The Obama administration is doing its utmost to sign a deal with Iran right now, and Israel is upset about it. And today there is an article on page A13 of the New York Times headlined “Clinton Wants to Improve Ties With Israel,” that reports that Clinton called Malcolm Hoenlein, the president of a leading American pro-Israel organization, yesterday to say that she wants the relations between the countries to get back on a positive track after the mess Obama has made.
“Secretary Clinton thinks we need to all work together to return the special U.S.-Israel relationship to constructive footing, to get back to basic shared concerns and interests, including a two-state solution pursued through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians,” Mr. Hoenlein said in a statement issued by his organization on Sunday evening. “We must ensure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue,” he quoted her as saying. Mrs. Clinton knows Mr. Hoenlein from her time in the Senate.
The Times notes that Clinton’s comments “contrasted in tone from recent remarks by members of the Obama administration, who have publicly criticized [the] Prime Minister.”
Of course, the leading anticipated Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s comments have also contrasted in tone to Obama’s; he pledged “unwavering” support for Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. Senator Ted Cruz, who announced for the Republican nomination a week ago, also contrasts in tone. He told CNN yesterday:
I think the United States should stand unshakeably with Israel. I think one of the most disgraceful aspects of the Obama presidency is how it has treated Prime Minister Netanyahu… They [Obama administration officials] have demonstrated an arrogance that America is going to dictate the terms of security in Israel.
(Not to mention all the Republican legislators who are running over to hold the Prime Minister’s hand and allay his concerns about the Obama administration.)
What’s going on here? Why are the leading contenders to take Obama’s place in the White House climbing over one another to throw our president’s foreign policy under the bus? It can’t be because American Jewish voters want them to; American Jews support Obama’s foreign policy. No, it’s about money. Jim Lobe says the Republicans are in the Sheldon Adelson primary, trying to raise money from rich pro-Israel Jews. Hillary Clinton also needs to raise money from the Israel lobby, Haim Saban for instance.
But The New York Times article says not a word about Hillary Clinton’s fundraising efforts. With foreign policy shaping up as a major issue in the presidential sweepstakes, it’s about time the media spoke frankly about these financial factors. Right now, the approved euphemism is, “domestic political concerns.” The Times has no problem finding analysts whenever it needs one; can’t they find an analyst who will explain the link between financial contributions and the unanimous sellout of our president’s foreign policy?
P.S. Hoenlein played an important role in Clinton and Obama’s political relationship before. From the New York Times just three months ago:
Once elected [in 2008], Obama seemed to understand that he needed someone to lend him credibility with the Israeli government and its American defenders, a tough friend of Israel who could muscle the country away from settlements and toward a peace agreement. An aide to Obama called Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and asked him to call Hillary Clinton to see if she would be “agreeable” to being named secretary of state.
“It can’t be because American Jewish voters want them to; American Jews support Obama’s foreign policy.”
You really think so? That’s a pretty sweeping declaration.
They are all throwing Obama and the Palestinians under the bus. But they are also throwing us Americans under the same bus. Our government is supposed to be run (in some vague sense) in the public interest. Whatever that means. And of course, today, no-one really supposes that any more. The government is supposed to be run on behalf of the very, very rich — the Oligarchs.
The question, then, is this: Is big-Zion up there with big-banks, big-defense, big-oil, big-pharma, big-agri (Monsanto), etc., in terms of power to run USA’s foreign policy? The answer may be a hard one: since all the other “bigs” probably don’t care whether Dems or Reps run the government (they don’t care about gun control, abortion, gay-rights, civil rights generally), they are “hands off” on all Israel-questions. They just don’t care. And therefore “big-Zion” although not as wealthy (I’m supposing) as the other “bigs”, runs all Israel matters and the other “bigs” don’t interfere. (And, of course, the CEO of a big-bank just might be a Zionist. Why not?)
The need for getting money as far out of politics as it will go is never more apparent. “Political action” MUST BE defined and denied to any but human beings, presumably American citizens, and the total annual expenditure for “political action” per person must be defined and relatively small, $1000 better than $1M per person per year.
It is sad that today, you will find MORE American leaders betraying their own President, or openly supporting an interfering foreign leader, than less or a hand few. It is disappointing that due to the manipulative actions of said foreign leader, it is becoming the norm. Clinton has called for a 2SS, let’s give her that. but she will be no different to the other shameless American Presidential hopefuls, who will embarrass themselves in front of the world, trying to overdo each other in the “let’s kiss Netanyahu’s assets” longer, better, and quicker, competition.
No wonder the bottle queen Sara thinks her husband should be President of the US!
” An aide to Obama called Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, and asked him to call Hillary Clinton to see if she would be “agreeable” to being named secretary of state. ”
Wtf , who is running the USA.
Major Jewish orgs or the officials elected by , “AMERICANS.
Question for our more knowledgeable contributors??.
Hypothetically speaking–If Obama abstained on a UN resolution recognising Palestine as a full member State or even supported such a UNSCR, could the Republicans , assuming they won the next election , (heaven forbid) put forward a resolution negating said UNSCR.I understand Russia, China , France or Britain could veto it.Just thinking out loud.
Meantime Israel would keep building illegal squats and push forward with their decades long goal of a greater Israel thereby leaving zero to negotiate about and proving they are not a partner in peace.Seems to me , Israel is screwed either way as there will still be 4 to 5 million Palestinians to deal with.They are not going anywhere.