establish corruption-promoting state control over private business, the suppression of dissent, and ignoring strategic problems in order to preserve personal psychological comfort of various officials.
    At the same time, a demonstration of sympathy for the past goes far beyond what is necessary for the simple exploitation of nostalgia of the population. Vladimir Putin, obviously, is not an ordinary political speculator, apparently, he is sincerely trying to return the country to its political past, without experiencing, like the majority of the population of Russia, interest in the fact that this past is neither democratic nor competitive.
    Given the psychological and business characteristics of President Putin, who personalizes the modern Russian state, Russia will most likely not cope with the debt and investment crises expected at the beginning or middle of the current decade, which will be aggravated by lower prices for oil and other traditional Russian export goods.
    The point of view that liberal economic reforms, touted by the new leadership of Russia for more than a year, can bring tangible results and ensure the country's progress, is by no means dead. However, the half-heartedness of political transformations and the continued lack of “political will” in Russia do not allow even the best intentions to be realized.
    Therefore, when developing practical Russian policy, it seems that we should focus on the most likely option, according to which by 2004 the Putin team will finally demonstrate its inability to solve Russia's growing problems.