Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton's ..Israel Problem

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
not_too_L8 Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 09:37 AM
Original message
Hillary Clinton's ..Israel Problem
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/04/hillary-clintons-little-noticed-israel-problem.html

News: HRC's position on Israel could mean a significant departure from longstanding U.S. policy. How come no one cares?

snip//

Under the heading "Standing with Israel against terrorism," Clinton's official policy paper, released last September and currently touted on her campaign website, states, "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." With the phrase "an undivided Jerusalem as its capital," Clinton seems to take a hardline position on a deeply contested facet of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a position like this should have garnered at least passing interest from the mainstream media. So how come nobody's paying attention?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. The reason being, people are more interested in
Obama's support for the Palestenian state and the Hamas Leadership of palestine. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. You know UALRBSofL, I have feeling, that if I engaged you in a discourse about the M.E.
I will find you as empty headed as your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yurovsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds more like what the GOP would come up with...
I had thought the Clintons were more open-minded WRT Israeli/Palestinian policy. Sadly it looks as though she'll support whatever she thinks might get a few votes over what is ultimately the right thing to do from a human-rights perspective. But the Clintons never do ANYTHING without doing the political calculus, so I should have known better. Silly me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. She supported Israel's use of cluster bombs on Lebanese children.
By voting against the ban of such weapons. Her support for all things Israeli is as much about payback to some of her big donors as it is getting the pro-Israeli vote. I specifically do not refer to the Jewish vote, because I believe the majority of US Jews do not support using cluster bombs on civilians (and many of the Lebanese are Christian, not Muslim).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thats the exact issue that led me to vote for Obama
They are very similar on most issues. Not this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Here Is Obama's Vision Of Israel And The M E Can You Please Point Out For Me Where They Differ
Edited on Mon Apr-07-08 10:53 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

As Prepared for Delivery

AIPAC Policy Forum

March 2, 2007

Chicago, Illinois

Thank you so much for your kind introduction and the invitation to meet
with you this morning.

Last week, this event was described to me as a small gathering of
friends. Looking at all of you here today; seeing so many of you who care
about peace in this world; who care about a strong and lasting friendship
between Israel and the United States, and who care about what’s on the
next page of our shared futures, I think “a small gathering of
friends” fits this crowd just right.

I want to begin today by telling you a story.

Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is a
place unlike any other on this earth – a place filled with so much
promise of what we truly can be as people; a place where we’ve learned
how in a flash, violence and hatred and intolerance can turn that promise
to rubble and send too many lives to their early graves.

Most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the
Dome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbled
before God. I too am blessed to have seen Israel this way, up close and
on the ground.

But I am also fortunate to have seen Israel from the air.

On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border
zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas
and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At
that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have
walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace
through security is the only way for Israel.

Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. What
struck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The houses
and streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. I
could imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I could
imagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. There
were cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed. The families were
living their lives.

Then, I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah’s Katyusha
rockets.

The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had been
asleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described the
explosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel. They spoke about
what might have been if the rocket had come screaming into their home at
another time when they weren’t asleep but sitting peacefully in the now
destroyed part of the house.

It is an experience I keep close to my heart. Not because it is unique,
but because we know that too many others have seen the same kind of
destruction, have lost their loved ones to suicide bombers and live in
fear of when the next attack might hit. Just six months after I visited,
Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that
destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service
members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been
kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with
his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.

It is important to remember this history—that Israel had unilaterally
withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands
of rockets.

Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job
is to renew the United States’ efforts to help Israel achieve peace with
its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this
vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is
to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the
region.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of
Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established
democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of
the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of
al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and
that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will
build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace
and security.

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.

One of the heavy stones that currently rest at the United States’ feet
is Iraq. Until we lift this burden from our foreign policy, we cannot
rally the world to our values and vision.

As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning – in part
because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to
invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in
today.

Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone
else’s civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of
devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped
galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to
begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces
from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution
exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi
government to achieve the political settlement between its warring
factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and
prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce
the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to
other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay
engaged in the Middle East. And my plan includes a robust regional
diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran – something
this Administration has finally embraced.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our
troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But a
consequence of the Administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been to
strengthen Iran’s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and
influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to
the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a
well-paved road. It is time for profound change.

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected
priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war
in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the
greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His
words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic
history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has
the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a
new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest
that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad
for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more
dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure
to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing
would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear
umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran
could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead
tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we
conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in
clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would
include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more
determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing
the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major
trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States
who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean
unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation
of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused
approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own
alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize
common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the
Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by
failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran
into Gaza.

The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations
with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a
profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports
and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where
our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the
world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President
Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their
day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box
this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope
in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to
peace in the region.

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using
Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,
Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,
and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why
we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution
which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of
weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in
the region, must end.

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like
these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has
missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the
region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she
needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.

The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they
are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and
security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian
partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of
Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the
isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s
destruction.

The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple
conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist;
renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel
and the Palestinian Authority.

We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among
Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest
that Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a government
together, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel,
without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to
“respect” previous agreements.

This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who is
a Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced to
compromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet’s
conditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.

But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry
as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and
security.

Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. Ariel
Sharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These were
difficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel's identity
as a nation.

Many Israelis I talked to during my visit last year told me
that they were prepared to make sacrifices to give their children a chance
to know peace. These were people of courage who wanted a better life. And
I know these are difficult times and it can be easy to lose hope. But we
owe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to all
those who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- even
though it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests of
Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in the
best interests of all of us.

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their
national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security.
Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to
achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in
working to make that goal a reality.

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is
best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime
Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table
by the United States.

We must be partners – we must be active partners. Diplomacy in the
Middle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured by
patience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting of
little more than photo-ops with little movement in between. Neither
Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach.

Peace with security. That is the Israeli people’s
overriding wish.

It is what I saw in the town of Fassouta on the border with Lebanon.

There are 3,000 residents of different faiths and histories.
There is a community center supported by Chicago’s own Roman Catholic
Archdiocese and the Jewish Federation of Metro Chicago. It is where the
education of the next generation has begun: in a small village, all faiths
and nationalities, living together with mutual respect.

I met with the people from the village and they gave me a tour of this
wonderful place. There was a moment when the young girls came in and they
played music and began to dance.

After a few moments, I thought about my own daughters, Sasha and Malia and
how they too could dream and dance in a place like this: a place of renewal
and restoration. Proof, that in the heart of so much peril, there were
signs of life and hope and promise—that the universal song for peace
plays on.

Thank you.


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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. From the speech.
"We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their
national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security.
Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to
achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in
working to make that goal a reality.

It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton has not voiced support for the "two-state" solution. I could not find it on her website and the article linked in the OP also says its not in her official policy paper.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. Clinton cheered Israel targetting Lebanese Civilians...
...even when G.W. Bush was critical

...even when Israeli Officers revolted by their orders protested...

Opposed the limitations on exporting the cluster bombs that kill and maim Lebanese children to this day.

Opposed the ban on Land mines (while voting for wheelchairs for the victims)

I'm utterly disgusted

These people need to follow old Strom Thurmond and go where they belong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Strom Thurmond Died At One Hundred
Hillary Clinton's only sixty...Are you suggesting she die too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. You and I have disagreed on candidates, but suggesting that Clinton
is "happy that civilians died via cluster bombs", and that she should "drop dead", is so out of line

As an Obama supporter I appalled by that awful post

Incidently, I will vote for WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is, without hesitation in the general election.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. What a bunch of bullshit. I am not a Clinton supporter, was against her cluster bomb vote
but your implication that she cheered the targetting of Lebanese civillians is wrong

Did you realize that it was Feinstein a strong supporter of Israel who introduced that bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civillian areas?

Keep this crap up, and how can you blame Clinton supporters saying they may not vote for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination

I am an Obama supporter, and I have no doubt that Obama would find abhorent your suggestion that Clinton is happy that civillians are killed, and that she should drop dead

What a crock

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Please See The Link In Post Seven
There is not a dime's worth of difference between McCain, Clinton, and Obama when it comes to support for Israel...

And the other poster's suggestion that Hillary should die is repugnant, even by current DU standards...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I know there isn't, and the truth is on 95% of the issues Obama and Clinton
are on the same page, and compared to mccain, we have it over the republicans on the issues by miles

I agree with everything you articulated

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. see this:
Redbear (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-07-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. From the speech.
"We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their
national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security.
Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to
achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in
working to make that goal a reality.

It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton has not voiced support for the "two-state" solution. I could not find it on her website and the article linked in the OP also says its not in her official policy paper.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
8. Politicians always promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and they never do it
Edited on Mon Apr-07-08 10:33 AM by democrattotheend
Bill Clinton made the same promise when he was running for office, and so did George Bush. They promise to recognize Jerusalem but then exercise a waiver in the legislation Congress passed calling for recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, citing diplomatic or security concerns. I'll believe that a US president will recognize Jerusalem when I see it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I support recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but I don't want to start a flame war about it,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. Clinton and war criminal Ariel Sharon sharing an in-joke!


PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. Hope that's just campaign-season pandering to the Jewish vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yep. That's why I support Obama.
Nothing against Israel, but I want America to stand for America only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Obama has stated basically the SAME thing - see post #7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Sorry Obama supports the two state soln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
18. One of the MAAAAIIINNN reasons I am against her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC