Two months ago Chris Christie made the mistake of referring to the “occupied territories.” Now Hillary Clinton is getting flak from a conservative for referring to the “occupation.”
Clinton’s new memoir, Hard Choices, mentions a 1981 trip to the West Bank (per Haaretz):
“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank. I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”
Haaretz reports:
On the CNN television debate show “Crossfire,” cohost S.E. Cupp asked Tracy Sefl, a representative of the pro-Clinton super PAC Ready for Hillary, whether the former secretary of state feels she owes Israel an apology for “using the same language that Chris Christie used”…
Sefl responded, “Hillary Clinton is going to stand by the words in her book. She is not going to apologize for something she need not apologize for,” adding, “I’m unapologetically pro-Israel and Hillary is very, very strong on this. If that’s the tree you want to bark up, I wish you luck.”
What weird standards are being established already, for the U.S. discourse. Last night Chris Matthews touted Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to come out against Israeli settlements as a positive attribute in an American political candidate: “on settlements, she’s been more than favorable to Israel. When Obama said you have to stop the settlements in order to talk peace, she said, No that’s putting too much pressure on Israel.”
And speaking of standards: Hillary first observed the absence of dignity and self-determination in the occupation herself 33 years ago. What does she intend to do about that? How long must Palestinians wait?
Thanks to Kay24 and Annie Robbins.
U.S.S.Dignity.
Lost at sea, believed hijacked by US citizens, loyal to the State of Israel.
No survivors.
Thanks for the information. It is something, I guess. As for whether she will do anything constructive about it, I won’t hold my breath. As I’ve noted here previously, after her husband became President she said some modestly encouraging things about Palestine. That was when she had some association with Rabbi Michael Lerner. In response, NYT had a long article about “St. Hillary” and the “politics of virtue.” When she decided to run for the Senate in New York such comments ceased.
“If that’s the tree you want to bark up, I wish you luck.”
Things are changing alright. You can still be pro Israel but anti sadism. Or is the red heifer only going to come if Sodom and Gomorrah are reformed?
Gross.
Israel and Zionism are so corrupt and rotten to the core.
Look at all this scam politicking. Zionism depends on these bought and paid for politicians. Zionism depends on anti-democracy, anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, pro-war, pro-hate, the 1%, etc.
This is the only way AIPAC can control the message. They have already attacked John Kerry for using the A word, and now it seems the word “occupied” is becoming a bad word too. It must be an effort to stifle any criticism of Israel, and a strong warning to Presidential candidates that direction from Israel is the way to go. In this case this alien nation has laid down the rules – the words “apartheid” and “occupation” are prohibited, and anyone who uses said words will be attacked like Kerry and Clinton.
Are we controlled or what?
As for Hillary Clinton, her own experience in the Palestinian territories, made her aware of the horrible situation they are in, and she was honest in her assessment of the occupation – it is a shame, that due to alien pressures, she now sings a different tune. If only we had stronger candidates, who said exactly what they felt, without fear or backlash from the guard dogs.