Trending Topics:

When Israel attacked Gaza, killing 100 civilians, Hillary Clinton said we have to support it ‘110 percent’

Israel/Palestine
on 15 Comments
Then-Secretary of State Clinton meets Netanyahu at Blair House, DC, March 2012. State Dept photo by Michael Gross

Then-Secretary of State Clinton meets Netanyahu at Blair House, DC, March 2012. State Dept photo by Michael Gross

This Economist review of HRC, a favorable new biography of Hillary Clinton by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, says the superficial account doesn’t tell us much about the opaque former secretary of state’s ideas about foreign policy. But she sure likes Israel– 110 percent behind it, during the Gaza operation Pillar of Cloud in November 2012. That incursion killed 167 Palestinians, about 100 of them civilians.

And she has a better relationship with Israel than Obama has (Cha-ching) and seems to have been holding Netanyahu’s hand during the incursion:

An account of crisis meetings in 2012 with the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, amid Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and talk of a full-scale Israeli counter-attack, notes that Mrs Clinton and aides “noshed on fruit and cookies” and that Mrs Clinton was worried about getting home to spend Thanksgiving with her family. There is higher-calibre gossip. Before Mrs Clinton flew to Israel, the same account explains, Mr Obama used a chat aboard Air Force One to ask his secretary of state to stay on an extra year, but was turned down.

What is missing is information that will still matter in even a few years’ time. True, loose-lipped staffers tell the authors how, as the Gaza crisis unfolded, Mrs Clinton told colleagues: “We’ve gotta support Israel one hundred and ten per cent here.” The authors briskly assert that Mrs Clinton had a good relationship with the Israelis; “certainly better than Obama had”. But this gap between president and secretary of state is not explored any further.

The book is equally at a loss when it comes to Mrs Clinton’s thinking on Afghanistan, and whether she really believed that a comprehensive settlement there, involving the Taliban, Pakistan, the Afghan government and America, was possible, as her own pugnacious envoy Richard Holbrooke insisted. “There is disagreement to this day” about her views, the authors sigh.

Thanks to Rusty Pipes.

Update: Original post said that Hillary was supporting Israel during Cast Lead, in 2008-2009, when 700 civilians were killed. She certainly was doing that but the quote refers to the 2012 operation. Apologies. Thanks to Alex Kane for correction.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

15 Responses

  1. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 19, 2014, 10:13 am

    “We’ve gotta support Israel one hundred and ten per cent here.”

    It didn’t help Regev though

  2. Walid
    Walid
    February 19, 2014, 11:52 am

    Does it bother Israelis to be used by US politicians or are they are enjoying the kissing up to them? Is Clinton using Netanyahu or is it the other way around?

  3. Les
    Les
    February 19, 2014, 1:42 pm

    She is the same racist who, as Senator, supported Bush’s kidnapping of Haiti’s President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Central African Republic.

    • RudyM
      RudyM
      February 19, 2014, 3:32 pm

      During the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon, she said: “We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones.”

      http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5229557855c050d845927de4f673f86a

      (Whoops. Wasn’t meant to go in that spot.)

    • spktruth200
      spktruth200
      July 13, 2015, 7:29 pm

      I don’t trust Hilary Clinton for a minute. She is watching Bernie Sanders with HUGE crowds, as citizens respond to his TRUTH talk. Clinton will say anything to get elected. She has always been a neo con, a rethug, and a wall street baroness. What she did to Honduras as Sec. of State is that of a war criminal. She and Lanny Davis a thug overthrew the democratically elected president and installed a drug cartel guy who turned Honduras into a Drug State (its why all those kids rode those trains to get to the US, rather than be forced into the Drug Trade, murder etc. She is responsible for the complete destruction of Libya…a failed state. Now we know she made a deal with France to invade Libya and steal their oil. She should never be president of the US, her track record is as bad as any right wing republican. Vote Sanders and Warren, with a lifetime of supporting citizens over corporations and the military industrial complex. She is big on the TPP too!

  4. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    February 19, 2014, 1:52 pm

    Yet I’m sure that the Israelis can’t trust her and know they can’t.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      February 20, 2014, 9:33 am

      And what evidence would there be for that? That they can’t trust her. She has always gone along with whatever Israel and the I lobby wants. She is a neoconish as Bill Kristol. She started repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Iran soon after the invasion of Iraq (that she voted for in the 2002 Iraq war resolution). She supported Cast Lead and the killing of Palestinians. Where has she demonstrated that she will not only go along but be a major pusher of Israel and the U.S.’s military aggression. She is one of the most serious war hawks around.

      Anyone else amazed at the coverage Rachel Maddow etc giving the protest in Kiev? Ever see her or any of the MSNBC host give Palestinian non violent protest or any protest this much coverage?

      Alert! Think you will be interested.
      Phil last night on Chris Hayes he interviewed DiBlasio and questioned him about his unquestioned support of Israel. Chris Hayes really drilled him for his statements about full on support no matter what Israel has and continues to do http://www.msnbc.com/all

    • spktruth200
      spktruth200
      July 13, 2015, 7:29 pm

      Israelies trust HER over every candidate. Read the Book, They Dare Speak out, and see what happens to any politican who dares speak against apartheid Israel.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 19, 2014, 2:49 pm

    http://electronicintifada.net/blog/david/we-must-challenge-israeli-mindset-says-rugby-star-turned-blockade-buster

    “It was very interesting to notice the attitude of the Israelis towards us. They couldn’t comprehend why were doing this. What we were doing challenges their mindset and that is why it is such an effective tactic. They treat the Palestinians as if they are subhuman. They don’t think Palestinians deserve to live in a normal society, to be able to import and export and fish and farm. It’s great to be able to meet that mindset head on.”

    Clinton is odious

  6. Boomer
    Boomer
    February 19, 2014, 5:19 pm

    There was a time, after her husband became President, when she said some encouraging things about Palestine. That was when Rabbi Michael Lerner was called her “guru,” and NYT–not being entirely pleased–had a long article about “St. Hillary” and the “politics of virtue.” Lerner didn’t care for this spin on his ideas, and responded here: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-20/opinion/op-4952_1_hillary-clinton

    Of course, that phase didn’t last. For me, disillusion set in when her campaign for Senate began.

    There was also a time, prior to the election of 2008, when young Senator Obama said some things that seemed just possibly constructive and hopeful regarding the I/P situation. For me, disillusion set in early, even before the inauguration, when he declined to issue even a modest call for an end to the killing in Gaza. His silence was “explained” by saying that “there is only one President at a time.” That didn’t prevent him from speaking out on a more important issue, however: the urgent need to defer the switch to digital television, which might force people without digital TVs to get converter boxes.

    I can’t think of a single elected federal official today who talks honestly about I/P and the role the United States plays there . . . and its impact on us. If there is one, perhaps someone will let me know. Ron Paul used to do this to some extent. He was a flawed spokesman, of course, and never more than a marginal figure. Sort of the exception that proves the rule. The response to his comments was telling. I recall that in one of the few Republican debates in which Paul was allowed to participate he alluded to the blowback–including 9/11– from U.S. support of Israel and despots in the Middle East. Mayor Giuliani said, with a straight face, something to the effect that “he had never heard that.” That response pretty much ended the discussion of that subject, as I recall.

    The continued lack of any meaningful discussion of this issue among elected politicians in the U.S. (and those who hope to be elected) is profoundly depressing.

  7. just
    just
    February 19, 2014, 6:22 pm

    Echoes of Albright when she spoke of the killing sanctions on Iraq…….

    If Clinton is elected, America loses and is involved in more wars at the behest of Zionists.

    And Israeli violence, settlements, and oppression and Occupation of the Palestinians will go unchecked and unabated…..

    Terrible and true.

    • RudyM
      RudyM
      February 20, 2014, 12:09 pm

      Hillary and Albright also both share some blame for supporting U.S./NATO intervention and, inevitably, war crimes in the Balkans, and the installation of the repugnant Hashim Thaci in an independent Kosovo. But I guess U.S./NATO needed a reliable partner for its heroin trafficking.

    • Boomer
      Boomer
      February 20, 2014, 8:44 pm

      “If Clinton is elected . . . oppression and Occupation of the Palestinians will go unchecked and unabated…..”

      You may well be right. It is a depressing thought. But even more depressing for me is the reality that it is hard to imagine either party nominating someone who would be substantially different on this issue. Those who like things as they are in Israel/Palestine are firmly in control of U.S. politics on this issue. Or so it seems.

      Americans who are concerned about what U.S. policy has done and is doing to Palestinians are rather like those Americans in the early 19th century who objected to the dispossession and forced removal of native Americans: insignificant in numbers and influence. If someone sees reason for hope for something better, perhaps they will share it. It would be good to have hope.

  8. James Canning
    James Canning
    February 19, 2014, 6:49 pm

    Ed Luce of the Financial Times also reviewed the new book on Hillary Clinton. Ed noted that Hillary played her cards as Secretary of State, with her eye on the road to the White House. (Using different phrasing)

Leave a Reply