Hillary to Israel: Let the Humanitarian Aid In!


It's nice when a U.S. Secretary of State gets pissed off at and does something about the flagrant inhumanity of the main recipient of U.S. foreign and military aid, Israel:

Clinton warns Israel over delays in Gaza aid 

By Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents  
February 27, 2009  

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. A leading political source in Jerusalem noted that senior Clinton aides have made it clear that the matter will be central to Clinton's planned visit to Israel next Tuesday.

Ahead of Clinton's visit, special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to issue a sharply worded protest on the same matter when he arrives here Thursday.

"Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza," senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week, and reiterated Washington's view by saying that "the U.S. expects Israel to meet its commitments on this matter."

Two weeks ago, four senior European Union officials sent a letter to the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and Yitzhak Herzog, the minister charged with humanitarian aid transfers to the Gaza Strip, protesting delays in the flow of aid through the crossings into Gaza. . . .


Now don't back down girl! Of course, the Israel Lobby quickly responded (and reported; WCBS doesn't allow readers to know what Clinton said that made seemingly 'everyone' so angry):

Feb 27, 2009 9:34 am US/Eastern
Jewish Leaders Blast Clinton Over Israel Criticism
Zuckerman, Lawmakers, Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know

. . . On Thursday, as Secretary of State she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council. . . .

"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

Yes, uh right, Iran's forward battalion, but do you include civilians in the battalion? I.e., is Hamas's dastardliness a reason not to give food and shelter to Gaza's children?

Here's generally what Clinton is pissed off about:

The gates to Gaza slammed shut again on Thursday, February 5, the day our three-person group departed Gaza, having been allowed in for only 48 hours. The Egyptian government closed the border crossing into Gaza, continuing the sixteen-month international blockade and siege. The crossing had been briefly open to allow medical and humanitarian supplies into Gaza following the devastating 22-day attack by the Israeli military. The attacks killed 1,330 Palestinians and injured over 5,500. . . .

Today, seventeen days after the gates swung closed on Gaza, they remain firmly locked. . . .

For the people of Gaza, rebuilding their homes, businesses and factories is on hold. Over 5,000 homes and apartment buildings were destroyed and hundreds of government buildings, including the Parliament building, were smashed. Building supplies, cement, wood, nails and glass will have to be brought in from outside Gaza. Two cement factories in northern Gaza were destroyed by Israeli bombs.

The EU's Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy, talks about the "disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza," and adds:

"[T]he crucial problems at the moment are not related to funding but to access."

"In the aftermath of the crisis, a clear priority remains the immediate and unconditional reopening of all Gaza crossings on a regular and predictable basis, for the flow of humanitarian and commercial goods as well as people," she said.


C'mon Israel Lobby, c'mon America's Israel supporters, how about putting some pressure on the government of Israel to treat the people of Gaza with common decency. Look at the pictures! Do it for duh children!!


Thanks to Blue in SC and MD (in 'The Lobby should shut up') for cluing me in to Clinton's solid move, expending some political capital and defying the Israel Lobby in order to help out a group of truly screwed over civilians, half of them children. Ain't something done lightly.

Tags: Gaza, Hillary Clinton, humanitarian crisis, Israel (all tags)



Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humanitarian Aid In

I love it. I especially love she is irritating some of the Israeli leaders and power brokers.

by jsfox 2009-02-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humanitarian Aid In

I'll get flamed for saying this I'm sure, but Israel has seemed tone-deaf when it comes to the hearts and minds aspect of things.  They did it in Lebanon when anyone could have predicted that giving money to civilians to rebuild their lives was a good strategy.  Israel didn't, America didn't Hezbollah did.  Guess who won the PR battle there?

Now we have Gaza... All Israel has to do is lend a sympathetic hand to the civilians caught in the middle of this and attitudes will change... At the end of the day, you align with people who seem to have your best interests at heart... That could be Israel so easily with the citizens of Gaza if they would just try.

by JenKinFLA 2009-02-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
The Israelis want to be feared, not

respected, let alone liked.

They're still convinced that if they kill the right number and condemn to poverty the right number, that THEN those Arabs will get the message and come groveling to the negotiating table.

by Geekesque 2009-02-28 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humanitarian Aid In

That's neoconservatism. Foolish when looked at from the perspective of Israeli self-interest and right vs. wrong.

by fairleft 2009-03-01 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humans Eat

Supporting Hillary means never having to say I wish I hadn't.  I'm so glad Barack chose her as SoS, she's practical and human.  Sure, she supports the state of Israel, and that means giving them 'cover' to make peace, not letting the settlers run amok and the politicians stay prey to the voting blocks of intolerance.  

by anna shane 2009-02-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humans Eat

Supporting Hillary means never having to say I wish I hadn't.

Really?  Are you sure about that?  Never?  Does that mean you are proud that she voted against a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas?

Come on.  HRC is a politician.  She's a GOOD politician.  She's often good at being a politician and she often fights for good things.  I was thrilled that she was nominated for SoS.  But really, the extreme adoration of some HRC devotees so far outstrips the putative messianism of Obama activists, that it makes the corresponding caricature nothing less than vulgar freudian projection.

But thanks for keeping the glorious primaries alive at any and every opportunity.  It's certainly productive to ossify ourselves in one of the most rancorous moments in our party's history.

Give my regards to your friends over at Alegre's fifth column.  I loved how they all admitted to skipping the speech and then panned what they thought he might have said it anyway.  Nothing like critical and independent thought.

by Strummerson 2009-03-01 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humans Eat

how rude.  Barack's win had something to do with you know who, for many reasons. I'm hardly returning to the primary.

I think Hillary has always been tactical regarding trying to get the best possible deal.  But now we find out more, when she has an international voice, she voices it for the weakest.  And guess who thinks the same?

He gave a great speech, that worked for me.

I'm saying here that we find out what people are made of when they have the power and either use it the way we'd expected, or surprise us with something awful.  I'm not sorry I worked for Barack's win either, and expect never to be.  I mean, come on, is there really no room for those who admire Hillary to say so?  

by anna shane 2009-03-01 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humans Eat

There have been plenty of moments that have lead me to question every single politician I have ever supported.  There will be more.  I oppose the very notion of faith-based-personal-admiration.  It's anti-critical and anti-progressive.  And not everything can be explained away as simply tactical.  The problem is when people advocate or excuse a position primarily because one's standard bearer supports it.  Supporting any politician means facing moments of regret.  It's inevitable.

As for my rudeness, I spoke bluntly but with no disrespect for your person.  What I suggest is that you re-read the opening line of your comment and consider it in the larger context.  If you are so surprised by my "rude" response, consider the possibility that it may have something to do with a tone-deafness from your side.  Finally, forgive me if I have a hard time perceiving fair-mindedness from anyone affiliated or engaged with any PUMA-oriented sites.

by Strummerson 2009-03-01 09:43AM | 0 recs
I'm evidence based

when the pugs were in, I assumed and/or hoped our guys were doing their best to try to keep the worst from happening, I don't blame our guys for the Iraq invasion, for example.

But when we're in, I expect to have some political ethics, not just what you have to say when running.  And that's why I'm not sorry I put so much time into the primary, working for her, and the GE working for him.  That's not faith based, either could lose me. Of course even if they do, neither is John McCain or Rudy, or Sarah, or Georgie, but still I'm glad Barack is still on the left, on the side of normal working people, and that Hillary is speaking truth. So, there you have it.  

Rude is assuming you know what someone is saying, not rude is asking, not assuming, asking with the expectation that there may be an answer.  

by anna shane 2009-03-01 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm evidence based

So, you always question other posters to divine their 'true intentions' before responding?  It doesn't seem like it.  And branding me as 'rude' under these terms isn't going to address the credibility issues on this topic, at least not when you post comments like THIS in a hate forum such as THIS ONE:

We're not finished folks - not by a long shot!
She Was Right & They Were (As Usual) Wrong | 14 comments
by: you @ soon
he's an obsessional (0.00 / 0)
a scold, and elitist, it's his character.  Which doesn't mean he won't do a credible job, as long as camp et al keep him honest.  He doesn't like being disliked, that's his soft spot, and a window into influencing him.  When he lets out his inner snark, it's hard to not wince.  

Hillary - alternative energy
by: anna shane @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:01:27 PM CST

Credibility is contextual.  This is the context.  Based on this, it seems pretty clear that there is a real possibility that unless you "keep him honest" you will wish you hadn't supported such an obsessional elitist scold.  And thus the contrast with your suggestion of Hillary's infallibility.  It's possible to support both of them realistically without depicting either of their characters in such absurd absolutes.  

Here's a question: do you shift your opinions based on where you are posting as radically as you do your tone?  Or am I too and obsessional elitist scold?  I suggest you address your credibility and lecture someone else about their rudeness.

by Strummerson 2009-03-02 03:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm evidence based

yes, I like what Baracks doing, sans his economic  plans, but hey it's a real mess and he's doing his best. But, he's a scold, for sure, like Al Gore, and an obsessional, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, the alternatives aren't better is what I mean.  And yes, he values his own cultural context over that of others, and he speaks from that place, but that's hardly a new phenomenon, I can't name one in politics who doesn't.  And he wants us to give him feedback, on health care, on expanding the war in Afghanistan, on the economy.  I didn't like the way he put down Biden, for example. He has an inner snark, and he does need feedback (and wants it).  

'How rude' was questioning your inner convictions? I don't know you, and you don't know me.  how can either of us divine anything, and why would either of us be remotely interested?  

by anna shane 2009-03-03 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm evidence based

'How rude' was questioning your inner convictions? I don't know you, and you don't know me.  how can either of us divine anything, and why would either of us be remotely interested?  

Did you ask me about my convictions at any time in this exchange?  It seems like you are proposing that before responding to one another we should first ask: did you mean x?

You don't do that and neither do I.  It's impractical.  And it seems to me like you are obfuscating at this point.  Your explanation of the comment above represents a revision in tone as well as content.  If you want to be credible (with me, at least, which you may not care about) I advise you to try to be more consistent both in tone and content whether here, over at Alegre's, or at the Moose.  If you are going to go along with the hate speech at Alegres, not only refusing to confront it but contributing to it (albeit in an ever so slightly more moderate way) and then turn around and express yourself more nicely at other sites, I am going to have an awfully hard time knowing what your 'inner convictions' are, no matter what you say.

Up to you.  But if you keep blogging out of both sides of your keyboard, people will call you on it.  You seem like one person when you are slamming Obama with Hopscotch, Cafish, Campskunk, Masslib, and the others who at this point sound positively Limbaughesque half the time, and another when you post here and yet another when you post at the Moose.  I don't think it's rude to interpret your comments here in the context of others there.  I think it's disingenuous of you to invoke the language of civility and courtesy when you post comments like the one above at a place like Alegre's Outrageous Outlet for Outrage.  

by Strummerson 2009-03-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
do I?

my goodness, who knew.  But, explain why you're interested in me, and not just in the issues?  I can actually like people and keep my eyes open, go figure.  

by anna shane 2009-03-03 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: do I?

It's not about personal interest, per se.  You wrote a comment that I understood in a particular way because I read you responding in different ways on different sites, one of which I find to be deeply destructive and ethically flawed.  You responded to my understanding of your comment with what I consider disingenuous offense.  From there the conversation unfolded organically.  I'm now curious what you're about.  How does one participate in such different 'kinds' of political conversations with any coherent sincerity, given how radically different they are with regard to positioning and ethos?

I just want to know which, if any, is the real Anna Shane and how to read her comments in the future?  At the moment, I consider them all unreliable.  If you don't care, fair enough.  If you want to be understood, then clarify.

But regardless, I don't think my interpretation of your original comment was unreasonable, given the context of your political shape-shifting, and I certainly reject your accusation of rudeness.  If I wanted to be rude, I'd accuse you of hypocrisy.  Though I think you are vulnerable to that accusation, I am not at present prepared to presume that far or express it so unconstructively.  

by Strummerson 2009-03-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: do I?

I'm consistent, and I don't understand why you're interested in me.  

by anna shane 2009-03-03 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: do I?

You're not consistent.  Not in the least.  Accusing others of rudeness is an ineffective method of obfuscation.  Give my regards to your hate-mongering and dissent-squelching associates over at Alegres.  Whatever interest I had in this interchange has waned.  I will, of course, call you out again if it seems relevant.  

by Strummerson 2009-03-03 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel: Let the Humans Eat

how rude.  Barack's win had something to do with you know who, for many reasons. I'm hardly returning to the primary.

I think Hillary has always been tactical regarding trying to get the best possible deal.  But now we find out more, when she has an international voice, she voices it for the weakest.  And guess who thinks the same?

He gave a great speech, that worked for me.

I'm saying here that we find out what people are made of when they have the power and either use it the way we'd expected, or surprise us with something awful.  I'm not sorry I worked for Barack's win either, and expect never to be.  I mean, come on, is there really no room for those who admire Hillary to say so?  

by anna shane 2009-03-01 06:51AM | 0 recs
notice how she is NOT advocating

givin the terrorists, HAMAS, the money so they can funnel more terror. She wants to give it to the people, which is the first step in dismantling the HAMAS regime.

by Lakrosse 2009-02-27 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: notice how she is NOT advocating

Well, I don't know what it's a first step to, but it certainly is a first step to getting some permanent roofs over a lot of kids heads.

by fairleft 2009-02-27 10:34AM | 0 recs
hate to break it to you

but Israel's recent actions ensure that HAMAS will run Gaza for the foreseeable future.  It's almost as if that was the intended result.

by JJE 2009-02-27 10:53AM | 0 recs
The permanent war?

Surely that is not far from Bibi N. strategic thinking...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-27 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: hate to break it to you

There seems to be a reconcilation between Fatah and Hamas, that is being negotiated through Egypt.

Israel's major beef is that Hamas will not recognize the right of Israel to exist. But when has Israel ever recognized the right of Palestine to exist? Never. In fact, the extent of Israel's settlement building in the Palestinian territories make clear that Israel does not recognize the right of Palestinians to live free and self-determined in a state of their own. The two state solution has been around for a few decades since Arafat recognized Israel. But where has it gotten the Palestinians.

Ask Abbas, who is the latest dupe to fall for the pseudopeace negotiations Israel wants everyone to believe is happening.

Nothing is happening except a steep fall into Apartheid, the next phase of the IP conflict.

by MainStreet 2009-02-27 11:08AM | 0 recs
Israel has given the Palestinians

a lot of land in recent years, which thus shows that Israel believes in their right to exist. HAMAS are ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, and therefore do not believe in the right of anyone but a caliphatic civilization's right to exist, and would destroy our western culture.

by Lakrosse 2009-02-27 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Israel has given the Palestinians

You a thought: you have been listening to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame too long.

Hamas developed with the financial help of Israel in the late 1980s during the first Intifada, in order to fight Israel's military occupation and colonization of the Palestinian territories. It received Israeli assistance because at the time Arafat was talking peace and acceptance of Israel, but Israel would have none of it. The colonization of the Palestinian territories was just underway in a big way, and enemies were needed to deflect any talk of "land for peace."

Stop embarrassing yourself. You have to get up in this area in order to understand this conflict. How do you think almost a half million Israelis got to live in the Palestinian territories today?

By making peace? No, my friend. By making war.

by MainStreet 2009-02-27 11:52AM | 0 recs
When someone starts ranting about the caliphate

it's time to tune out.  Like when someone starts talking about the Illuminati or ZOG.

by JJE 2009-02-27 12:07PM | 0 recs
Hey, you never know who is listening!

Dude, don't be dissing the Illuminati!

The black helicopters are heading for your house right now...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-27 01:37PM | 0 recs


Hamas is a terrorist organization based on religion

by gil44 2009-02-28 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: caliphate

oh dear.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: caliphate silliness

Hamas is only a terrorist org because Israel and the US State Department say it is. To everyone else, it is a resistance movement fighting against Israel's incessant occupation whose only purpose is to colonize (steal) Palestinian land in the territories. Hamas is now the only Palestinian org of note fighting against the occupation.

Hamas as terrorist org is just Israel's latest propaganda ploy to cast itself as a victim, when in fact it is victimizing the Palestinians and has been doing so on the ground since 1967.

By the latest poll only 20% of Palestinians belong to Hamas politically, a minority (800,000 out of 4 million), and that would include mothers and fathers and children, i.e., families, who make use of educational, medical, and social services. Hamas says it boasts 15,000 militants in its organization, which is about 2% of Hamas members.

As Jimmy Carter recently stated, if you consider the intentional killing of civilians terrorism, then you must consider Israel a state terrorist organization, as it kills 10 to 100 times more civilians, intentionally, than does Hamas every year.

by MainStreet 2009-03-01 02:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Israel has given the Palestinians

What's your point about Israel initially supporting Hamas?

The GOP freed the slaves...

What does that have to do with 2009?

by gil44 2009-02-28 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: hate to break it to you

Why do you say that?  Certainly the recent war has not made Hamas significantly more popular in Gaza.

by Steve M 2009-02-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
That isn't certain at all

some polls say Hamas support has nose-dived, others say that it has soared.  I'm skeptical that we can have an accurate measure of public opinion given the state that Gaza is in.

The best way to undermine Hamas would be for Israel to start making concessions to Fatah in the West Bank.  I don't see that happening after the Gaza offensive and the ensuing elections.

by JJE 2009-02-27 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: That isn't certain at all

Every poll seems to agree that Hamas lost support in Gaza.  Look more closely at the two articles you linked.  What skews things is that Palestinians in the West Bank generally have a sunnier view of the outcome of the Gaza conflict, presumably because they weren't the ones who suffered the damage.  But I don't think West Bank opinion is all that relevant.

by Steve M 2009-02-27 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: That isn't certain at all

Keep in mind that members or supporters of Hamas within the Palestinian population in the territories is only 16%. They are actually a minority among Palestinians, who support Fatah to a greater extent (40%), most of the others being independents or members of very small parties.

The emphasis on Hamas is actually an Israeli effort to cast this small group of militants as THE impediment to peace. Nothing to do with the continuation of settlement building, right?

by MainStreet 2009-02-27 12:47PM | 0 recs

"...members or supporters of Hamas within the Palestinian population in the territories is only 16%...

Interesting, I would be grateful for a reference link -- Thanks.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Reference?

See below. Needed space to post.

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 12:59PM | 0 recs
Why not?

I think a case can be made that West Bank and Palestinian diaspora opinion is more relevant to Hamas's prospects than Gaza opinion is.

by JJE 2009-02-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Here's the best comment:

"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said.


by Steve M 2009-02-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
Funniest part about that line:


Dov Hikind is Dick Cheney without the charm.

by Geekesque 2009-02-28 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Funniest part about that line:

Wow, that is quite a visual....

Last think I remember from Dov was, his claim that Jews would not vote for Obama...

Guess he is correct about as often as Cheney as well...

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-01 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Well, to be elected Senator in NY you have to be as pro-Israel as possible.  And Hillary had to get past her kiss of Suda Arafat, which infuriated some of the NY Jewish electorate and sowed doubts in the minds of others about Hillary's commitment to Israel.  I am glad that in her new position she is able to (indeed, called upon to) assert a more balanced position re Israel, one that is in the best interest of the US, not a large voting bloc in NY.  

by orestes 2009-02-28 04:40PM | 0 recs
Good Diary

I'm not sure if you'll take this in the constructive vein in which is meant, but I'm going for it anyway.

I recommended this diary for its content and its lack of hyperbole.  It is possible that I might have recommended your diary the other day about the bailout, but you discredited yourself and eliminated your moral authority through the cheap shots at Obama's children and the Obamabot bullshit.  It detracted from the diary and undermined any intellectual merit your arguments may have had.

If you want to be taken seriously - and with the amount of actual work you've been putting into diaries, I assume you do - drop the PUMA-tinged crap.  It will expand your audience at MyDD beyond people who treat sites like The Confluence as legitimate sources of information.

by Dreorg 2009-02-27 11:44AM | 0 recs
I think u took this diary seriously

And I'm happy about that. I don't expect people to grok my overall vision/attitude/whatever.

The diary your upset about and consider, without any real evidence, rude toward Obama's children, was like an editorial cartoon. The idea was to reflect a piece of people's underlying attitude toward Obama back at them. Editorial cartoons shouldn't be expected to deliver every nuance and backtrack and be conditional and all that. I just wanted to make those progressives uncomfortable who were giving Obama too much of a break (especially his Wall Street friendly bank bailout boondoggle) perhaps in part cuz they are still very happy over his election, which was truly a great thing in cultural terms.

by fairleft 2009-02-27 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I think u took this diary seriously

I can see where you're coming from now that you've explained it, but in the context of the really ugly primary wars that got fought here, those swipes took on a greater meaning outside of perhaps the diary itself.

If you were just cutting-and-pasting random links like, say, Caro does, I wouldn't have even bothered to comment.  But I went and looked back at what you've been posting on Gaza, etc., and it is obvious that you a) have a distinct point of view, b) put a lot of effort into you diaries, and c) have the potential to raise peoples' awareness of truly important stuff.  And I would hate to that potential discounted out-of-hand, as I almost did.

by Dreorg 2009-02-27 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I think u took this diary seriously

I see what you mean, in the mydd.com historical context. I usually don't consider that when I'm thinking about and constructing a diary. It cramps my creativity, to tell the truth, and these quick expressions of how I'm feeling on a particular day have to be enjoyable for me. Also, I publish this diary not just here, and I don't want to warp it with defensiveness about mydd crap that folks other than myself said or did a year or whatever ago (all that will just induce a "huh?" from people at other blogs). I didn't even open most of the incorrigibly pro/anti O/H diaries or diarists back in those days, btw. Anyway, that stuff is such incredibly ancient and basically unimportant history (in the larger world, I know it holds a high and honorable place in the meta of mydd).

Anyway II, I decided after being banned at dailykos in July or August 2007 that modifying my 'voice' for best/maximum influence is too tiresome when you're writing diaries for free. And maybe that decision hasn't hurt my influence. People just get to know me as a joker, a pisser, and a guy with a sometimes wise or knowledgeable take on things. It's not a tidy package, but (unfortunately for some) it's a package deal.

by fairleft 2009-02-27 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Hillary is taking heat from Jewish leaders and they are questioning her pro-Israel stance. The fact is she is PRO ISRAEL and they know it, this is simply getting these leaders to follow through on a committment THEY already made. The idea that it strengthens Hama is BS. It's like saying we can't give aid to Hurricane Katrina victims because that would strengthen George Bush....

by nikkid 2009-02-28 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Those proIsrael buffs who would take on Hillary for a humanitarian gesture are actually right wingers. And it befuddles me why the liberal or progressive left wing of the Democratic party would pal around with the Israeli right wing for this long.

Anyone ever hear about cognitive dissonance?

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

?  I would wait and see.  There are quite a few progressives and liberals in Congress which I'm sure are not happy with what she said and giving her a piece of their mind.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

I'm sure there are quite a few anythings in Congress who might like to make points with AIPAC, but I just can't quote any right now.

So just who are these progressives and liberals in Congress who want to give Hillary a piece of their minds? Do you know of any who might want to give Obama the same treatment. Afterall, he made the same statement about a month ago: open the entrances to Gaza and permit humanitarian aid to flow in.

I'll wait on your response. Take your time.

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

there are sadly racists in our congress, who aren't against helping Palestinians for AIPAC points, but because they're not worthy enough to be human.  Eli Weasel is on that page too, which made me kind of glad he lost money to Made Off, all those racist speeches didn't pay off after all?  I hate it when leaders are so nasty, he can be for everyone's rights, and eloquently, but not Arabs?  

by anna shane 2009-02-28 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

A hypocrite of the first class. Weisel claimed in his books that the primary cause of the Holocaust was "indifference," apparently indifference even by good people who didn't care enough to act.

But when you look at who it is who has had the greatest indiffence toward the plight of the Palestinians, who else but Elie Weisel wins that award. He is basically a sullen Zionist, whose voice mimics pathos for the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but who would not today give a hoot how many Palestinians are killed on the road to colonizing the Palestinian territories.

A pure hypocrite.

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

yes, and it's the only thing pure about him.  And Nathan Yahoo, what a jerk, won't join with the moderates cause he's against any Palestinian state.  Plus, they're both creepy.  

by anna shane 2009-02-28 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Ok...  The reason I think there's trouble brewing is this:

Philip Weiss recently posted Rep. Howard Berman's [chairman of House Foreign Affairs] outburst [PW links worth exploring IMO as well]:
Berman says Congress won't deal with Hamas-Fatah. But will Obama?

You seem v. knowledgeable, so you probably remember that the blocking of Palestianian aid has been used before as an 'arm-behind the back' tactic by AIPAC friendly congress progressives and liberals to stop any progression on talks --  e.g by Rep. Wexler and Rep. Ackerman.

The Forward: Lawmakers Sign Protest on Palestinian Aid

Rep. Wexler's House Page: Wexler and 253 Members of Congress Urge EU Not to Provide Aid to New Palestinian Government

In another of Philip Weiss pieces he highights the perceived 'bias' of certain congress members who ultimately have the power to decide which 'experts' comes forth to express their 'knowledge' and 'perscription' on the I-P issue.  Again, telling us what some of these congresscritters might be thinking on the matter of giving anything away to the Palestinians.

Philip Weiss: When the Israel lobby presumes to speak for the interests of Palestinians, continued

With regards to Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, I believe he has a conflict of interest, and might question Hillary's harsh attack on Israel.

On the one hand he is the Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Subcommitee on The Middle East and South Asia, and on the other he is the President of the ICJP, the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians?  An organization that according to a quote in The Jerusalem Post from an ICJP spokesman, the organizations "...goal is to put together parliamentarians from all over the world in order for them to cooperate with one another and promote Jewish issues/agendas in their respective countries,"  I put this to mean Israel's interests and agenda? Past history of votes, speeches, participation etc seeming to correlate with this view.

So, that's why I think behind the scenes there might be some progressive and liberals in Congress giving Hillary a piece of their mind, because many of them share Israel's, and AIPAC views i.e. not to negotiate, nor help the Palestinians in any shape or form.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary to Israel

Thanks for this learning experience.

I have not read any of this in the mainstream media, which is likely why I am (and others are)not aware of what is going on behind the scenes.

I should pay closer attention to Mondoweiss than I do. It is a great site, with Weiss always digging out the truths behind appearances.

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 03:14PM | 0 recs
all thanks go to Weiss 4 laying the ground work

...there are too few voices out there that give an alternative view point.  MJ @ TPMCafe brings in some good stuff, but often [for obvious reasons] can't bring in the Democratic establishment pile of crap that needs to be brought in to look at the whole FP picture.

Also, thanks for the Hamas poll information, I hope other posters here will read and compute before reactive decisions are made about not negotiating with 'the Palestinians.'

Onward and upward, we hope.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 07:54PM | 0 recs
A good diary

worthy of a rec. But I will point out that you made an issue of attributing Geither's failures to Obama. Consistency would suggest that you assign Hillary's successes to Obama also. That, or let the actions of both Cabinet members stand on their own.

I get that your intent was to prod those you see as overly fawning towards the President. But you weaken the basis for that position (i.e. cabinet members are simply implementing Obama policy) when you apply it situationally.

by Neef 2009-02-28 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: A good diary

why not, they happen to think alike on matters of collective punishment and hungry sick homeless kids.  

by anna shane 2009-02-28 12:39PM | 0 recs
FOR: SandThroughThe EyeGlas

I said 16% which was likely from an earlier poll. This one, the latest, indicates 20%. Interestingly, only a quarter of the Palestinians decimated in Gaza belonged to Hamas.

From: PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 30 Date: December, 2008

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p 30e.html

Which of the following political parties do you support?

In order,
West Bank  

1) PPP
3) Fateh
4) Hamas
6) Islamic Jihad
7) Fida
8) National Initiative (Mubadara)
9) Independent Islamists
10) Independent Nationalists
11) None of the above
12) Other, specify

Hope that this helps.

by MainStreet 2009-02-28 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: FOR: SandThroughThe EyeGlas

Thanks... always good to have new info and links...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-02-28 01:08PM | 0 recs
Hmmm... look at that! It's an administration that

has moved in a direction much more understanding of the humanitarian needs among the palestinians, but not delusional enough to cut off all funds to Israel and place all blame on them either.

Someone around here predicted exactly that and some other nitwit who doesn't know what they're talking about said I was crazy... had no understanding of the situation... heaped scorn on my references to reality.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 06:47AM | 0 recs

you predicted that we'd see an acceptable resolution of the underlying situation.  Claiming victory after nothing more than empty words from the SoS is pretty pathetic.  Have you noticed that Netanyahu is going to be PM and the fascist Lieberman is kingmaker?  Talk about no understanding of the situation.  Bleat some more about how Israel just wants piece.

by JJE 2009-03-01 08:12AM | 0 recs
No, I predicted a position that was materially

better for the palestinian people, not their leadership and that the Obama administration would certainly not share your delusion regarding whether we should continue financial support for Israel.  I also said that I believed the J Street approach to the situation was one that had a better chance of making progress in the future than the current Israeli approach.  At that point you started hyperventilating and claiming that I thought President Obama would magically solve the problem in no time.  

I see little things like evidence still don't sway you.  Theirs that persistent reality annoyance again.  Oh well.  

Keep watching.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 11:19AM | 0 recs
So nothing

to say about Netanyahu/Lieberman, then?  I guess a toothless statement from Clinton is better "evidence" of where things are going than, you know, actual elections.  But you keep on keepin' on, big guy!  A dream is a wish your heart makes!

by JJE 2009-03-01 11:35AM | 0 recs
My comments were about what

this administration's policy would be.  (read that again and then go get a grown up to read it again for you)

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 11:40AM | 0 recs
Who cares

what the administration's policy (consisting of rhetoric) will be when it won't make any difference at all on the ground?  Netanyahu won't care about US blather as long as the settlements can keep going up (Livni wouldn't have either) and as long as people like you ensure that US policy has no teeth.

by JJE 2009-03-01 11:51AM | 0 recs
Yes, shockingly, people who don't share

your delusion don't choose the same misguided approach as you.  It is of no relevance anyway.  I don't  care whether you like or approve of it.  The reality is that what I said would be the case appears to be happening.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 11:58AM | 0 recs

two statements from Clinton means we're on the way to a two-state solution!  What a clown.

by JJE 2009-03-01 12:06PM | 0 recs
You are truly incapable of reading.

I made an assertion about what Obama administration policy would be .  I was correct.  It's not about whether or not you think it will be effective or not.   I genuinely don't care what your half witted assessment of it's effectiveness is.  

The fact that you keep trying to act like our conversation was about anything else simply demonstrates that CG was correct.  You cannot engage in an honest discussion.  I don't know if it is a deficiency of IQ or integrity (I suspect it's both), but you just can't do it.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 12:32PM | 0 recs
Way to move those goalposts

Actually your position was that Obama would largely adopt the J-Street programme which would lead to a just and peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.  I scoffed that that, since I don't suffer from your naivete about Israel's goals and intentions vis a vis the Palestinians and therefore don't harbor the same illusions about the likely efficacy of feel-good handwringing.

Now you're changing your position so that you can rush in and claim victory after some empty rhetoric from Clinton.  At least you're honest in admitting that you don't care if the policy will work; like CG, you just like to feel good about yourself through empty bullshit about your empathy for the Palestinians while continuing your useful idiocy on Israel's behalf.

by JJE 2009-03-01 01:06PM | 0 recs
You are just sad.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 01:20PM | 0 recs
Better sad than stupid

by JJE 2009-03-01 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Better sad than stupid

I don't know what makes you think that you aren't both.  Everyone else does.


by lockewasright 2009-03-17 09:08AM | 0 recs
way to keep it timely

a comeback made no less devastating for the fact that it was delivered two weeks late.  Bravo, Costanza.

by JJE 2009-03-17 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: way to keep it timely

I have been at a real blog nitwit.  I am not going to dedicate my time to waiting for your next episode of making shit up when you've lost.

You are a dishonest person and a moron.  The things that I said would happen are happening.  Your insistence that I predicted something other than what I predicted don't change the reality.  One of three things is true about your constantly apparent reality deficiency:

(1) You are a liar and will distort facts in any way that you can to avoid realizing that you are wrong.

(2)  You are entirely too low in the IQ department to comprehend the events in front of your face.

(3) Some combination of items 1 and 2.

I am betting on the 3rd option.  Regardless, you are a waist of my time and a blight on your community.   I have proven to be correct and you have proven to be incorrect.  I am tired of wasting my time on your delusion.

by lockewasright 2009-03-25 10:04AM | 0 recs
you are a sad manbaby indeed

you let me know when Barack gives you your magical two-state solution.  In the meantime I'll stay here in the real world.

by JJE 2009-03-30 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: you are a sad manbaby indeed

That is NOT what I said would happen.  You truly are the dumbest motherfucker on the internet.  That's why you are wrong ALL OF THE TIME.  You just revise history whenever you feel like it.

I said the the Palestinians would be much better off with Obama as president than they were under Bush.  That he would have concern for the humanitarian issues with which they are confronted, but that he would never cut off support for Israel like you suggested in all of you world record setting stupidity.  

I bet most days you mother wants to try and figure out which of those guys was your father and slap the shit out of him.  You are truly a stupid person.

by lockewasright 2009-04-05 06:40AM | 0 recs
"empty words"?

I seem to remember people freaking out for a statement from Obama before he was President. Just a statement, mind you.

I'd have to believe that statements like this after he's President have as much weight or more. Give it a few months before we judge that it was "just words".

by Neef 2009-03-01 01:58PM | 0 recs

how goes it?  haven't been here for a while...  glad to see you though!  still hoping that an honest debate on this issue is possible i see...  well wish i could join you but... ;)

by canadian gal 2009-03-01 08:27AM | 0 recs
oh, we've been having honest debates

turns out that debates get a lot better when the people who like to question people's motives, midirect, and make veiled accusations of bigotry go on hiatus.

by JJE 2009-03-01 08:33AM | 0 recs
heh - what does jje stand for again?

by canadian gal 2009-03-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
I haven't come here for a while either.

It's good to see you too.

I probably won't be back until their is more evidence to point out to  my friend with the bonus chromosome.  

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 11:21AM | 0 recs
Making fun of Down's syndrome now are we?

You're a classy guy.

by JJE 2009-03-01 11:53AM | 0 recs
Classy or not, I'm correct.

by lockewasright 2009-03-01 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Let the Humanitarian Aid In!

Great diary, Fairleft. Most of the comments and debate was relevant to your topic. Appreciated it.

by MainStreet 2009-03-02 06:17AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads