[...]
SPIEGEL: In the conflict with Iran there is hardly any progress to be seen. The government in Teheran seems determined not to accept the recent offer of negotiations as based on a proposal of the American president.
Clinton : Well, we don't have a formal response from Iran yet.
SPIEGEL: The reason for that is probably that the Iranians would like to renegotiate the deal using their well-known delaying tactics. Is your patience endless?
Clinton : We do not intend to renegotiate. We have been willing to give them more time to work through their internal political debate, because we know there is a lot of turmoil in the Iranian political system. But our patience is not unlimited. We continue to urge them to show good faith, as they had said they would adopt this agreement "in principle." It would provide an opening for us to discuss not just the nuclear program, but other matters as well. We are still hopeful.
SPIEGEL: Iranian politicians keep on saying that they have not seen any real sign of willingness to compromise by the new US government. Why don't you take the military option off the table, the threat of bombing Iranian nuclear installations? Nobody believes that this is a realistic option anyway.
Clinton : We do not take any options off the table. I don't think that strategically it is smart to begin cutting your options when the other side does not move at all. Let's see some good faith from Iran; let's see some action on their part. President Obama has reached out to them, both publicly and privately. But that's not a one-way street, we have to see some reciprocity coming back from Iran.
SPIEGEL: In the Arab world you are accused of having "betrayed" the Palestinians during your recent visit to Israel. Indeed you seemed to have given up previous US positions in Jerusalem. Why did you capitulate in front of the hard line government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even calling his willingness to make small concessions "unprecedented"?
Clinton : It has to be seen in the context. In negotiations you often ask for a maximalist position. We are very much in favor of ending settlement activity of all kinds by the Israelis -- our position is that settlement activity is not legitimate. But the Israeli government made a fair point, which is that in their legal system they have already permitted the start of construction on certain units. But they were willing to do something no Israeli government had ever done, which was to say no new settlement activity, period. This was a positive step. I have praised it as I have praised the Palestinians for positive steps they have taken on security. Steps by the way, the Israelis did not think were enough.
SPIEGEL: US President Obama was talking about a "total freeze," which undoubtedly includes the so-called natural growth of the settlements, the building of the new units the Israelis decided upon. It was not only in the Arab world thate your words were understood as a change in American policy.
Clinton : It was absolutely not a change in policy. From the Israeli perspective, they thought it was a big concession. From the Palestinian perspective it is not sufficient. We don't think it's enough. It doesn't correspond with what we want to see eventually. But I think it is only fair to say that the Israelis went further than anyone has before..."
No comments:
Post a Comment