Culture

Exile and the Prophetic: The Clinton Presidency(s)

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

Am I pessimistic about the prospects for movement in the Middle East in Obama’s second term? Even in his first run, I didn’t hold out much hope for change in Israel/Palestine. Of course, I supported Obama and still view his victory as historic. It’s a generational thing.

Hillary’s on board now as the next Presidential sweepstakes begins to churn. She’s as progressive and hawkish as they come in the Democratic middle. Right now she’s the Democrat’s best hope for the next Presidential round. I’d have to support her. Hillary’s victory would be historic, too.

But if you’re looking for a President to stand up to Israel, I doubt she’s the one. Like Obama – and her husband – Hillary is indebted to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That wing is heavily minority and Jewish. The old grand Democratic coalition remains. It’s just more diverse and colorful.

True, Hillary might bow out. Or fade out. Much of her power depends on how active her husband remains in the next few years. Bill has recovered from his 2008 primary low and is, once again, riding high. As Super Surrogate, some pundits think the former President was the deciding factor in Obama’s re-election. His ties to Jewish funding are legendary.

If Hillary is going to make a run she has to test the waters soon. This means Bill has to test the waters with her. If Hillary runs and wins, it means that the Clintons would have been major political actors for more than sixteen years. If successful, add four to eight years. A quarter of a century is a long time in American politics. As well, it’s a huge chunk of Israel’s existence as a state.

If we contrast President’s Carter and Clinton on the Middle East, you see how far America’s dealing with the Middle East has changed in recent years.

Obviously, their respective Presidencies saw significant differences in policies and accomplishments regarding Israel and the Middle East. Their post-Presidential years are equally telling. Released from the confines of the Presidency, Carter ventured into a deeply critical understanding of Israel/Palestine. Clinton retreated into silence. We can only speculate if he would have gone Carter if Hillary wasn’t still in the political game.

After losing his reelection bid, Carter retired from politics – or was retired. Carter had nothing to hold him back from speaking the truth. For Hillary, but also for his own ego, Clinton remained in the political game. Going out on the Israel/Palestine limb isn’t conducive to remaining active in the American political landscape. If nothing else, Clinton is intelligent. Why dig his own political grave with the epitaph: ‘Principle.’

If we think about politics seriously, self-interest has to be considered elemental. Ask yourself, why President Obama or Hillary or former President Clinton would seriously challenge Israel in the coming years. What possible benefit could accrue to them by such a challenge? Who would jump on their bandwagon and have their back?

There are only political negatives for a commitment to a just peace for Israel/Palestine. Every politician interested in saving his or her skin would immediately declare such a policy change heretical.

Simply because the American system is unable to move doesn’t mean that history stands still. History is open. We need to be prepared if and when events make movement of the ethical compass possible.

Strange, that President Obama and Hillary Clinton, as historic figures, can mean so much and so little at the same time. It just goes to show that breakthroughs in history in one arena can also mean stalemate in another.

We like to think that it all goes together. Justice for one is justice for all. Unfortunately, in history, it rarely it happens that way.

Another Election Day life lesson.

12 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ok, I get your point. If I had connected all the dots to your earlier articles, maybe I wouldn’t have used the word melancholic for the the two-instead-of-four-years considering pressure from party politics, and while maybe still struggling with never quite gone hope would have preferred the term realistic?

Very interesting idea, that Clinton might have “gone Carter” without Hillary’s career to think about. I suspect the whole Zionist fundraising thing will be a bit weaker next time– that there will be room to run without kowtowing to it. Nevertheless the idea of a Hillary candidacy makes even the left side of the Yankee infield seem youthful.

Progressive? Bill Clinton is a founder of the “third way” Democratic Leadership Council — the only thing Progressive about the DLC is the name of its thinktank, the Progressive Policy Institute. The DLC has always been a strong link between the goals of the Israel Lobby and fundraising from major Zionist donors to the Democratic Party. Hillary further strengthened those ties during her years as a senator from New York, with her well-known skill at getting donations from “the Democrats’ ATM.” During the 2008 primaries, Obama made some major deals with the Clintons in order to get her endorsement and to serve as SOS. Whatever Obama’s Middle East plans may be, as long as Clinton is SOS (considering her 2016 ambitions), he will not be upsetting the Israel Lobby and DLC donors too much. If there is any change in Obama’s ME policy, I doubt it will be obvious before she is replaced in January.

Bill Clinton made himself a prisoner (or more of a prisoner than otherwise) when Hilary ran for Senate, etc. At that point, he couldn’t “jump ship”.

Obama makes himself a prisoner if he doesn’t “jump ship” and act independent of The Lobby (and also, probably, independent of Congress, Democratic candidates for 2016, etc.)

I don’t expect him to “jump ship.”

BUT: how he can act on America’s FIRST and GREATEST problem (GLOBAL WARMING) and OTHER big problem (BANKING and too big to fail, and bringing the world economy down on top of itself) without “jumping ship” and making himself independent of big-money, I cannot imagine, for big money is in control, whether it be big-banks, big-fossil-fuels, or big-Zion.

RE: “But if you’re looking for a President to stand up to Israel, I doubt she’s the one. Like Obama – and her husband – Hillary is indebted to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” ~ Marc Ellis

MY COMMENT: It’s far worse than that! ! !

● SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

[EXCERPT] If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban (who is also a “funder of the Democratic Party” – J.L.D.), there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack.
He [Saban] discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:

When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious
person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews.
We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.” . . .

SOURCE – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/06/haim-saban/40714/

● ALSO SEE: Thinktank [Foundation for Defense of Democracies] that promoted war w/ Iraq (& now Iran) was funded by Steinhardt, Saban, Bronfman, Feith and Marcus (of Home Depot)https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2011/07/thinktank-that-promoted-war-w-iraq-now-iran-was-funded-by-steinhardt-saban-bronfman-feith-and-marcus-of-home-depot.html

● P.S. “FREE DON” SIEGELMAN PETITION – http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-please-restore-justice-and-pardon-my-dad