Sunday, November 8, 2015

Hillary Bids for Jewish Support

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at the Elder of Ziyon.}

hillary clintonHillary Clinton has a recent piece in The Forward entitled, How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Despite her role in the most anti-Israel administration in American history, Clinton wants us to believe that she cares about Israel, has an "enduring emotional connection" to the land and its people, and has done all sorts of good work in supporting the Jewish state.

She tells us:
I have stood with Israel my entire career. As a senator, I fought to get Magen David Adom accepted to the International Red Cross when other nations tried to exclude the organization. I wrote and co-sponsored bills that isolated terror groups, and pushed to crack down on incitement in Palestinian textbooks and schools. As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year, and supported the lifesaving Iron Dome rocket defense system. I defended Israel from isolation and attacks at the United Nations and other international settings, including opposing the biased Goldstone report.
Although I do not distrust Hillary's intentions toward Israel, you know what they say about good intentions and the direction of its paving.  It is her foreign policy ideology that I do not trust.  It is her unwavering belief in the ongoing failed Oslo nonsense.

It is the likelihood that after eight years of Obama's antics we will get more of the same from Hillary.

She reminds us that "in 2012 I led negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza to stop Hamas rockets from raining down on Israeli homes and communities."

The is sort-of true.  Clinton did lead the cease-fire effort at the time, but its primary effect, whatever its intention, was to save Hamas from Israeli retaliation.  If Clinton was interested in preventing Hamas rocketeers from ruining the lives of Israeli children then she might not have waited until the moment that Israel started shooting back before interfering.  Hamas sent thousands of rockets into southern Israel in the years preceding that engagement and if Hillary was so opposed she might have used her influence to see about de-funding the Jihadi organization.

She didn't.

Aside from outlining the various ways that she has been allegedly friendly to Israel in the past, she also assures us that she will be friendly to Israel in the future.
And while no solution can be imposed from outside, I believe the United States has a responsibility to help bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table and to encourage the difficult but necessary decisions that will lead to peace. As president I will never stop working to advance the goal of two states for two peoples living in peace, security and dignity.
This is the big problem.

And it is why no one who cares about the well-being of the Jewish State of Israel, or the well-being of Jewish people, in general, should support Hillary's campaign for president.  Hillary, like Barack Obama, is a devotee of the Oslo Delusion.  We already know how this movie is going to end because we have seen it many times before.

It looks something like this:
1) The US and the EU demand negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

2) The parties agree to talk and then the PA, the US, and the EU demand various concessions from Israel for the great privilege of sitting down with the PA's foremost undertaker.

3) Israel fails to meet all the concessions, thus causing the PA to flee negotiations, which they never had any intention of concluding to begin with.

4)  The PA and the EU and the left-leaning American administration place the blame for failure at Jewish feet.

5)  The EU and various European countries announce additional sanctions, thereby essentially joining the anti-Semitic anti-Zionist BDS movement.

6)  Jihadis seek to murder Jews. 
We are in phase number six of the current round at this particular moment... as anyone who cocks their head out the car door window in Jerusalem, and listens to the screams, will attest.  Young Arab-Muslim men are running around Israel stabbing old Jewish ladies and young Jewish children and many in the West believe Israeli Jews richly deserve it.  Part of the reason that many in the West, particularly on the Left, think that Arabs have every right to kill Jews is because people like Barack Obama and his administration constantly blame Arab violence on their Jewish victims.

For years, Barack Obama - and people who think like him - have essentially told the world that the real problem is that Jews are so arrogant that we think that we should have the right to build housing for ourselves in Judea... not to mention Samaria.  Thus, suddenly, the word "settler" begins to gain evil connotations and the Jewish people are encouraged to split between those of us who oppose these evil settlers and those of us, being evil ourselves, support the evil settlers.

I support the evil settlers.

That land and those hills represent the very heartland of the Jewish people and no one is going to tell me that Judea belongs to the Arab conquerors of Jewish land.  Since at least the Peel Commission of 1937, the Jewish people in the Land of Israel have, over and over again, demonstrated their willingness to share what little bit of Jewish land there is with their hostile neighbors.

Time and again they were rebuked.

What Hillary Clinton needs to understand, and what Barack Obama never learned, is that this is not a war over land.  It is a centuries-long Arab-Muslim imposition of imperial supremacy upon all non-Muslims, most particularly those that they call the children of orangutans and swine, i.e., the Jewish people.

What Hillary Clinton needs to understand is that while Israeli-Jews are not victims, because they refuse to be victims, this does not mean that they are oppressors, either.

It is the Arabs, not the Jews, who have turned that particular human tendency into an art-form.


  1. The only people who believe her are the people who already worship her. No one should be swayed by this. She has a long history of being pro PLO pro terrorist pro antisemite.

  2. Well lookee here. Serial Israel hater subir at dKos finally let the mask down as he doubled down on the USS Liberty far right conspiracy crap. It's always just a matter of time with these guys.

    1. I'm not sure we need to worry about dkos anymore. They redesigned the site, and it's now unreadable.

    2. The Liberty absurdity was famously pushed by that notorious liberal, Robert Novak.

  3. Marco Rubio on the upcoming European trade rule:

  4. To say that Obama is the most anti-Israel president is to reveal a stunning ignorance of history. Start with how Eisenhower acted in 1956 when he protected Egypt against Israel, France and England. I don't recall any Obama official saying, as Kissinger did during the Yom Kuppur War, that "Jews had to suffer," thus resulting in the unnecessary deaths of Israeli soldiers. Nor did anybody in the Obama administration say, "Fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us," as James Baker did. And this says nothing about the last Bush administration, which was much closer to Saudi Arabia than it was to Israel and forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon in 2006. Today, Obama and Bibi met and reinforced the strong relationship between their two countries, despite Netanyahu;'s unfortunate attempt to influence the American elections.


    1. Joseph,

      you make a not unfair argument.

      The Eisenhower administration did not much like Israel and neither did James Baker under either Reagan or Bush the First.

      Kissinger under Nixon was no particular friend to Israel, but Nixon did crucially supply the IDF during the Yom Kippur War.

      The distinction that I would draw is that no previous administration publicly favored Islamists.

      Fizziks has given me something of a hard time for harping on this, but the Obama administration actually, and publicly, favored the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during a time when they literally called for the conquest of Jerusalem.

      Furthermore, no other US presidential administration has ever displayed its hatred for an Israeli PM by calling him or her "chickenshit" in the pages of a major American political publication... or any insult remotely close to that.

      There is no doubt that the contempt of this administration for the Jewish State of Israel exceeds that of any before it.

      It seems clear to me that you are approaching these questions from a partisan perspective, but I very definitely welcome liberals and leftists and Democrats on these pages.

      I come out of that political tradition.

      Some people here are going to disagree with you, but you are obviously an intelligent guy.

      Continue to make your case.

    2. Just because they don't say it in public does not mean they don't say it.

      Perhaps you are wearing blinders?

      Eisenhower and Kissinger were not hanging out with the likes of Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi, among others.

      Nor were they living in a world where Islamic terror exists on a wide scale and leftist hate toward Israel and Jews has become the norm.

      Nor were their administrations awash with anti-Israel voices. Robert Malley and Susan Rice first come to mind.

      Nor did they seek out ways to demean Israel and its leaders, as Republicans-lite and worse. I'll go with interpretations recently offered by Micheal Oren and Dennis Ross that Obama has acted gratuitously and made things much worse than needed to be.

      Once Obama leaves office, assuming he has not sold Israel out at the Security Council, it would be no surprise to see him act as Jimmy Carter has.

  5. Some beauty contest. Obama is slightly less unhinged than Hamas. But Ike was even a little less unhinged. Nixon we're not so sure of either way.

    Look, there are no allies when it comes to the Jews. None. There are situational partners in a short term relationship. So it's enormously funny to me to hear people like joseph tell me "He's not the worst!" and then pout and scream when I think the Israelis should for the most part abandon the US and find other partners.

    I'll give you this. Obama isn't leading the charge of Jew hatred from the left in America. He's following it.

  6. Let me expand on this. The term 'honest broker' imagines itself sitting in sublime indifference on Mt Something parceling out nuggets of wisdom and fairness to the squabbling tribes. This is patently stupid. It is a moral inversion of the highest order. Stabbing children in the face is the same as defending children from being stabbed. Calling for the industrial extermination of all Jews is the same as not supporting that.

    That is the world of the honest broker. Like Sweden in WW2 selling steel to the Nazis because, hey, we're not sure that they're better or worse than anyone else.

    This the stance that the Obama administration claims to adopt. Fair enough, it is what it is. But let's not delude ourselves that because the US thinks it has a stranglehold on the Jews to do its bidding is a friendly gesture or even much of an honest broker when the Arabs are paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year to foment atrocities. That only makes sense if you think atrocities are a good and noble thing. Or least not better or worse than anything else in this post modernist milieu.

  7. By the by, the White House started making noise about Jon Pollard again, reminding us that Obama holds his fate in his hands. Pollard will purportedly be released soon but Obama personally stated he would not interfere with the terms of his parole forcing him to remain in the US for another 5 years. Of course he hasn't been released yet and if nothing else Obama is a petty vindictive tool so he may not be released at all. Or who knows, maybe Netanyahu had to genuflect and kiss his ass at this 'most productive meeting ever' to obtain his release.

  8. ehhh I beg to differ on Hillary. Fact is yes, she paid lip service to Obama's foreign policy, but I still believe, 6.5 years later that had she been nominated in 2008 and elected, inaugurated in 2009, America's relationship with Israel would've never hit this low in the first place. You could attack her principles for serving him, but there is only so much we can expect for members of either party, I mean after all, Dubya himself never ditched Oslo.

    Remember, Oslo occurred because Bush Sr. started the US dialogue with the PLO, got the Madrid Conference to happen. Bill Clinton was initially opposed to a Palestinian state, as in his 1992 campaign manifesto "Putting People First." Thing is Oslo went to far and by his 9th month in office, it was off the ground. Republicans and Democrats alike deserved blame to buying Arafat.

    HRC also did bail on Obama BEFORE he had this shit Iran deal. Its obvious she supported it (tho she only said things to that effect) for one reason: to keep Barack Hussein Obama from having Joe Biden enter the race. She is also facing a far-left communist in the primary.

    I also still cannot vote solely on Israel, but in a primary, it sure as hell influences me, which is why I hate Bernie Sanders and many, if not most of his (almost)-communist supporters. If I were voting on Israel alone, yes, I'd vote GOP. But there's so much more in terms of issues, and I forsee a huge departure from Obama's pro-Islam foreign policy.

  9. just one important bit: I'm with Alan Dershowitz on HRC and 2016: he's for her, as I am, prob for the same reason.

  10. also, see: I think the real world is very different than the internet.If HRC returns to a firmer and more robust pro-Israel stance and calls out Islamic terror (which I think in time, she will), I do hope you'll consider voting her.