Trending Topics:

Hillary Clinton’s flipflop: We were wrong to take hard line against settlements

on 65 Comments
AP photo of Clinton and Netanyahu, 2010

AP photo of Clinton and Netanyahu, 2010

In her forthcoming memoir, Hillary Clinton generally aligns herself with President Obama but distances herself at the margins: She had a different take on Syria and the Bowe Bergdahl deal, she says.

But in at least one respect the former secretary of state faults herself and the Obama administration: We were wrong to draw a hard line on settlements.

By the way, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 in part by running to George H.W. Bush’s right on settlements. Bush had drawn a hard line against them. Not Clinton. He raised a lot of money on that basis.

Haaretz reports on Clinton’s flipflop:

Former U.S. Secretary of State claims in a new memoir that the American administration made a tactical error by demanding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze construction in the settlements in 2009.
“In retrospect, our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work,” Clinton writes in Hard Choices, to be released next week, AP reported.
Clinton, widely estimated in Washington to vie to the presidency in 2016, writes in her memoir that the demand for a construction freeze in the West Bank only hardened the stance of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who eventually rejected negotiations because the freeze did not include East Jerusalem…

On the other hand, she discusses the tattered relationship between the Israeli prime minister and President Obama, and notes the latter’s fury when Israel announced new settlement construction during a state visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden.

Speaking of the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, this is delicious/awful: it goes both ways, Netanyahu “loathes” Obama. And his enmity for the president is undermining Israel’s security, says the leader of the opposition Labor Party. From the Times of Israel:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “loathes” Barack Obama, and his hostile attitude to the US president constitutes a danger to Israel’s well-being, the head of the Israeli opposition charged on Friday night, in a highly unusual acknowledgement of the long-rumored strained personal ties between the two leaders.

In a bitter verbal assault on the prime minister, Labor party chairman Isaac Herzog slammed Netanyahu for failing to listen to the international community, failing to present peace proposals of his own for an accord with the Palestinians, and failing to work properly with Obama.

It was “a tragedy” that Netanyahu had not presented a peace plan, and was instead “dragged” into responding to other proposals, said Herzog. “The second tragedy, that endangers the security of Israel, is his loathing and hostility for Barack Obama,” Herzog went on, describing this as “one of Netanyahu’s gravest failures.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

65 Responses

  1. seafoid on June 7, 2014, 12:10 pm

    Yeah, it was so wrong to “come down hard” on the settlements, even if come down hard meant they never stopped growing.

    “Hello, can I ask which of you is flying?
    Moriah: I’m going for three weeks. I have a friend who has American citizenship and now lives in Louisiana, and I am going to visit her. I haven’t seen her for a long time. We might go on from there to Miami or Mexico.
    Valerie: But the good life is really here in Israel!
    Who are the escorts?
    Moriah: My sister and my aunt, Valerie. Family. Who else would take me to the airport?
    Valerie: I actually immigrated to Israel from France because of them.
    Because of my sister, their mother. I immigrated 18 years ago, 10 years after her. I would always come to visit, and I like best being with my nephews and nieces.
    Were you born Jewish?
    Of course. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in Paris, but if you want to be Jewish it’s better here. All my siblings are here now, thank God. After I married, it was obvious that I would raise my children here. I didn’t want everything around to have to do with gentiles.
    Did your husband agree to come here?
    It was understood. My husband grew up in France and it was clear to him, too. We were married here and we have, thank God, five children, touch wood.
    How did you end up in Kiryat Arba?
    At first I lived in Jerusalem and went to an ulpan [Hebrew-language course]. My sister already lived in Kiryat Arba, and I saw that there was a pleasant atmosphere there. I liked the way the children were growing up. Kiryat Arba has changed for the better – it used to be said that only settlers live there, today it has everything. ”

    It’s important that Jews can live anywhere they want in Erez Israel and have easy access to the airport, even if that means that 5 million people live half lives of poverty and restricted movement.

    And Kiryat Arba is fabulous- it has everything, although still no Palestinians.
    But they wouldn’t understand and they love their lives.

    And this Jim Crow is going to fly indefinitely, is it? Hill needs the money but which Dem is going to follow his or her people and pull the plug ?

    • on June 7, 2014, 1:02 pm

      all this talk here by these israeli jews of whether satanyahoo did a bad job not offering peace deals is totally irrelevant. every logical thinking open minded nonbrainwashed human who has been following the palestine crisis knows full well by now that the likud government has not, does not, nor will ever, EVER, want true fair peace with the palestinians, they want to ethnically cleanse them from palestine, all this talk about peace is nothing but rhetoric and deception to keep on their land stealing and home building with the “nicey-nice” sound of referring to it as settlements.

    • a blah chick on June 7, 2014, 6:32 pm

      Bet you she’s hanging onto those French passports.

      • seafoid on June 8, 2014, 1:29 am

        Valerie: But the good life is really here in Israel!

        In Kiryat Arba

  2. Kay24 on June 7, 2014, 12:14 pm

    Aw, someone is running for President. First please Israel/AIAPC, then the rest will follow. Shame on Hillary for already showing her devotion and loyalty to the alien nation, whose tune she will dance to. If Adelson cannot buy the White House for Israel, then this is the next best thing. If Hillary does not show she disagrees with what President Obama has done regarding Israel, then chances are she will lose.
    Israel will interfere even more the next Presidential elections, in ways we will never know. It is so sad that even our elections are made so toxic by a despicable, alien nation. Damn all those who interfere in our politics, and policies.

  3. annie on June 7, 2014, 12:32 pm

    what pandering.

    the demand for a construction freeze in the West Bank only hardened the stance of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who eventually rejected negotiations

    no blame for the israelis!

    this is not the 90’s. if she runs to the right of settlements she’ll lose more lefties than she’ll gain on the right. i won’t vote for her, i’ll stay home if it comes down to her.

    • LeaNder on June 7, 2014, 1:33 pm

      I lost all respect for Hillary during her election campaign. And I actually respect Americans collectively that they did not choose her. Admittedly, I was impressed by the way she handled the Lewinsky affair of her husband. American Puritanism gone politics.

      Somewhat I doubt, but it would be very helpful if journalist paid a lot of attention to everything she writes about Netanyahu and Israel in her book. Maybe then even money won’t work. On the other hand I am not holding my breath.

    • Kay24 on June 7, 2014, 1:34 pm

      I don’t think I’ll vote for her either, or any candidate who professes love and protection for Israel. In the US, supporting Israel means putting it above even their own country. I guess this time I will be staying home too. :))

    • Blownaway on June 7, 2014, 1:48 pm

      Is there any doubt now about her intention to run for president? Another setback for Palestine. All her advisors are Jewish. I have yet to hear her say anything about Any issue important for Americans. No one should doubt the perfidy of the Clinton’s.

      • MHughes976 on June 7, 2014, 3:27 pm

        According to the latest poll I saw, CNN May 6, she has a 2:1 lead over all comers for the Democratic nomination. Only a person with a very strong mind would not walk through a door that was open that wide.
        But somehow I feel that in their hearts the Israelis don’t trust her.

      • hungrydave on June 8, 2014, 6:53 am

        The problem for Hilary is that the Israelis are so spoiled now that nothing short of declaring all of “Judea and Samaria” for the jews and sponsoring a UN resolution that declares palestinians to be a non-human, non-existant people will please them. Hilary won’t be able to go that far because she also has to consider diplomacy with other countries that would be outraged by such an announcement, not to mention a democratic base that is shifting left on this issue.
        Remember that there are a sizeable number of people in Israel that consider Netanyahu a traitor for even talking empty words about a two state solution and consider Derschowitz an anti-semite for acknowledging that there is an occupation.
        As Obama found out, it’s not enough to just hand the Israelis a stack of cash anymore, nothing short of complete devotion to them and their narrative will soothe their anxious souls.

    • CloakAndDagger on June 7, 2014, 2:02 pm

      If she gets elected, I am emigrating to China. You would be surprised how wrong our perceptions of China are because of the demonization done by our compliant press.

  4. Baldur on June 7, 2014, 12:37 pm

    This is actually a very interesting development. The race for nomination for presidential candidate of the Democratic party might now also feature the I/P discussion, if she really has taken such a turn to the right on this issue.

    • Donald on June 7, 2014, 1:06 pm

      “The race for nomination for presidential candidate of the Democratic party might now also feature the I/P discussion, if she really has taken such a turn to the right on this issue.”

      Tell me which Democratic candidate with a serious shot at winning is going to raise this issue? As far as Democratic politicians are concerned, she’s right smack in the mainstream. Politicians don’t sell their souls on issues because they’re stupid–they do it because they think it’s the smart political thing to do as far as their personal ambitions are concerned.

      • Kay24 on June 7, 2014, 1:29 pm

        Good point. No politician from either party is going to raise this issue, in fact what they will do is, praise Israel, and that he/she will always protect it, and help it “defend” itself (no mention about the brutal occupation or despicable land grabs of course). NO candidate in any US election, will criticize Israel or condemn it’s crimes.

      • AlGhorear on June 8, 2014, 12:53 pm

        That why I voted for Jill Stein in the last election and will likely vote for whoever the Green Party candidate is in the next one. Better to go and vote my conscience than stay home.

      • ritzl on June 8, 2014, 3:23 pm

        Same here, AG.

      • pabelmont on June 8, 2014, 11:56 am

        Donald: Yes, probably ONLY personal ambitions, together with “get us a Gal for President” and other semi-personal stuff. But if (a big if) she believes that she would beat a TeaPartier and no other Dem would do so, then she might run not for personal ambition but for the good of something bigger (the world, the nation, the party).

        I would strongly want not to vote for ANYONE who pandered to AIPAC as they all do, but whom else can one vote for? And there are other issues which matter. Do we all know how to hold our noses at the polling place?

    • Rusty Pipes on June 7, 2014, 9:50 pm

      The development is not what she has said, but where she has said it: not at an AIPAC convention but in her campaign-launching book for the general public. The Democratic base has shifted even more since the last time she ran in a primary: the majority of Americans still oppose military intervention in Syria and the majority of delegates at the last Democratic convention voted against the Zionist amendments to the platform. The Democratic base thinks that Obama has been caving too much to right-wing hawkish nuts like Netanyahu, not too little. The only reason that HRC is polling so well this far before the primaries is because no serious contenders to her left have thrown their hats in the ring.

      • john h on June 8, 2014, 12:55 am

        I so hope you are right, Rusty. She would be a disaster.

      • piotr on June 8, 2014, 7:46 am

        It is not like the Administration did not experiment with a “soft line”. That did not work splendidly either.

        And when a hard line is replaced by a softline within a short amount of time, where was it on the Mohs scale? Diamond? Quartz? Talcum?

      • pabelmont on June 8, 2014, 11:59 am

        piotr: America never experimented with anything! Never! Because they all knew that AIPAC would punish any deviation. [Altho IRAN?] But all presidential public talk is to the world or to Americans — sound (without fury) signifying nothing.

    • Daniel Rich on June 7, 2014, 10:20 pm

      @ Baldur,

      The Chinese are the Americans of Asia. But, yeah, I get it.

      I also wonder what the dinner conversations with Chelsea’s in-laws are about, don’t you?

  5. Donald on June 7, 2014, 1:05 pm

    Posted response to Baldur in wrong spot. See somewhere above.

  6. German Lefty on June 7, 2014, 1:14 pm

    We were wrong to draw a hard line on settlements.

    OMG! How disgusting! I knew that Hillary is terrible, but I had no idea that she is THIS terrible.
    At first, she will raise enough money by sucking up to wealthy Zionists. Then, she will garner enough votes by simply being a woman. Boom! Presidency!
    Actually, the problem with the “hard line” was that it wasn’t hard at all. Only carrot (military aid) and no stick (BDS).

  7. seafoid on June 7, 2014, 1:17 pm

    The whole Israel thing is very like the US stock market. It’s too scary to think about the risk so just take the money and pretend everything is normal. Anyway, it’ll blow up on someone else’s watch.

  8. Empiricon on June 7, 2014, 1:53 pm

    An American presidential hopeful “fellates the donkey”. I mean, really, is anyone surprised???

  9. ckg on June 7, 2014, 2:00 pm

    The memoir also says that she and Obama split over supporting Mubarak during the Egyptian revolution

    Clinton says reasons for maintaining close ties with Mubarak remained: the need to isolate Iran, keep the Suez Canal trade route open, protect Israel’s security and combat terrorism in a region where al-Qaida was plotting new attacks.

    Glenn Greenwald’s assessment of Clinton is correct: “She’s a f***ing hawk and like a neocon, practically..”

  10. Talkback on June 7, 2014, 2:23 pm

    Her remarks remind me of the definition of insanity …

    • seafoid on June 7, 2014, 2:29 pm

      They reminded me of Chris Christie apologizing to Adelson for using the term “occupied territories”

      And this

      “Netanyahu explains how he stood up to the U.S., kept building settlements
      ‘Peace talks? What peace talks,’ the Israeli prime minister jokes with supporters from his party.
      Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted of his settlement building achievements in a recent meeting with young Likud supporters. Responding to a question from the audience, Netanyahu said: “I was threatened in Washington: ‘not one brick’ [of settlement construction] … after five years, we built a little more than one brick…”
      Asked “about peace talks with the Palestinians,” Netanyahu reportedly replied, “about the – what?” to which the audience responded by breaking out into laughter”


  11. Empiricon on June 7, 2014, 2:38 pm

    Recall the SNL skit about performing an act of bestiality to prove allegiance to Israel. (The video has apparently been sent down the Memory Hole by Winston Smith.)

  12. just on June 7, 2014, 2:41 pm

    She wanted to “arm the rebels” in Syria — just like Lindsay Graham and McCain. She loved the status quo with Mubarek, and hates Assad. More of the same old, same old BS that we’ve dealt with before. She prolly loves el-Sisi, too. As for Iran, I believe that she really, really wants to bomb it for Israel.

    “Though not officially due for release until Tuesday, a copy of Hard Choices obtained by CBS revealed Clinton’s misgivings about past US negotiations with the Taliban over captured prisoner Bowe Bergdahl. News of such feelings comes just as the political backlash over Obama’s controversial deal last weekend reaches its peak.

    “Opening the door to negotiations with the Taliban would be hard to swallow for many Americans after so many years of war,” Clinton writes, in passages recounting her time as secretary of state that appear to confirm her rumoured unease about Obama’s more recent conclusion of talks.

    On Syria, another foreign policy hotspot over which Obama has been criticised by Republicans for failing to intervene, Clinton is blunter still in signalling that she would have done things differently.

    “The president’s inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels,” she writes, according to CBS. “No one likes to lose a debate … in this case, my position didn’t prevail.””

    Hillary proves herself to be another one who intervenes, but does not negotiate or ‘do’ diplomacy. As for her views/inaction on I/P– she is worse than terrible.

    • Citizen on June 8, 2014, 7:44 am

      On CSPAN WJ this Sunday morning, a segment on Hillary’s competition for POTUS.
      No potential Democratic contender is within even remote range of her in terms of today. The GOP folks interviewed said they have a dozen GOP contenders, including some governors. One said, if Hillary runs “one of the debate issues will certainly be foreign policy.”

      If so, I imagine it will be once again a debate on who loves Israel more? Seems both parties will mostly be taking the neocon (PNAC) POV, but they will be addressing a public more sick of war, intervention, foreign aid, and more aware of the I-P issues.

  13. Hostage on June 7, 2014, 3:10 pm

    “In retrospect, our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work,” Clinton writes in Hard Choices, to be released next week, AP reported.

    That’s because it wasn’t a “hard line” at all. The Obama administration never called the settlements illegal and immediately backpedaled on the issue of the Green Line and starting the Mitchell negotiations over on the basis of previous agreements (something we still insist that Hamas must accept, but not Netanyahu). When Clinton said that G.W. Bush’s letter to Sharon wasn’t a US policy, Netanyahu jumped on a plane and came to D.C. to address the Congress and AIPAC and obtain a concession from Obama that the final frontiers will be different from the 4 June 1967 line. Then Obama vetoed a Security council resolution because it said the settlements were illegal.

    We have declassified documents that show that Secretary Rusk told Israel the settlements violate Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions and resolution 242. But we also have records of conversations between US and Israeli government officials, regarding reports in the New York Times on the plans for permanent settlements by Hedrick Smith, in which the Assistant Secretaries of State (Lucien Battle and Nicholas Katzenbach) stressed the importance of the need to avoid airing differences of opinion between Israel and the US in the public press, e,g. See paragraph 4 and footnote 4 link to

    It’s high time for our government to publicly tell the Israelis that they are behaving like criminals and that they’ll end up in the dock at the Hague, unless they comply with international law and the relevant UN resolutions.

  14. seafoid on June 7, 2014, 5:37 pm

    Hillary -“We were wrong to take a hard line against donor money. How shortsighted of us. The money can live anywhere. And the Palestinians have no money.”

    • Citizen on June 7, 2014, 6:42 pm

      @ seafoid
      Bingo. She’s totally banal, a tiny politician offering herself to be POTUS, where it would be nice, for once, to have a leader. She is not a leader. You’d think her and Bill have enough money and influence in their dotage. They only have one child, and the child is already a de facto MOT.

  15. a blah chick on June 7, 2014, 6:38 pm

    Concerning Mr Sara’s antipathy to our president my blah-dar tells me that it’s as much a questions of hue as anything. I query whether he has ever said anything more than “coffee, no cream” to any person of color.

  16. seafoid on June 7, 2014, 6:49 pm

    I think she is wrong on arming the Syrian rebels, on trouser suits and now this

    • Citizen on June 8, 2014, 7:51 am

      She says she wanted to arm “the moderates” battling the Syrian regime. Didn’t we arm the “moderate” Taliban fighting the Bear in Afghanistan? And didn’t Nuland more recently give the “moderate” Nazis in Ukraine $5B?

  17. hophmi on June 7, 2014, 8:28 pm

    She expresses the same view as Aaron David Miller and many others who felt that all the United States accomplished by pushing for a settlement freeze was boxing in the parties politically by giving the Palestinians an excuse to insist on a settlement freeze before coming to the table (something they hadn’t done before) and by antagonizing the Israeli right and restricting Netanyahu’s maneuverability.

    But I know you guys don’t operate in the real world, so I don’t expect you to get that.

    • john_manyjars on June 8, 2014, 10:31 pm

      “But I know you guys don’t operate in the real world, so I don’t expect you to get that.”

      The stink of your fear is filling the room. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history- the Apartheid side?

    • pjdude on June 9, 2014, 4:58 am

      it is the fundemental basics of negiotaiting that neither side strives to alter what is being negiotated over while talks are happening. that you somehow think its acceptable speaks ill of you. I wonder how much you’d like it if you weren’t a member of the side with the power.

    • Woody Tanaka on June 9, 2014, 8:07 am

      Nonsense. They correctly diagnosed that the core of the dispute is the Zionist lust for theft, which has existed from the earliest days of European Jews dreaming of stealing someone else’s land and ethnically cleansing them. The Zionist lust for theft hasn’t changed but Hillary and Obama were fools for believing that the Israelis want peace — they don’t — or that the domestic Zionist fifth column, I-firsters, traitors, etc. in the US would get on board to promote what’s good for the US, rather to being tools for this alien state.

  18. Qualtrough on June 7, 2014, 10:25 pm

    A loathsome woman who goes which ever way the political wind takes her even if it means death and destruction. I remember a time when many feminists claimed that the world would be a more peaceful place if only more women were in positions of power. Would that it were true. Sadly, Golda Meir, India Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton and a host of others put paid to that idea.

  19. TwoRedDogs on June 8, 2014, 3:09 am

    Hillary foolishly thinks all this hawkishness is going to help her win in 2016. We are not going to elect a GWB wannabe.

  20. wes on June 8, 2014, 6:36 am

    Hilary clinton can do it ,together with livni,time has come.raise the big tent.the cirus is coming to town.

  21. hungrydave on June 8, 2014, 7:22 am

    Of course Netanyahu hates Obama. Netanyahu is a very racist man and Obama is black. There’s no particular reason to believe that Netanyahu’s racism starts and ends with the Palestinians, they’re just more commonly on his radar.
    Netanyahu didn’t like being dictated to by a black man, which is why he went to all that effort to humiliate Obama and show him who’s the boss, standing ovations in congress etc.

  22. Citizen on June 8, 2014, 9:28 am

    Did anyone else miss MJ Rosenberg’s chat about just how AIPAC operates to make Congress hired help? Annual AIPAC Conference time is the most dreaded time of year for our congress critters: 03/05/14 M.J. Rosenberg gives Americans the scoop on #AIPAC & how it operates to make Congress hired help for Israel

  23. Citizen on June 8, 2014, 9:53 am

    Comment from the Israeli Haaretz press on her new book content: Hilary’s groveling for AIPAC is pathetic!
    By Mark 07 Jun 201409:55PM
    Elections, elections, elections…Hillary, when Biden arrived in Israel and Bibi announced settlement tenders on the same day, you said “it was a slap on the face!” Back then, you were a Secretary of State, but now you want to conquer the candidacy of the Dem Party by surrendering your dignity (and land from the Palestinians!) in the hopes such a silly, predictable move would fetch you endor$ment$ from AIPAC…Truth is, ladies and gentlemen, the problem isn’t settlements, settlers, or Judeo-fascism–it’s the USA and their congressional bickering that supports them. Yes, when Dems and Reps fight, Palestinians get screwed and Israel comes out unscathed and $3B richer every year. USA IS the problem, not Israel.

  24. seafoid on June 8, 2014, 10:14 am

    The EU is going in the opposite direction to the Dems

    Barroso tells Israel to get real
    “If no peace negotiations take place and no progress is made, the EU and Israel will have to address contentious and divisive issues, including further acceleration of the EU’s policy on disengagement from the settlements. On these matters – which touch upon core values held dear throughout the EU – the Union will be compelled to act in accordance with its beliefs and its rules.

    In the long term, security and prosperity can only be sustained if the right makes the might and not the other way round. There will always be those who resist peace, but for leaders on both sides, even if it may seem politically safer to keep the status quo, it is important to put the strategic interests of their countries and their people above short-term considerations. I am firmly convinced that ultimately the path of negotiations and of a two state solution is the only one that will lead to a secure and prosperous Israel”

    • MHughes976 on June 8, 2014, 11:35 am

      To my mind, not thinking that the 2ss could be a real and stable ‘solution’, the cry ‘End the occupation for the sake of your own security and prosperity’ is as morally misleading and as deceptive as ‘Live without a solution’.
      I see that Marine Le Pen claims to be, in effect, a liberal anti-settlement Zionist, whilst Nigel Farage thinks that her party is anti-Semitic (Guardian April 20th if I remember an internet page that I’ve just been looking at correctly). If Barroso barrels on with his anti-settlement rhetoric will Farage and his calls for UK independence receive Israeli support in next year’s UK election, I wonder?

      • pabelmont on June 8, 2014, 12:09 pm

        Many hard-right Europeans are anti-semitic: they want to get rid of the Jews who live among them (also Moslems, Blacks, etc., just like some Southern Baptists, etc., in the good ole USA). But they are NOT anti-Israel, for they are conservative hawks and revere any “strong hand”, any imperialist. They worship violence, the overthrow of international law (they don’t like restrictions on their own behavior, which would like to be violent. They are like out neocons.)

      • MHughes976 on June 8, 2014, 12:25 pm

        I’m not able to sit in judgement on Ms. Le Pen, but there is indeed no logical reason why someone who genuinely qualifies as anti-Semite, badly prejudiced against things Jewish in good ole Europe, should not also be a Zionist, thinking that if Jews had what was due to them in the ME and would only transform themselves into just another foreign group, safely based in a foreign territory, we would not have to worry about their alleged bad influence here. Subject to correction I have an idea that the mercurial Kaiser Bill sometimes thought along those lines.

      • seafoid on June 8, 2014, 3:11 pm

        Maybe it’ll end up as another wing of BDS

        The EU pays for a lot of what Israel won’t.

    • just on June 8, 2014, 11:19 pm

      WHAT happened here???

      “JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel on Sunday signed a key European-funded scientific research program despite guidelines barring funding to settlement-linked projects, officials said.

      The signing of the Horizon 2020 agreement took place at a ceremony in Jerusalem presided over by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and outgoing European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

      “Horizon 2020 offers a huge opportunity to enhance the traditionally active cooperation between Israeli and EU innovators. Under terms of the agreement, Israel will have the same access to the program as EU member states,” the European Commission said.

      Signing the deal, which makes Israel the only non-European country to benefit from the program, was made possible after the sides reached an agreement over guidelines which bar all funding for entities operating on land seized during the 1967 Six Day War.

      The guidelines angered Israel because it would have meant recognizing in writing that the settlements — which are illegal under international law — are not part of Israel in any future EU agreements.

      But under terms of a compromise reached late last year, it was agreed that Israel could add an appendix stating its non-recognition of the new guidelines.

      Since the EU said it would stop grants and funding for any Israeli entity operating over the 1967 lines, a growing number of international bodies have taken similar steps to cut ties, in a move that has sparked alarm in Israel.”

      criminal– an ‘appendix’, another pass, in Jerusalem. Shame, shame, shame on EU and Barrosa.

  25. wondering jew on June 8, 2014, 11:14 am

    You can depend on it: Netanyahu will favor the Republican candidate in 2016. But Clinton gets money from people who support Israel and Netanyahu’s druthers count in a certain segment, but don’t make the difference with Jewish Democrats who are looking for a candidate. Hillary predominates the expectations regarding nomination in a way that I can not recall a parallel.

    • LeaNder on June 8, 2014, 12:00 pm

      yonah, I would like to understand this better than I do.

      Netanyahu’s druthers count in a certain segment, but don’t make the difference with Jewish Democrats who are looking for a candidate. Hillary predominates the expectations regarding nomination in a way that I can not recall a parallel.

      Nethanyahu’s choices are paid attention to in American Jewish circles? With the exception of Jewish democrats? They are a different matter. They will look for a different candidate?

      Well Hillary is a democrat. Isn’t she. Although, maybe with a slight neoconservative tinge?

      Expectations that Hillary will win the primaries are much higher than during any earlier pre-election time you witnessed?

      What exactly do you have in mind here. Media generally, or only the American Jewish community and their media?

  26. German Lefty on June 8, 2014, 11:50 am

    I just had a look at the comment to a German article about Hillary’s possible run for president:
    Almost all of the 30 comments are negative. Most people write that (1) she would be even worse than Obama or that (2) nothing will change because policies are determined by the people who write out the cheques.

  27. Reds on June 8, 2014, 12:00 pm

    Settler-tary of State.

  28. lyn117 on June 8, 2014, 12:40 pm

    To say that Hillary actually took a hard line on settlements is rather a re-write of history.

  29. MHughes976 on June 8, 2014, 4:26 pm

    I mentioned the wide open door for a Hillary Clinton Democratic nomination. I’ve just been looking at the Real Clear Politics Pres. polls 2016 list, which I think is if anything Republican-leaning. It is a sea of huge leads for Clinton over every so far imagined Republican challenger, with the one intriguing exception that Rand Paul would just win in New Hampshire – but would lose massively in Florida and Pennsylvania. If ever I saw anyone nominated before the nomination and elected before the election, this is she. With the possible exception of Sisi.

  30. just on June 8, 2014, 6:09 pm

    All I can say about Hillary’s comment that “We were wrong to take hard line against settlements” is that obviously she does not believe in international law, and probably doesn’t see peace and justice as “do-able” or worth her time. She does know that we give billions of our dollars to Israel, right? If we can’t be tough with Israel, who can? Or are we like the friend who lets their friend drive drunk, only to bail him out after he has an ‘accident’ and kills some folks — all the while making excuses for that friend and blaming the dead victims who got in his way?

    As for Netanyahu’s “loathing and hostility for Mr. Obama”– kma! He’s insulting every single American. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you– why do we even bother?

    BDS is the only way forward. BDS, coupled with Mr. Hancock’s idea, would be best.

Leave a Reply