Watching Hill on the Hill, I'm impressed. She's signalling a brave new mood, and sounding some of the right notes. The usual defense of Israel's right to defend itself, but no red meat for the carnivores. Talks about "smart power." And maybe most important, sees the Palestinian issue as one that is feeding extremism. A peace deal is "critical not only to the parties involved but to" undermining "the forces of alienation and violent extremism around the world." Talks about achieving a "just and lasting peace" as a way of heading off Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran and Syria, too.
It was for this kind of statement that Obama was blasted during the campaign by the neocons and McCain himself. Hillary made several references to justice for Palestinians and their economic well being. It's something. I do think this is an important signal that Israel/Palestine is going to be a high priority for Obama. It's damaging American interests, and threatening to put a dirty bomb in our subways.
Hillary also invoked Thomas Jefferson. That a nation's interests must "concide with their moral duties." This has never been the case for us in Israel/Palestine. We have ALWAYS been on one side. We cannot maintain this imbalance in the new world. Our moral hypocrisy is too great. Hillary says the problems in Middle East peacemaking are "intractable." Yes, they are intractable. And the amazing part of it is that very little of that intractability is over there. It's right here. In Hillary's base, and Obama's big givers. The problem is here. Will they take it on? Godspeed if they do.
Randal Abdel-Fattah, in The Age, addresses the need for boycotts of Israel:
"One tires of hearing this debate framed in terms of two equal parties stubbornly refusing to compromise, as though occupier and occupied are equally culpable. The Israeli PR machine has told us that peace is unattainable because of Hamas. Yet when Hamas accepted a ceasefire, Israel maintained its blockade of the Gaza Strip. Was this not a clear violation of its responsibilities under the agreement and an act of collective punishment?
"Before the rockets were launched into Israel, there was an illegal and brutal occupation. Before Hamas existed, that occupation existed. Hamas' charter and its philosophy may well trouble us, but the right of every people to take up arms against occupation is enshrined in international law. Israel seeks to force regime change in Gaza, claiming Hamas cannot be negotiated with. Yet in March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government and stated their readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. It was Israel that refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas because the latter refused to recognise Israel's "right to exist".
"Which Israel is Hamas supposed to recognise? The state has no declared borders and its settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues unabated. Do we really expect an indigenous population to simply accept dispossession and exile?"
The rest of it can be read at:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2457
alleluyahhhhh.
Phil first you set yourself up and obama let you down…he can speak up about mumbai but obviously either fears speaking up on israel gaza or has been ordered to stay mum…
and now your hopes for our elitist leaders land on hillary the princess of zionist hell ….america.
good luck but only a populist movement will ever get our craven leaders to either leave washington and politics or do what the people desire them to do…which is to look out for americas interest first and foremost.
See also Chris Floyd on Henry Seigman about the "false peace process (and many other painfully true articles):
'"the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history": the so-called "Middle East peace process." As Siegman makes clear, the "peace process" has been a deliberate sham on the part of Israeli leaders, abetted every step of the way by the knowing collusion of American, British and European governments.'
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1679-sham-shock-and-awe-false-peace-process-bears-bitter-fruit-in-gaza.html
I love Phil, but I am afraid samuelburke is wiser–it will take an American populist movement to bring our spoiled child to reality–we cannot wish our own government will change its stripes on this issue. No matter how at odds the Republicans are with the Democrats–on Israel they are in lockstep. The recent congressional
votes rubber-stamping Israel and its POV is very telling, especially so close to Obama's putting on the crown.
Can secular populists overcome fundies, the root populist movement strongest?
Does not seem so–
Paul & Kucinich agree on a more effective Israel policy, but
they are nearly alone, as is Phil.
Israeli could care less that the end-timers over here see the death
or conversion of Israeli jews as future reality. They see a useful tool, a tool that can believe any fantasy it wants, so long as this
results in aiding the Israeli government's whims–@10% of annual
Christian fundie income poured into Israel's coffers, along with
the aggregate 10 Billion a year total aid to Israel from all US taxpayers–basically taken from them by gun point.
I can't see a reason to believe that Hillary is doing anything more than covering a base or two while changing nothing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember her making statements hinting that she would be tough on immigration as well. Her actions will show what she believes, or who is pulling her strings.