Perhaps she is desperate to compete with the Republican presidential candidates and show that she too can be a thoughtless buffoon. Perhaps she is making a bid to prove that service as Secretary of State need not impart the occupant of that office with any wisdom or foresight in the conduct of foreign policy. Perhaps she is pandering shamelessly to a powerful and increasingly fanatical and self-destructive lobby in Washington, D.C.
Whatever the case, Hillary Clinton’s latest pronouncements of support for the colonial regime in Israel demonstrate that she would prove to be a very dangerous President in her conduct of foreign policy: dangerous when it comes to preserving the sovereignty of U.S. decision-making; dangerous for the rights of a Palestinian population that has suffered intolerable conditions under Israeli colonial rule; and dangerous for Israeli citizens who will continue to be targets for attack because of the behavior of their terroristic government.
Clinton’s hangers-on maintain that “her support for the negotiation process and touting support for Israel are not contradictory…a strong deal is good for Israel in her view”.
In principle this is true. But what matters is the nature of Clinton’s support. The former Secretary of State has offered Israel unconditional support, even when its government is at its most violent, irrational, and self-destructive. She offered unconditional support when the colonial military was massacring civilians with bombardments, rendering tensor hundreds of Palestinians homeless, and bombing UN facilities with no links to Israel’s adversaries.
This kind of support does contradict her support for negotiations, because Israel has no need to negotiate in good faith if it knows it can count on the uncritical and un-moderated support of the world’s superpower to provide it with material and moral ammunition for use against a beleaguered population.
As Politico reported, Clinton used her meetings with pro-Israel donors to stress her closeness to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a racist proponent of colonial rule, a religious fundamentalist, who has attacked U.S. officials for their diplomatic efforts and sought to undermine the U.S. government by offering lies about the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
One attendee noted that Clinton stressed “in no uncertain terms her full and fervent support of the state of Israel and the defense of the state of Israel”.
It is the “fervent” rather than thought-out nature of Clinton’s interventions—as Secretary of State and as a presidential candidate—in these debates which demonstrates the threat she poses to the well-being of U.S, Israeli, and Palestinian citizens.
Her views are offered with no reference to the material and historical conditions in Israel and its colony. They are set out based on her personal closeness to colonial authorities, with no effort to balance those by citing the views of those on the other side of the debate. And they appear to be driven in part by opportunistic electioneering rather than any effort to bring to a close one of the last remaining examples of colonialism in the world…a condition from which colonists in the U.S. and people in the Americas, Asia, and Africa have been freeing themselves for the past 250 years.
There will be a great many other issues—most of them more pressing to U.S. citizens than this—debated during the course of the presidential primaries and elections. But the fact that Hillary Clinton’s sympathies—here as when it comes to economic and financial policy—are with the wealthy and powerful rather than with the weak and the poor suggests that she, and the Republican candidates with whom she shares most of these views, are unfit to serve as representatives of the majority of Americans, or to offer genuine help to the majority of Israeli and Palestinian citizens.