Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic pro-Israel candidate that would diminish any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, Clinton will give the self-proclaimed “Jewish State” the green light for any future conflict against the Palestinians although most of the potential candidates (the majority are Republicans) for U.S. President are pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. However, Clinton would advance Israel’s geopolitical power in the Middle East to specifically target Iran’s nuclear program which would please the Israeli government especially its right-wing fanatics who call for beheadings of disloyal Israeli-Arabs. She would target Syria’s government by arming “moderate” rebels (which would be a boost for corporate profits) for regime change and approve military aid to Israel if they launched a new war against Hezbollah.
During ‘Operation Protective Edge’, Israel’s 2014 offensive in the Gaza Strip resulted in more than 2,300 Palestinian deaths and more than 10,000 wounded according to Gaza Health Ministry. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected President of the United States; the Palestinian people will be subjected to more war and death committed by the Israeli government. A new Clinton Presidency would mean more political leverage for Israeli politicians and more military aid for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) which in fact will benefit her campaign contributors such as Boeing who manufactures F-15 fighter jets and other military hardware. Kelley Vlahos quoted Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force Lieutenant on Hillary Clinton’s interventionist policies in an article from The American Conservative in 2014 and said “Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it,” she tells TAC. “She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives.”
Clinton managed to fault Hamas during Israeli operations in the Gaza strip in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of‘The Atlantic’ by saying that she was “not surprised that Hamas provoked another attack”. Clinton also responded to Israel’s bombing of U.N. school at the Jabalia refugee camp, killing an estimated 15 people (mostly women and children) with more than 100 civilians wounded. Clinton’s response to the bombing was “I’m not sure it’s possible to parcel out blame because it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.”
Clinton defended Israel right from the start in The Atlantic interview:
Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact UN school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth. There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict and wanted to do so in order to leverage its position, having been shut out by the Egyptians post-Morsi, having been shunned by the Gulf, having been pulled into a technocratic government with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority that might have caused better governance and a greater willingness on the part of the people of Gaza to move away from tolerating Hamas in their midst. So the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made. That doesn’t mean that, just as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians, that there aren’t mistakes that are made. We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position—that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas
Mr. Goldberg asked Clinton “The Israeli response, was it disproportionate? Her response to Goldberg’s question:
Israel was attacked by rockets from Gaza. Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult. Of course Israel, just like the United States, or any other democratic country, should do everything they can possibly do to limit civilian casualties. We see this enormous international reaction against Israel. This reaction is uncalled for and unfair
The Huffington Post published a story based on an investigation into the Israeli bombing titled ‘Hillary Clinton Twists Herself in Knots to Avoid Blaming Israel for UN Bombing’ and stated:
Christopher Gunness, spokesman for UNRWA, the main United Nations agency in Gaza, came out forcefully against the Israeli army in a statement following the attacks, calling the incident a “source of universal shame.”
We have visited the site and gathered evidence. We have analysed fragments, examined craters and other damage. Our initial assessment is that it was Israeli artillery that hit our school, in which 3,300 people had sought refuge,” Gunness said in July, noting that U.N. representatives had informed Israeli forces of the school’s exact location 17 times. “I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces. I call on the international community to take deliberate international political action to put an immediate end to the continuing carnage
According to a recent Haaretz article, Clinton is moving to the right-wing branch of Israeli politics titled ‘Why Hillary Clinton is moving left on every issue except Israel’ where she clearly states in a letter to Haim Saban (an Israeli Businessman worth over $3 billion) on where she stands on the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) that advocates an end to Israeli occupation and colonialism and the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Hillary is signaling that she may oppose Obama if he backs a two-state resolution at the UN this fall. In her letter, she goes out of her way to equate the BDS movement with Palestinian initiatives at the UN. “We’ve seen this sort of attack before at the UN and elsewhere,” writes Hillary. “As senator and secretary of state, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN … And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood
Hillary Clinton even claimed that the BDS movement is anti-Semitic because they are attempting to “malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.” Clinton’s false claim proves how she will discredit any organization that calls for the respect of human rights that criticizes Israel’s actions including the BDS movement which is anti-occupation and anti-colonialism. One important note on Hillary Clinton is that she flip-flopped on the issue on Palestinian Statehood in 1998 when she publicly supported a two-state solution. She even met and embraced Suha Arafat (wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat) when her husband, Bill was president. Then when she was running for office, she changed her position. In The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt describes Clinton’s change from supporting a Palestinian state to becoming a pro-Israel supporter who receives financial support from numerous organizations that represents Israeli interests:
Clinton became an ardent defender of Israel once she began running for office herself, and she now gets strong backing, including financial support, from pro-Israel organizations and individuals. After Clinton appeared at a pro-Israel rally in July 2006 and expressed strong support for Israel’s highly destructive war against Lebanon, Helen Freedman, executive director of the hard-line Americans for a Safe Israel, declared, ‘I thought her remarks were very good, especially in light of her history, and we can’t forget her kiss to Suha”
Here is what Hillary Clinton said in a speech she gave at an AIPAC conference while she was a Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008:
I am proud to support the $2.5 billion in security assistance for Israel and the Foreign Aid Bill and I am committed in making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. Part of our commit Israel’s security is a commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I am deeply moved by the legacies of so many leaders who have sacrificed so much in the quest for peace, like my friend Yitzhak Rabin, and the warrior, Ariel Sharon, who is in our thoughts and prayers. We must support Israel and in making the tough choices for peace. I believe that U.S. diplomacy is critical to making progress and consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region. We need to talk to all sides but all parties must know we will always stand with Israel in its struggle for peace and security. Israel should know that the United States will never pressure her to make unilateral concessions or to impose a made-in-America solution. Palestinians will need to do their part by renouncing violence and teaching their children the ways of peace and tolerance. We must show Palestinians and moderate Arabs that the path of reconciliation is better than the terrorist road to self-destruction
Hillary Clinton fits right in with the Neocon warmongers from the previous Bush administration that will give unconditional support to Israel, especially in the time of war. Clinton is deeply connected to the highly profitable Military-Industrial Complex which needs permanent war to survive, so she fits the job description. With another Clinton in the Whitehouse, Israel will build more illegal “Jewish” settlements and continue its war on the Gaza strip and the rest of Palestinian territories. Hillary Clinton would be bad news for future Israeli-Palestinian relations as her letter to Haim Saban proves. She would do whatever she can to further her ambitious goals for money and political power by undermining the Palestinians and empowering Israeli aggression. Make no mistake; Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Neoconservative warmonger. She is a corporatist shill who seeks to profit from ongoing wars in the Middle East. It is still a long way before the U.S. presidential elections takes place, but will Hillary Clinton become the first woman president in U.S. history? It remains to be seen, but whatever happens it will be business as usual for the Clinton corporate machine.
