Tough Hillary Clinton says ‘dreadful’ pictures of dead women and children make it hard to get at truth– Hamas is to blame

Israel/Palestine
on 49 Comments

 

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

I couldn’t read too much of this, Hillary Clinton’s sit-down with Jeffrey Goldberg. She’s so tough it’s disturbing. 

Yes, Goldberg gets sick access, and why? Because the former Israeli corporal is the living embodiment of the Israel lobby in American politics: Jewish leaders read him closely, they trust him. And any ambitious Democratic politician, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, who wants to kiss the tuchus of the Israel lobby can do so readily by sitting down across from him and performing in such a manner that Goldberg will proclaim “masterful,” as he does of Hillary’s mind. 

That performance here is pure toughness. Hillary repeatedly takes a position to the right of Obama, The Palestinians stage-manage civilian deaths to win the sympathy of an anti-Semitic world. This is the very worst moment, Goldberg gets to be the sensitive interlocutor:

JG: Nevertheless there are hundreds of children—

HRC: Absolutely, and it’s dreadful.

JG: Who do you hold responsible for those deaths? How do you parcel out blame?

HRC: I’m not sure it’s possible to parcel out blame because it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war. Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact UN school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.

Appalling in its insensitivity. We shouldn’t be moved by the killings of children.

Hillary slams Hamas as a guerrilla resistance movement. But while she twice faults Russia for occupying a neighbor state, she never refers to Israeli occupation or settlements, except to praise Netanyahu’s glorious settlement freeze. Do you wonder why there’s a guerrilla resistance movement in Palestine? That’s why.

She peddles a lot of false history here. Hamas started this conflict. Barak offered the Palestinians everything they could want and Arafat walked away (in fact, the West Bank the Palestinians got would have been nearly bisected by Israeli settlements). Says Peter Beinart in Haaretz: “Clinton offered the most articulate, sophisticated, passionate defense of Netanyahu’s conduct I’ve heard from a government official on either side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, important chunks of it aren’t true.”

Here are excerpts of the abominable portions. On Iran, she undermines Obama.

Goldberg: Are you taking a harder line than your former colleagues in the Obama administration are taking on this matter?

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: It’s a consistent line. I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out. So, little or no enrichment has always been my position.

JG: Am I wrong in saying that the Obama administration’s negotiators have a more flexible understanding of this issue at the moment?

HRC: I don’t want to speak for them, but I would argue that Iran, through the voice of the supreme leader, has taken a very maximalist position

She blames Hamas for the latest conflict. Not a word about Palestinian efforts to form a unity government between Fatah and Hamas in May, which Netanyahu opposed.

HRC: the corner that Hamas felt itself in, I’m not surprised that Hamas provoked another attack [this June.

JG: The Israeli response, was it disproportionate?

HRC: Israel was attacked by rockets from Gaza. Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult. Of course Israel, just like the United States, or any other democratic country, should do everything they can possibly do to limit civilian casualties.

JG: Do you think Israel did enough to limit civilian casualties?

She could say simply, Yes. But again she goes to the right of Obama on the Gaza slaughter. He’s had the temerity to say, Israel could do more to prevent civilian casualties.

HRC: It’s unclear. I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets. And there is the surprising number and complexity of the tunnels, and Hamas has consistently, not just in this conflict, but in the past, been less than protective of their civilians.

JG: Before we continue talking endlessly about Gaza, can I ask you if you think we spend too much time on Gaza and on Israel-Palestine generally?

He’s asking her, Don’t people single Israel out? And right on cue, Clinton goes down a list of trouble from the Ukraine and Syria and wonders at all the attention Israel gets.

HRC: and yet we do see this enormous international reaction against Israel, and Israel’s right to defend itself, and the way Israel has to defend itself. This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.

JG: What do you think causes this reaction?

HRC: There are a number of factors going into it. You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with what’s going on in Europe today. There are more demonstrations against Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner. So there’s something else at work here than what you see on TV.

And what you see on TV is so effectively stage-managed by Hamas, and always has been. What you see is largely what Hamas invites and permits Western journalists to report on from Gaza. It’s the old PR problem that Israel has. Yes, there are substantive, deep levels of antagonism or anti-Semitism towards Israel, because it’s a powerful state, a really effective military. And Hamas paints itself as the defender of the rights of the Palestinians to have their own state. So the PR battle is one that is historically tilted against Israel.

JG: Nevertheless there are hundreds of children—

HRC: Absolutely, and it’s dreadful.

JG: Who do you hold responsible for those deaths? How do you parcel out blame?

HRC: I’m not sure it’s possible to parcel out blame because it’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war. Some reports say, maybe it wasn’t the exact UN school that was bombed, but it was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.

But she really doesn’t have trouble getting at the truth. It’s Hamas’s fault.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict and wanted to do so in order to leverage its position, having been shut out by the Egyptians post-Morsi, having been shunned by the Gulf, having been pulled into a technocratic government with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority that might have caused better governance and a greater willingness on the part of the people of Gaza to move away from tolerating Hamas in their midst. So the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.

That doesn’t mean that, just as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians, that there aren’t mistakes that are made. We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position—that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas.

JG: Several years ago, when you were in the Senate, we had a conversation about what would move Israeli leaders to make compromises for peace. You’ve had a lot of arguments with Netanyahu. What is your thinking on Netanyahu now?

HRC: Let’s step back. First of all, [former Israeli Prime Minister] Yitzhak Rabin was prepared to do so much and he was murdered for that belief. And then [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Barak offered everything you could imagine being given under any realistic scenario to the Palestinians for their state, and [former Palestinian leader Yasir] Arafat walked away. I don’t care about the revisionist history. I know that Arafat walked away, okay? Everybody says, “American needs to say something.” Well, we said it, it was the Clinton parameters, we put it out there, and Bill Clinton is adored in Israel, as you know. He got Netanyahu to give up territory, which Netanyahu believes lost him the prime ministership [in his first term], but he moved in that direction, as hard as it was.

Finally, this bit about Hamas, again undermining Obama from the right, inside the Democratic Party.

JG: There’s a critique you hear of the Obama administration in the Gulf, in Jordan, in Israel, that it is a sign of naiveté to believe that there are Islamists you can work with, and that Hamas might even be a group that you could work with. Is there a role for political Islam in these countries? Can we ever find a way to work with them?

HRC: I think it’s too soon to tell. I would not put Hamas in the category of people we could work with. I don’t think that is realistic because its whole reason for being is resistance against Israel, destruction of Israel, and it is married to very nasty tactics and ideologies, including virulent anti-Semitism. I do not think they should be in any way treated as a legitimate interlocutor, especially because if you do that, it redounds to the disadvantage of the Palestinian Authority, which has a lot of problems, but historically has changed its charter, moved away from the kind of guerrilla resistance movement of previous decades.

49 Responses

  1. lysias
    August 11, 2014, 11:51 am

    Baltimore political reporter Frank Kent wrote the book The Great Game of Politics, published back in 1923. In it, he has chapters on why politicians running for office never tell the unvarnished truth, how telling the unvarnished truth is invariably fatal for a politician. He calls this the price we pay for universal suffrage. Whether or not he’s right on where he places the blame, his book does demonstrate how U.S. politicians have been lying as a matter of course for a long time.

    My father voted for Goldwater in 1964 and for McGovern in 1972. (In both cases, I disagreed with him at the time, and it is only with time that I have come to realize that he was right in both cases.) In both cases, his reason was the same: he voted for an honest politician against a crook. But also in both cases, an overwhelming majority of voters did what Kent predicted, and allowed themselves to be deceived by a politician’s lies.

    Which raises the question: why don’t voters give more weight to a politician’s honesty than to most other considerations? (I won’t say that the honest politician should always be elected. Hitler was quite open for a politician in saying what he would do.)

    • ckg
      August 11, 2014, 2:01 pm

      Interesting…Gallup polled Americans in 1966 and asked “What do you like best about Richard Nixon?“. The number one response was “his honesty” followed by the number two response “his sincerity”.

      • Walker
        August 11, 2014, 4:13 pm

        That was before everyone got to know him better.

  2. amigo
    August 11, 2014, 12:00 pm

    My apologies to Peter Weiss.I know you must have worked hard to bring this and it must be done.

    Reading this is like being stabbed in the back repeatedly.She even twists the knife each time she spouts her dishonest and self serving biased lies.

    Sickening.

    • Citizen
      August 11, 2014, 10:44 pm

      @ amigo
      That’s Phillip Weiss. But I more than agree with your comment about HRC in action.
      As Phil says, she’s disturbing. Politics really is a game to her–she knows exactly what to say for her second try at being POTUS. Totally heartless in her thirst for more power–it wouldn’t surprise me at all if she cunningly midwifed her daughter’s marriage. Just another step to get on top, to get power grease, and check out how she handled Bill’s escapades, yet another step up the ladder she went. Each time. There’s a four letter word that describes her, the one Sarah Silverman kept repeating on one of her HBO specials as a joke.

  3. Les
    August 11, 2014, 12:03 pm

    Israel’s new lawyer: Hillary Clinton
    She sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through Bibi’s eyes, which could be the reason she gets so much wrong.
    By Peter Beinart | 17:24 11.08.14

    Who’s the Israeli government’s best spokesperson? Ron Dermer? Michael Oren? Bibi himself? Nope. It’s Hillary Clinton. In her interview on Sunday with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton offered the most articulate, sophisticated, passionate defense of…
    link to haaretz.com

    • eljay
      August 11, 2014, 12:43 pm

      >> P.B.: Who’s the Israeli government’s best spokesperson?
      >> link to haaretz.com

      Hillary may be the best spokesperson, but Barry O. does a pretty good job, too. This little bit was particularly good:

      One of the hallmarks of Barack Obama’s statements about Israel and Palestine, going back to his 2008 presidential campaign, has been his insistence on giving voice to the fears and aspirations of both sides. Writing about his trip to Israel in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that, “I talked to Jews who’d lost parents in the Holocaust and brothers in suicide bombings; I heard Palestinians talk of the indignities of checkpoints and reminisce about the land they had lost.”

      So…Jews have experienced death at the hands of Holocaust Germans and Suicide-bombing Arabs, just as Palestinians have experienced / continue to experience ethnic cleansing, oppression, colonization, torture and death at the hands of Colonialist and Supremacist Jews…errr…I mean, just as Palestinians have experienced “indignities at checkpoints” and “reminiscences of lost land”.

      Way to go, Barry O.

    • ckg
      August 11, 2014, 2:22 pm

      Considering that Bill Clinton wrote the cover blurb for The Crisis of Zionism, I find it interesting that Hillary’s statements would make Beinart so uneasy that he would call her out. Beinart seems careful not to criticize the Clinton administration, but only Hillary.

    • Denis
      August 13, 2014, 11:19 am

      The Beinart take-down of HRC was excellent, particularly for those of us who can’t keep up with the details of all of the failed “peace negotiations.” Not sure why Axlerod’s middle-finger tweet got all the attention.

      After digesting Beinart’s piece it really becomes evident how tightly choreographed the Clinton/Goldberg “interview” was. They must have sat down together beforehand, possibly with Oren and Frank Luntz, to get all the talking points organized. John Oliver just did a piece ripping into The Atlantic, NYT et al. for their “native advertising” approach to “news.” That’s all the Goldberg piece was — native advertising paid for by GoI.

      HRC has obviously made the calculation that mom ‘n pop America has not yet rejected Israeli apartheid, either that or that GoI shekels coupled to a feminist flood of support will be enough to overcome the rising revulsion Main St. Americans feel w/ GoI’s atrocities. Heaven help the Palestinians if she ever gets elected.

  4. amigo
    August 11, 2014, 12:04 pm

    “He got Netanyahu to give up territory, which Netanyahu believes lost him the prime ministership [in his first term], but he moved in that direction, as hard as it was.”HC

    Bully for Bill and Bibi.They gave back stolen Territory and she views that as a compromise.She is more Zionist than many Zionists.

  5. Tuyzentfloot
    August 11, 2014, 12:11 pm

    I recall even Martin Indyk made the link between the Gaza onslaught and the unity government in this debate on c-span link to c-span.org .But I don’t recall where in the debate…

    • Tuyzentfloot
      August 11, 2014, 5:00 pm

      I recalled correctly. Indyk is reconstructing the events at around 1:00, and at 1:03 he talks sketchingly about the sequence unity government-suspending negotiations-suppressing Hamas in the westbank – Gaza explosion.

  6. Abierno
    August 11, 2014, 12:14 pm

    This is the direct consequence of Haim Saban “working the phones.” Enough said
    link to politico.com

  7. seanmcbride
    August 11, 2014, 12:16 pm

    Hillary Clinton, a liberal Zionist with progressive pretensions, is as much an Israeli guided missile as Christian Zionists like John Hagee or Ted Cruz.

    Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are arms of the Israel lobby and tools of a few dozen pro-Israel billionaires (Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban and company.)

    Hillary Clinton is being financed, groomed and promoted by the Israel lobby to carry on and escalate the same neoconservative policies that dominated the Bush 43 administration — all war all the time for Greater Israel. From the Israeli standpoint, Americans are cannon fodder and a bottomless well of financial aid.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 11, 2014, 12:38 pm

      we agree!

    • ckg
      August 11, 2014, 2:41 pm

      I think Hillary is out to woo the Haim Sabans of the Jewish donor world. She doesn’t have much chance with John Hagee and the Christian Zionists–those crazies would never go for a politician whose name, “Hillary Rodham Clinton” sums to 666 if A=6, B=12, etc. (On the other hand, the sum of the numbers on a roulette wheel is 666, as Sheldon Adelson must surely know.)

      • Denis
        August 13, 2014, 11:03 am

        (On the other hand, the sum of the numbers on a roulette wheel is 666, as Sheldon Adelson must surely know.)

        I that with one “0” or two?

  8. Vikram
    August 11, 2014, 12:23 pm

    It seems that all these politicians are soul-less, devoid of any self-respect, dignity or integrity. When Greenberg says ” Nevertheless there are hundreds of children—”. She replies “Absolutely, and it’s dreadful”. Does anyone believe her ?

    I read a quote recently which fits here “False face must hide what the false heart doth know….To show an unfelt sorrow is an office
    which the false man does easy”

    – William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 1.7.83; 2.3.136-37

    They are sad shadows of human beings !

    • Citizen
      August 11, 2014, 11:01 pm

      @ Vikram
      I guess the world (except for technology, science) has not really changed much since Shakespeare’s day. She should be in that Thrones thing on HBO, or maybe Braveheart. Or musical chairs…

  9. ritzl
    August 11, 2014, 12:27 pm

    Goldberg should have asked if Michael Oren would be the next Secretary of State in a HRC admin. Of course he’d have to renounce his Israeli citizenship.

    But then again, why would she need him?

    • Stern Gang
      August 11, 2014, 2:45 pm

      Oren is a clown. Watch this 60 Minute segment.

      • Citizen
        August 11, 2014, 11:25 pm

        Oren’s answer to host’s incredulity at Oren trying to get 60 Minutes to not air the show even though Oren had no idea of its content: “There’s a first time for everything.”

  10. seanmcbride
    August 11, 2014, 12:39 pm

    She’s so tough it’s disturbing.

    Spouting belligerent words requires no toughness — any weakling or coward is capable of ranting. It required no personal toughness on the part of Hillary Clinton to threaten to “totally obliberate Iran” or on the part of Madeleine Albright to assert that deaths of a half million Iraqi children as the result of American sanctions were “worth it.”

    Murdering civilians, women and children by remote control doesn’t require toughness — but a sociopathic or psychopathic mindset certainly helps.

    Check out the latest photos of Hillary Clinton on the beach at the Hamptons. Tough? She is really letting herself go physically.

    link to dailymail.co.uk

    • lysias
      August 11, 2014, 12:58 pm

      Hillary has looked terrible for a couple of years now. I really wonder whether she is suffering from some disease.

      • adele
        August 11, 2014, 2:06 pm

        I believe it’s called lack-of-moral-Fiberitis

    • Mooser
      August 11, 2014, 5:37 pm

      I know this is completely subjective, but I feel like Hilary was humiliated in front of the entire US, while her husband was President. And she has had it in for us ever since.

      • Citizen
        August 11, 2014, 11:36 pm

        Maybe she should put on a deep blue dress instead of that light blue sack she’s wearing on the beach.

      • Mooser
        August 12, 2014, 10:44 am

        Hell hath no Fury like a woman scorned, as the saying goes. (Although why Satan collects vintage Plymouths, I’ll never know.)
        She’s going to get us back for that episode, mark my words.

  11. eljay
    August 11, 2014, 12:54 pm

    >> seanmcbride: Spouting belligerent words requires no toughness … Murdering civilians, women and children by remote control doesn’t require toughness — but a sociopathic or psychopathic mindset certainly helps.

    Agreed.

    >> She is really letting herself go physically.

    Dunno, to me she looks like a fairly average 67-year-old woman.

  12. Kay24
    August 11, 2014, 1:48 pm

    I do not have any respect for any American who has huge ambitions to run for office, but must kiss the ring of Netanyahu first, to convince Israel that it would be the top priority in this future candidates policies and agenda. Here comes Hillary, yet another Israel firster. Right now Andrew Cuomo is in Israel showing his undying love, and perhaps he met up with Steve Israel and the rest of his gang, who have worshipped the zionists and played a big part in the hasbara against the Palestinians. They are all shameless human beings who puts their ambition and greed for power over concern for human rights violations, or justice for women and children who are blown up by an occupier.

    This Reuters article shows that Clinton is now distancing herself from Obama’s policies, ones that she herself promoted, and shows the love for Bibi:

    “In the interview, Clinton also offered strong support for Israel and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has a tense relationship with Obama.

    Israel has drawn international condemnation for the deaths of Palestinian non-combatants in Gaza and the destruction of thousands of homes during its month of war with the Islamist movement Hamas. The Obama administration, while supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, has rebuked Israel at least once during the current conflict over the deaths of civilians.

    “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the (Hamas) rockets. Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command and control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult,” Clinton said.

    Questioned about whether Israel has taken enough steps to prevent the deaths of civilians including children, Clinton said the United States also tries to be careful to avoid civilian casualties in war but sometimes mistakes are made”.

    link to reuters.com

  13. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    August 11, 2014, 2:06 pm

    When it comes to former First Lady Hillary Clinton I quote former First Lady Nancy Reagan:

    “Just say no!”

    • Mooser
      August 12, 2014, 10:47 am

      “Just say no!”

      Hilary should have marched out of the White House, with nothing but the clothes on her back and an overnight bag. She’d be Presidentress today, had she done that.

  14. B-R
    August 11, 2014, 2:59 pm

    I guess she has to position herself as an advocate for Israel, since she’s starting to realize she’ll never have any sort of career within the White House.

    • Citizen
      August 11, 2014, 11:47 pm

      @ B-R, no. She’s channeling Bibi N, even outdoing him, preparing her campaign run against the GOP candidate–she will go to the right of that candidate just as she’s arguably going to the right of Bibi N. Who knows, if she plays it right, Shelly Adelson will toss loads of money at her, and many big moneybags Zionists will follow him.

  15. ckg
    August 11, 2014, 3:06 pm

    Hillary is saying that Hamas is “stage-managing” TV news coverage of the events and “always has been”. I expect the TV news organizations of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and BBC will offer no retorts nor dare to defend their Gaza reporters for fear losing access to Hillary.

    • lysias
      August 11, 2014, 3:14 pm

      As if politicians like Hillary and her husband don’t stage-manage coverage of their events?

    • Shingo
      August 12, 2014, 1:28 am

      I expect the TV news organizations of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and BBC will offer no retorts nor dare to defend their Gaza reporters for fear losing access to Hillary.

      The media gave already refuted the Israeli
      Talking point that journalists in Gaza were threatened and intimidated by Hamas.
      link to haaretz.com

      I suspect those that witnessed the shelling on the Gaza beach will be sickened by Clinton’s sadistic diatribe.

  16. asda
    August 11, 2014, 3:34 pm

    Sorry, couldn’t read it after a while, it is disgusting. Attempting to rationalise genocide with hoodwinkery and assuming a ‘indifferent’/balanced position – there is an evil there that nauseates me.

  17. eGuard
    August 11, 2014, 4:54 pm

    So after 2016 US will go to war against Iran.

    • Citizen
      August 11, 2014, 11:54 pm

      @ guard, yep POTUS Hillary will give the green light, & while US is buster-bombing Iran, Bibi will crack down hard on the Palestinians–while all eyes are on Iran. I’d even say, Israel’s bombers will be working on Gaza, while US bombers war on Iran. That’s Israel, our best ally. Of course Iran may have something up its sleeve–wars always have unintended consequences.

  18. CloakAndDagger
    August 11, 2014, 11:54 pm

    Looking at the reader comments on Huffington post, they are almost unanimously panning HRC. I think this bird is dead.

    link to huffingtonpost.com

  19. Carioca
    August 12, 2014, 12:10 am

    she’s actually worse than Obama, which is saying something — she’s a true neocon, exact same thing as all the scumbags in the Bush administration – she might be even worse than them

  20. Shingo
    August 12, 2014, 1:40 am

    And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth.

    A perfect example of what Amira Hass described as sadism disguised as compassion.

  21. Shingo
    August 12, 2014, 3:02 am

    I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded.

    What a psychopathic liar! Until only 2006, the US policy absolutely recognized the right to enrich.
    Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium? The Answer Is Yes
    link to huffingtonpost.com

  22. libra
    August 12, 2014, 2:29 pm

    Whose fault is it? “Why, those shameless hussies of course!” answers Hilary Clinton. “How could any man endure such provocation? Bill’s entirely blameless. I’ll always stand by him.”

  23. Vera Gottlieb
    August 12, 2014, 5:16 pm

    And this is a lawyer?

  24. lysias
    August 12, 2014, 5:28 pm

    I just saw her called “Killary” on another site (wish I could remember which one). The name does fit, doesn’t it?

  25. Vera Gottlieb
    August 12, 2014, 5:32 pm

    Why are Zionists so afraid of the truth? Bad conscience? Afraid people will finally see how contemptible their actions are?

  26. hellsbells
    September 2, 2014, 10:17 am

    That’s definitely a speech designed to get the maximum amount of funds per an election out of Jewish groups. Hillary is clearly Netanyahu’s glove puppet.

Leave a Reply