Israel/Palestine

Little Tich

(6,171 posts) Wed May 18, 2016, 02:20 AM May 2016

Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Always This One-Sided on Israel

Source: The Intercept

THE TEXT OF Hillary Clinton’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in March runs 3,301 words, almost every one of them praising Israeli policy in one way or another, and expounding on taking the “U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level.”

Only a single sentence — 15 words to the effect that “everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements” — could possibly be interpreted as criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist right-wing government.

The speech was the battle cry of Clinton the presidential candidate, unflinchingly dedicated to military and diplomatic support of the Israeli government, literally regardless of what policies the Israeli government pursues.

The same stridently pro-Israel tones were echoed in remarks her husband, former President Bill Clinton, made on the campaign trail last week in response to protesters demonstrating against his wife’s support for the 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza.

“Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel, they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools, in the highly populous areas, and they are smart,” he said, shifting all of the blame for Gaza’s casualties onto Hamas, and none onto Israel.

But Hillary Clinton has not always been so one-sided on the issue.

Read more: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/hillary-clinton-wasnt-always-this-one-sided-on-israel/?comments=1#comments

Note: Paragraph added for context.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Always This One-Sided on Israel (Original Post) Little Tich May 2016 OP

Because she's representing leftynyc May 2016 #1

those voters who have a problem with Hillary being pro-Israel ericson00 May 2016 #2

Agreed King_David May 2016 #3

Being against terrorists doesn't make her one-sided 6chars May 2016 #4

for the anti-Israel MondoWeiss and Al Jazeera crowd, that's precisely what they want ericson00 May 2016 #5

she's a pragmatist. geek tragedy May 2016 #6

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)

1. Because she's representing

Reply to Little Tich (Original post)

Wed May 18, 2016, 09:06 AM

May 2016

the VAST majority of Americans AND Democrats and not the very loud but teeny minority that blames Israel for their hangnails and everything else wrong with their lives instead of looking inside at their own actions.

ericson00

(2,707 posts)

2. those voters who have a problem with Hillary being pro-Israel

Reply to Little Tich (Original post)

Wed May 18, 2016, 12:45 PM

May 2016

and want to find instances of the reverse: they can stay home or vote Green. I don't want them in my party.

King_David

(14,851 posts)

3. Agreed

Reply to ericson00 (Reply #2)

Wed May 18, 2016, 03:46 PM

May 2016

6chars

(3,967 posts)

4. Being against terrorists doesn't make her one-sided

Reply to Little Tich (Original post)

Wed May 18, 2016, 05:20 PM

May 2016

She has expressed a commitment to a two state solution. She has expressed empathy for Palestinians and for Israelis, she has spoken her mind to both sides.

So, when she calls out Hamas for targeting rockets at civilians, using human shields and hospitals and schools for cover, she is being an ethical person. What is she supposed to do, wish murderous terrorists Godspeed?

ericson00

(2,707 posts)

5. for the anti-Israel MondoWeiss and Al Jazeera crowd, that's precisely what they want

Reply to 6chars (Reply #4)

Wed May 18, 2016, 05:22 PM

May 2016

but I think the days of loudness of far-left anti-Israelism are coming to an end, especially if Jewish Republicans like Ben Shapiro and Bill Kristol cannot stand by Trump. It allows for Israel to become bipartisan again (it still is but its in jeopardy). Bill shut such anti-Israel clowns down not too long ago.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

6. she's a pragmatist.

Reply to Little Tich (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:23 PM

May 2016

she recognizes that (1) there's no domestic political upside to caring about the Palestinians in US elections and (2) there's nothing any US president can do to help resolve the conflict in Israel/Palestine--our best contribution would be to butt out.

So, she'll rubber stamp whatever Israel does, while engaging in a policy of benign neglect for that dispute, where American leadership is neither possible nor wanted.

Reply to this discussion