Hillary's pandering, enabling position

[cali]

on Israel is not a good sign. (mods, this is a foreign policy position of the leading candidate. I hope it stays, and I hope folks can discuss this wihout falling into language that will get it moved or locked).

Seriously, this is not helpful regarding the U.S. ability to broker peace in the mideast.

From kos:

Clinton Israel statement possibly undermines Mideast negotiations
by Geekesque
Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:21:03 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton produced a very worthy health care proposal yesterday that drew praise from pundits as diverse as David Brooks and Ezra Klein.

We should give her props for that.

However, her recently released panderrific policy paper on Palestine and Israel is horrible and possibly harmful.

For that, we should give her hell.

More below the fold.

Geekesque's diary :: ::
As everyone knows, an unfortunate part of American presidential politics is going out of one's way to talk about just how awesome Israel is and how as President one will do everything one can to help Israel out.

This is not to say that Israel does not deserve to be treated as a friend, that it has rights, or that it has been treated unfairly in any number of places.

However, in the United States things are severely tilted towards the "whatever Israel wants" position.

And Hillary Clinton is proof of that.

Clinton recently released her policy paper on Israel and Palestine. And, it's everything you feared and worse.

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes not only to praise the Jewish state but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection than the Bush administration.

The position paper, published this week, goes so far as to outflank President Bush from the right
"outflank President Bush from the right" is a red flag characterization, to say the least.

It says Clinton, the U.S. senator from New York and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination "believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."
You read that right. Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to occupy the entire city of Jerusalem "must never be questioned." You know, I'm not sure that even AIPAC uses such strong language. That is Likudspeak. It is the language of Benjamin Netanyahu:

<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/112723/678

[cali]

1. Could one of Hillary's supporters please explain

why this isn't an alarming position to take?

[ralphmich3]

14. TRIANGULATION CAN KILL

Just look at HIllary's initial support of the Iraq invasion - for the same false reasons given by Bush and Cheney. truly sad...

[mike_c]

2. Senator Clinton represents NOTHING that I associate with the democratic party....

Her candidacy, and her "front-runner" status, make me feel like I fell down a rabbit hole and the whole world is on crack.

[cali]

3. Well, I'm not as vehement as you are about her

As I've said, if she's the candidate, I will vote for her, but this is yet another reason why it's getting more unpleasant to contemplate that.

[Totally Committed]

7. Amen, brother!

I could not agree more.

TC

[cali]

8. Evidently people who suppor t Hillary

would rather not discuss this issue, or what it indicates about her foreign policy direction.

[Totally Committed]

13. She's an AIPAC Tool. Of course they don't want to discuss that!

And she has the BIG campaign $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from them to prove it.

Her foreign policy is going to be this, in a nutshell: All Israel, all the time. They can do no wrong.

Even a good ally needs to be looked at with a discerning eye, and a bit of brutal honesty from time to time. Israel is way past-due for it. But, it won't get it from HRC or her government.

TC

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ralphmich3]

19. My Video on Hillary's PAC money

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSfabjRW1eg

It's short - no music, I couldn't think of anything and I didn't have anything on the shelf to use...

[cali]

20. This is just the type of language I was hoping NOT

to see. I know you're newish here, but insinuating that Hillary is owned by "the Jews"- and please don't deny that's what you were saying-is not cool. Please delete your post. I'd like this thread to stay unlocked. This is about why this is a bad foreign policy stance. It's one thing to say she's influenced by AIPAC and affiliates, it's another to so much as say that the Jews who are donating to her campaign are all supporting a hard line on I/P.

[Totally Committed]

28. AIPAC is not the "Jewish" PAC.... it is the Israel PAC, mostly Likud Party, in fact.

Cali is right... the "Jews owning Hillary" meme is not accurate and unhelpful. The "AIPAC owns Hillary" one is much more accurate, and helps people understand the correlation between her stance on War and Peace in the Middle East, and the Likud stance. As long as her pockets are lined with AIPAC money, do not think that the Israeli Government (not the "Jews"!) own her.

TC

[Tom Joad]

42. right, despite what david duke or Abe Foxman say, aipac does not speak for all Jews.

there is a range of opinion.

[Carolina]

38. I'm down there with you

and feel exactly as you do!

[Laurab]

49. That's a good way to describe it.

I can relate!

[rinsd]

4. Do you have a link to the actual paper vs the overheated kos diary?

[cali]

5. no, I'll try and find it. And frankly

I don't see the diary as overheated and it has links to JTA and other sources.

[rinsd]

9. The diary was by an Obama supporter so the framing was particularly harsh.

Especially considering the diarist had not read the original paper either.

[cali]

10. All you have to do is read

the excerpt I've posted, and either support her position, or disagree with it. Do you think supporting a Jerusalem that is wholly under Israeli control is a good idea?

[rinsd]

12. I prefer reading the whole paper vs an excerpt.

[cali]

6. Can I find it on her site?

No. But here it is from JTA. And frankly, it SHOULD be on her site.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2007

Clinton Commits On Borders, Jerusalem
Hillary Clinton committed to an Israel with "defensible borders" and "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital" in her Israel position paper. "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned," the Democratic senator from New York and frontrunner for the presidential nomination said in a position paper.

http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/6963.stm

And please don't tell me that JTA and other sources just made this position paper up. She's advocating for Israeli control over all of Jerusalem. That is not a helpful position.

[rinsd]

11. Those are brief excerpts.

I didn't say they made it up. But I rather read the paper myself and come to my own conclusion vs being fed editorial and brief excerpts.

Though Hillary being a hawk on Israel is hardly surprising.

[cali]

16. Here you go:

Want to respond now?


http://www.justhillary.com/herwords/israel0911.php\


Hillary Clinton campaign position paper on Israel...Sept. 10, 2007...

From her first trip to Israel on New Year’s Day in 1982 through her years as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has a long history of steadfast leadership on behalf of a strong US-Israel relationship. Her connection to the State of Israel, which began when she brought an innovative Israeli preschool education program to Arkansas, has grown, and today, she stands as one of Israel’s leading defenders and supporters in the United States Senate.

The importance of the US-Israel relationship:
Hillary Clinton has a deep and abiding commitment to a strong US-Israel relationship – one rooted in the shared tradition of open democracy, free expression, women’s rights, the rule of law, and reinforced by our shared interest for peace, freedom, and prosperity. She believes that this unbreakable bond, which has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years, must continue to be the cornerstone of America’s Middle East policy. Hillary recognizes that Israel is a most important strategic ally against the scourge of terrorism and radicalism. She has proven this commitment by consistently leading the way in support of legislation that strengthens this mutually-beneficial relationship. “Israel,” she said, “is not only a friend and ally for us; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should be.”

Standing with Israel against terrorism:
Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned. Having visited Israel more than half a dozen times on both political and personal trips, Hillary has first-hand understanding of the challenges that Israel faces. “It is essential for those of us who care deeply about what is happening in and to Israel, to recognize that Israel’s struggle is a struggle on behalf of a future where people will be able to live with peace and security.” . Hillary has consistently stood with Israel in its fight against terrorism. She was a strong supporter of Israel’s right to build a security barrier and spoke out against the International Court of Justice for questioning Israel’s right to do so. Hillary introduced legislation calling for the immediate release of the three Israeli soldiers being held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah and co-sponsored a resolution expressing support for Israel during last summer’s war with Lebanon. As a co-sponsor of the Syria Accountability Act, Hillary also believes that the United States must pressure Syria to stop hosting, supporting and sponsoring international terrorist groups that threaten both US troops in the Middle East and our ally, Israel.

<snip>

It goes on, and it ain't pretty.

[rinsd]

22. That isn't her paper.

Though it referenced a near identical quote apparently from AIPAC in Feb.

So I went and dug up that speech.

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=268474

Perhaps you can show me where Clinton advocated for total Israeli control of Jerusalem?

On edit: I do not see it in that speech but FreddieStubbs pointed out the language undivided Jerusalem was part of the Dem platform in 2004.

[cali]

31. So the dem party platform is the bible now?

I mean really, so what if it's in the party platform. That's a meaningless justification. Do you think it's good policy?

[rinsd]

32. As long as the city remains open to all, I am fine with it.

[cali]

33. Oh dear. Either you're not well versed in the issues surrounding

this, or you're making excuses. Israeli control of all of Jerusalem is an absolute HUGE roadblock to attaining a two state solution. I really can't emphasize that enough. Jerusalem, the Settlements and some sort of compromise on the Palestinian Right of Return are critical. Without them, no peace and an increasing likelihood of all out war.

[rinsd]

34. I don't pretend to have all the answers in reagrds to I/P

But thanks for dragging I/P arguments into GDP under the auspices you had a problem with one candidate's position on Israel.

[cali]

35. This is a vital foreign policy issue

And discussing it outside I/P makes sense. I find Hillary's hawkish stance of great importance and worrying. I'm sorry you don't agree, and sorry to see you accuse me of "dragging" I/P discussions into GDP illegitimately.

[rinsd]

37. If you can show how Hillary's positions on Israel are different from any candidate besides Kucinich

You would have something.

[cali]

39. You're the one that made the claim that they all hold

the same positions she does vis a vis Jerusalem. It's up to you to support that claim.

For educational purposes, here's what Bill said. Perhaps it will help you understand why her statement is so damaging.

Fourth, I come to the issue of Jerusalem, perhaps the most emotional and sensitive of all. It is a historic, cultural and political center for both Israelis and Palestinians, a unique city sacred to all three monotheistic religions. And I believe the parameters I have established flow from four fair and logical propositions.

First, Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city, with assured freedom of access and worship for all. It should encompass the internationally recognized capitals of two states, Israel and Palestine. Second, what is Arab should be Palestinian, for why would Israel want to govern in perpetuity the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?

Third, what is Jewish should be Israeli. That would give rise to a Jewish Jerusalem, larger and more vibrant than any in history. Fourth, what is holy to both requires a special care to meet the needs of all. No peace agreement will last if not premised on mutual respect for the religious beliefs and holy shrines of Jews, Muslims and Christians."

[rinsd]

"First, Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city, "

And how is that different from Hillary's position?


Biden is a self described Zionist.

Dodd voted for Gingrich's Embassy move to Jerusalem. Here's his speech from last year to AIPAC

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/Dodd-Summit-2006.pdf

Here's Obama's AIPAC speech from earlier this year

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html

Here's Edwards speaking to Herzliya in Jan

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

Here's Edwards speaking to AIPAC last year

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/Edwards-PC-2006.pdf

[cali]

43. Obama's speech is far different in tone from Hillary's position paper

Sure he panders but at least he says:

It won’t be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for the
United States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel to
carry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, we
will begin again.

and:

It won’t be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for the
United States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel to
carry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, we
will begin again.

It's a different tone, and he doesn't say anything about Jerusalem being governed only by Israel.

Edwards panders badly. You're right about that, but again, I don't see his endorsement for Israeli rule over Jerusalem.

Yes, it's varying degrees of bad, but she's the leading candidate, and her rhetoric is the worst.

[Tom Joad]

46. that's true, only Kucinich suggests a more peaceful foreign policy among

Dem candidates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Doesn't seem too different from the Party's Platform:

The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel
and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our
special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual
commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative
edge for its national security and its right to self-defense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should
remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[cali]

17. Wrong.

The Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city, is not only not part of the party platform, it's in contrast to her husband's stance when he was President.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. The current Party Platform clearly states:

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

It is on page 11 (page 15 of the PDF) of the The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America:

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

That may be a contrast with her husband's stance seven years ago, but it certainly seems to be in line with the Party's Platform.

[cali]

24. Thank you. I was wrong.

It's a terrible position to take, but you're correct, it's in the party platform. It should be changed. I know my Senator doesn't agree with it. And what makes you think Bill's opinion has changed?
More importantly, just because it's in the platform, do you think that's a good position to take?

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. I wasn't arguing whether or not it was a good position, just that it

was the Party's position, and as such, it is not a big surprise that the leading candidate for President supported such a position.

I don't see why people have such a big problem with something with supporting our srongest ally in the region. If the Democrats would stop supporting Israel, it would make if rather difficult them to win states like Florida.

[cali]

40. Because support isn't the same as enable

And unless the U.S. takes a fair handed approach to I/P, we're dooming peace in the region to failure, and increasing the odds of a regional war within 3 to 5 years. That's just not good policy.

[redqueen]

23. deleted

[rinsd]

25. Redqueen, that is the Dem party platform and the position of nearly all the candidates

Kucinich and Gravel being the exceptions.

[redqueen]

26. Yeah... the party... not for me much longer I don't think.

Thanks for clarifying... :hi:

[rinsd]

30. Well yet again, your candidate come through for you.

At least that is something to take away from it.

:hi:

[cali]

29. Really? You demanded links from me

now please show me the same courtesy by providing links that demonstrate that Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Richardson, hold the same position on an Israeli controlled Jerusalem.

[Tom Joad]

47. right, dems and republicans come together again to support war and occupation.

ain't that sweet?

[cali]

27. I think her supporters are being willfully blind

(yeah, I know that's what you were saying) It's frustrating that they won't really look at a policy statement like this and discuss it. Instead they'll justify it by saying it's in the party platform, or just ignore it.

[Tom Joad]

41. She has positioned herself to the right of Bush on the Issue of Israel

her opposition to Palestinian rights will surely enamor her to the aipac crowd.

for war, for apartheid... hillary is your choice.

[cali]

44. I think it's difficult to tell if she's just pandering

or if she means it.

[Tom Joad]

48. I really don't know either... but the outcome of such poor policy choices

would be the same regardless.

[Carrieyazel]

45. Great title for this thread. What a panderer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!