Two months ago Chris Christie made the mistake of referring to the “occupied territories.” Now Hillary Clinton is getting flak from a conservative for referring to the “occupation.”
Clinton’s new memoir, Hard Choices, mentions a 1981 trip to the West Bank (per Haaretz):
“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank. I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”
On the CNN television debate show “Crossfire,” cohost S.E. Cupp asked Tracy Sefl, a representative of the pro-Clinton super PAC Ready for Hillary, whether the former secretary of state feels she owes Israel an apology for “using the same language that Chris Christie used”…
Sefl responded, “Hillary Clinton is going to stand by the words in her book. She is not going to apologize for something she need not apologize for,” adding, “I’m unapologetically pro-Israel and Hillary is very, very strong on this. If that’s the tree you want to bark up, I wish you luck.”
What weird standards are being established already, for the U.S. discourse. Last night Chris Matthews touted Hillary Clinton’s unwillingness to come out against Israeli settlements as a positive attribute in an American political candidate: “on settlements, she’s been more than favorable to Israel. When Obama said you have to stop the settlements in order to talk peace, she said, No that’s putting too much pressure on Israel.”
And speaking of standards: Hillary first observed the absence of dignity and self-determination in the occupation herself 33 years ago. What does she intend to do about that? How long must Palestinians wait?
Thanks to Kay24 and Annie Robbins.