Two reporters are too coy about the ‘Israeli-American establishment’ Clinton is truckling to

Last week New Yorker editor David Remnick said that Hillary was running for president, based on her appearance at an Israel lobby group, the Saban Forum, in Washington. So on Saturday National Public Radio interviewed Remnick about his observation (and put particular emphasis on this disturbing video of Hillary Clinton, which was shown at the event, and is chockful of Israelis, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Benjamin Netanyahu– and also includes John McCain, Madeleine Albright, Salam Fayyad, a Jordanian official, and a foreign minister from the United Arab Emirates).  Remnick said Israeli and American officials are married: 

[Y]ou couldn’t help thinking that there was this kind of almost international or at least at a minimum Israeli-American establishment endorsement of her or encouragement for her to run for president.

And the combination of the film, the way she gave her speech, which was extremely uncritical of the Israelis, even at a moment when the Israeli-American relationship is, I would say, very troubled gave one the indication that she is being hyper careful and looking forward to a career that still got politics in it. And where is there left for her to go other than a presidential race?

Then there’s this:

REMNICK: I’m not sure how many votes in Iowa you get from the endorsement from Salam Fayyad or from Bibi Netanyahu.

RAZ: Who knows?

REMNICK: Well, it’s a very small neighborhood in Iowa.

This dialogue is a good first step but it’s pretty coy. Since when is there an Israeli-American establishment, and when did the two governments get married? In what ways does that establishment require that a politician must be “extremely uncritical of Israel”? How different is Remnick’s premise from the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis that the Israel lobby is a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”? Or from Roger Waters’s statement that Israel’s staggering record of impunity is due to the role of the Israel lobby, the “elephant in the room”? Remnick and Raz both know about this question; and Remnick has been critical of Israel’s outsize role in our politics. They should treat this subject more forthrightly.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 10 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. I think that it is just because of this one feature of the ‘special relationship’, the fact that there was a marriage that will lead to a divorce that will be like that movie about a really ugly divorce called ‘war of the roses’.

    It is also my opinion that the divorce papers have been filed, the U.S has started preparing the soil for the settlement.

    I think some parts of the establishment resent Israels arrogance and their belief that they can get away with anything, which up until now they have.

    Revenge, as Stalin has been quoted as having said, is best served cold.

  2. pabelmont says:

    Sounds like someone “got to” Remnick. The Zionist power structure is not something to trifle with and it doesn’t back down. Similarly (as we saw with Judge Goldstone) social groups have ways of applying coercive and often silencing social pressure to their members which enforce party-lines.

    I have long thought that the only way for anti-Zionists to challenge Zionism-in-America is to stand up together — all must be first to speak up, because standing up alone is too frightening and too lonely. Imagine, for example, if all of Congress signed a pro-Palestine message simultaneously. How, then, could AIPAC attack ALL of them?

    Ah, well, not so easy to arrange.

  3. hughsansom says:

    The Clinton parents are also now watching out for the political prospects of the Clinton brat, Chelsea. It’s some indication of just how low the Bush fortunes fell with the evil, loathsome W that the Bush brats are sidelined. The offspring of other political powerbrokers are all well-placed — Kennedys (still, despite an almost uninterrupted history of crimes and misdemeanors), Clintons, McCains, Cheneys, and on and on. The mainstream media often serve as the farm leagues for these groveling creatures. Consider the numbers who have been given (they certainly haven’t earned) high-paying, prominent jobs on various “news” programs.

    Chelsea has enjoyed an unbroken string of handouts, even as the Democrats she aligns with have joined Republicans in decrying handouts for those who desperately need them.

    The Clinton kowtowing to AIPAC and Israel serves both Hillary’s ambitions and any nascent ones Chelsea may harbor.

    21st century aristocracy and neo-feudalism at work.

    And note which presidential set were not granted seats by default among the privileged . . . the four Carter children, four in all. Jimmy Carter, for all his failings, has been the only president in the past 45 years to utter a word of genuine, sustained criticism of Israel. Hardly a strict causal relation, but I can’t imagine a Carter running without the Sheldon Adelson brigade getting into a snit.

  4. Thanks for the link to the Saban Institute video. Pretty high production value. My impression is that it is a seduction offer – look at how great, powerful, inevitable we can make you look! Her response was also a seduction offer – look how comfortable and familiar I am schmoozing with all of you, no hint of confrontation or criticism. Aren’t we all such wonderful old friends together! All part of the dance of power. Costs to follow. To both sides. Score a lot for Hilary. She’s the one in 2016. No one else close. Saban & Co., no towels being thrown in here, just earnest determination to earn some credit for Hilary’s victory.

    Most striking is Netanyahu’s oozing laud – contrast the tone and body English to what he shows Obama! It may look like a marriage to some, but I see it as an indicator of Hilary’s power. Recognition, perhaps, that the Israelis will be at her whim and mercy, soon enough. Better to be as close as possible.

  5. RoHa says:

    “It’s some indication of just how low the Bush fortunes fell with the evil, loathsome W that the Bush brats are sidelined.”

    I must say I am surprised that we have heard little of Jeb Bush in recent years. Allegedly he is the one who inherited the family brain cell, and the one who arranged the vote fraud in Florida that got Goob the presidency. I thought he would be angling for the top job himself. Or, failing that, running for president.

  6. Accentitude says:

    What the hell was Salam Fayyad doing there? His people are being murdered left and right and he’s kicking it with the murderers and their financiers? How wonderful. I met Fayyad on several occasions, I even had lunch with him once and then took a tour of the PA security compound with him and one of the generals of the PA military force. Of all the PA henchmen, he seemed to be the least likely to be corrupt, but even back then I always had a hunch that he had a fetish for public relations opportunities and for displaying himself as a progressive or moderate diplomat to the Americans and Europeans.

  7. “Married”?

    More like date rape on a “Groundhog Day” basis.

  8. Ellen says:

    i brought myself to watch the Hillary promotion and all the scripted words by bags of filth from the likes of Kissinger, Netanyahoooooo and Mc Cain. (Mc Cain, in one of his famous heated moments when he looses control and shows his true colors, angrily called his wife a C@nt in a Senate elevator in the presence of an aid. Cindy crime for the vulgar humiliation? She made a joke that bruised his ego.)

    Hillary lost to Obama. Why? because she is out of touch and surrounded by those members of the bubble. She still is and has, I think, no chance.