Hillary Clinton received a warm welcome and standing ovations this morning from nearly 7500 AIPAC delegates–or citizen lobbyists–from across the U.S. as she delivered a highly anticipated speech that heavily addressed last week’s diplomatic flap between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations.

Clinton did not back away from the Obama administration’s criticism, last week, of the Israeli government and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an Israeli municipal authority announcement that construction of 1600 housing units will move forward in East Jerusalem. She made no mention of the fact that the Obama administration had, in securing a 10-month moratorium on construction in the settlements, previously accepted the possibility of construction in this area. Nor did her remarks include any discussion of Jerusalem as undivided capital of Israel.

Instead, she said that the U.S. has long had a policy that “does not support Israel’s policy of continued settlement building” and said, “There is another path. A path that leads toward security and prosperity for all the people of the region. It will require all parties - including Israel - to make difficult but necessary choices.”

She went on to say, “new construction in East Jerusalem endangers … talks on both sides.” She also said, “We cannot ignore the long-term population trends that result from Israeli occupation.” (Am I alone in finding this an odd statement? As if Israel’s presence in the West Bank accounts for the demographic explosion in the Palestinian  population since 1948).

Last week’s flap, she acknowledged, was not about “hurt pride” (looks like the administration realizes no one’s buying the ‘Joe Biden was so embarrassed’ story after all) but about “getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere” that is conducive to brokering peace. “We commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for embracing the two state solution … and expect Israel to take steps that will lead” towards peace. In the Obama Administration’s view, those steps include “stop[ping] settlement activity” and “address[ing] the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” She also spoke of “encourag[ing] Palestinians to put an end to violence and ingrain[ing] a culture of tolerance.”

(Note: she did not say zero incitement and violence on the part of Palestinian leadership, and acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, were absolute prerequisites. Looks like only Israel is required to fulfill preconditions before negotiations begin).

Speaking of the rockets fired by Hamas from Gaza into Israel–one of which killed a foreign worker in Israel last week– Clinton said, “Behind these terrorist organizations and their rockets we see the destabilizing influence of Iran.”

Then Clinton said, “Reaching a two-state solution will not end all these threats. You and I both know that. But failure to achieve a two state solution gives our extremist foes a pretext to spread violence, instability, and hatred.” 

Although I have not been able to find it in the official transcript (perhaps I am just exhausted, or perhaps she was departing here from her prepared remarks) Clinton also made reference to the passage of yesterday’s historic health care legislation, saying something vis a vis the two-state solution that that if anyone doubts President Obama can achieve this vision during his presidency, “look at what he did yesterday.”

Consider: Clinton is saying that President Obama will muscle a two-state “solution” into existence during his term. However, by her own admission, that two state solution will not even be expected to eliminate violent threats against Israel (note, the sentence, “ You and I both know that” also seems to have been a spontaneous insertion, as I can’t find it in the AIPAC transcript of her speech online. But she said it).

So essentially she seems to be proposing another Oslo, only a more honest version in which it is acknowledged, from the get-go, that a complete end to violence against Israel is not expected, even as the U.S. puts the squeeze on Israel to make elaborate concessions.

She also devoted a good portion of her speech to discussing the threat of Iran. She emphasized the Administration is working with the United Nations on new Security Council sanctions, and their aim is sanctions “that will bite.”

She then said, “It is taking time to produce these sanctions, and we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring these weapons.”

On the one hand, Clinton is talking tough about Iran (of course, actions speak louder than words, and who knows what kind of time the world actually has before Iran crosses the threshold).  On the other hand, she is clearly indicating that the “peace process” will move forward and, even to a pro-Israel audience, she emphasized the concessions that Israel–not Palestinian leadership–will have to make.

It will be interesting to see whether, when she addresses Palestinian and other Arab audiences, Clinton emphasizes, with any measure of the bluntness reserved thus far for Israel, the concessions they and their leaders must make in this process.

This entire speech was couched in a great deal of endearing and poetic rhetoric about the unshakable U.S./Israel bond and Israel’s admirable strengths and story as a nation. But throughout, she emphasized that being Israel’s friend and ally requires honesty, even if the truth hurts.

Although I think the speech attempted a sleight of hand by couching a harsh prescription for Israel in a lot of flowery language, Hillary is coming out and saying that the Obama Administration plans to ram a Palestinian state through during the President’s term.

Again, this process sounds like another Oslo–Israel gets squeezed to offer land in exchange for not getting attacked. only this time around, it is acknowledged from the start that all this peace talk–and concessions to the Palestinians–will not eliminate organized Arab threats against Israel.

Why do I doubt Clinton’s speeches to the Arab world will be as “tough” in their demands and contain as much “honesty” as she claims this one did. In reality, this speech was in no way an honest discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It was only a lecture to Israel, the more reasonable party, and as such, was in fact dishonest. Why do I doubt Ms. Clinton will muster the honesty to tell the fanatical elements of the Arab world what peace in the region would truly require: that once and for all, they abandon their stubborn, sick, prejudiced refusal to accept the right of a tiny country, the historic homeland of the Jews, to exist? That they must stop engaging in and supporting terrorism? (And if they don’t, they will damn their cause and not get their state). That they must stop teaching their children to hate, stop using them as human shields? That the gig is up and the West understands the dynamic whereby terrorist leaders instigate and commit terrorist violence against Israelis, forcing Israel to respond in defense of its citizens’ very lives–then Palestinian “leaders” hide behind civilians so they can blame Israel when, despite heroic efforts on the part of the IDF to spare civilian life, Palestinian civilians die?

Once and for all, when will any Western leader be honest that the problem here is not Israel?

Not any time soon, it seems. It’s much easier to carp about “settlements.” (As if somehow the construction of a house or an apartment building naturally inspires people to murder). And when Israel stops building settlements, well, then, why not start calling part of Jerusalem a settlement and blame Israel for building apartments there? Anything but the truth, lady. Anything but the ugly, cold, hard, politically incorrect truth.

If the world, with willful ignorance of even the most recent history, again tries to force Israel into suicidal concessions, it is not only Israelis who will end up paying a terrible price.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here