RSS Feeds
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it    
Occupation magazine - Commentary

Home page  back Print  Send To friend

The fawning candidate: Hillary Clinton and Apartheid Israel
By: Robert Fantina
10 July 2015

Democratic crown-princess Hillary Clinton is no stranger to the unholy altar
of Israeli worship. She has often expressed her deep, almost romantic love for
that country. Now, concerned about the growing international boycott of
Israel, she has written to one of her major donors, one Haim Saban,
proclaiming again her dedication to Israel, and asking his advice on “how we
can work together—across party lines and with a diverse array of voices—to
reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against
further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.” ‘This trend’ that she
refers to is not in question; she specifically names the ‘Boycott, Divest and
Sanction’ (BDS) movement that has been growing for some time, but that gained
traction following Israel’s most recent genocidal attack on the Gaza Strip
during the summer of 2014.

This writer always finds it interesting to dissect statements by the crowned
heads of the United States, or those patiently awaiting their time on the
throne, to see what sense, if any, can be gleaned from them. He does not
expect to find much sense, and seldom does.

So we will look at a few of the pearls of wisdom that dropped from Mrs.
Clinton’s pen, in her missive to the esteemed Mr. Saban. We’ll look first at
part of the statement noted above.

* “[t]o reverse this trend with information and advocacy.” Unfortunately for
Mrs. Clinton, it is information that is fueling the trend. As the world
becomes more aware of the atrocities Israel commits on a daily basis against
the Palestinians, the BDS movement grows. Mrs. Clinton can advocate all she
wants for a brutal, apartheid regime; people in increasing numbers will still
know it is a brutal and apartheid regime.

* “[f]ight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.”
If the former secretary of state wants to combat the growing isolation of
Israel, it is not the BDS movement she should confront, but the Israeli
government. When the Israeli cabinet includes Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyau, who has flatly stated that there will never be an independent
Palestine while he is prime minister; when the new deputy defense minister,
Rabbi [Eli] Ben-Dahan, responsible for the army’s Civil Administration says
“[Palestinians] are beasts, they are not human”; when Ayelet Shaked, newly-
appointed as justice minister in the new Israeli coalition, says that “the
entire Palestinian people is the enemy”, and should be destroyed, “including
its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its
infrastructure”, it isn’t BDS that is delegitimizing Israel. Israel is doing a
fine job of that on its own.

* Mrs. Clinton, in her letter, advocates for a two-state solution and says
that can only be achieved through “direct negotiations between Israelis and
Palestinians—it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions.”
Mrs. Clinton is clearly reading from an old script here; surely her handlers
could do better. She endorses ‘direct negotiations’ between the two parties as
the solution to the difficulties. She seems to be unaware of some basic tenets
of negotiations. In order for them to be successful, the parties involved must
have a nearly-equal status. Each must have something that is wanted by the
other that can only be obtained by surrendering, in return, something it has.
Mrs. Clinton seeks to be the leader of the nation that allows Israel to take
from Palestine whatever it wants, with complete impunity. She wants to be the
Commander-in-Chief of the country that is responsible for the extreme
inequality between Israel and Palestine, the one that pours billions of
dollars annually into Israel, and nearly nothing into Palestine.

Additionally, Mrs. Clinton apparently disdains international law, which has
long ago declared the occupation of Palestine by Israel to be illegal, and
that recognizes the pre-1967-war borders. Negotiations are not required;
adherence to international law is. Such dismissal of international law does
not bode well for a Clinton presidency.

“The Jewish state is a modern day miracle—a vibrant bloom in the middle of a
desert. We must nurture and protect it.”

One struggles to keep one’s stomach settled when reading such drivel.

It might be worthwhile to ask what country on earth would not become a ‘modern
day miracle’ if the most powerful nation on the planet were to pour billions
and billions of dollars into it. Would any country not flourish if it were
completely unrestrained from international criticism, and able to ignore
international law as it grasps and steals whatever it wants? Would complete
immunity from any consequences for its brutal actions not allow it to thrive
in the same perverse way that Israel can be seen to be flourishing?

Mrs. Clinton’s repulsive letter to an equally repulsive human being tells us
two key things: 1) Mrs. Clinton is a woman without an iota of integrity, who
will sell her soul to the highest bidder, and trample over the bloodied bodies
of men, women and children to do it, and 2) the BDS movement is increasing in
effectiveness, if even the mighty Mrs. Clinton signals it out for criticism.

There is, today, some limited alarm in the Clinton campaign camp, as Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders’s candidacy seems to be growing in popularity. Human-
rights activists take little comfort in this, however, since Mr. Sander’s
devotion to apartheid Israel is only slightly less than that of Mrs. Clinton.

It won’t be the United States that brings human rights to the Palestinian
people. A nation run by corporations, whose elected leaders rely on wealthy
individuals and powerful lobbies to obtain and keep their jobs, will not seek
what is best for the common man or woman, either at home or abroad. And the
U.S. was one of the last nations to censure South Africa for its brutal
apartheid government, so there is no reason to expect it to lead any human
rights battle.

Like opposition to the South African government or the Vietnam War a
generation ago, it will be the people, those not represented by powerful
lobbies or wealthy donors, who will lead the way. With social media as the
weapon, the sound bites of the corporate-owned media will be contradicted by
the reality on the ground, as ‘tweeted’, ‘posted’ and otherwise shared on a
variety of social media sites. The importance of the ballot box diminishes as
it becomes merely the rental property of the rich. A Clinton presidency, as
disastrous as that would be for the poor and marginalized in the U.S. and
around the world, will not spell doom for the Palestinians. Their struggles
for human dignity and self-determination will not end with either a brutal
Israeli Prime Minister, or a power-hungry U.S. president. The movement is in
favor of their freedom; the floodgates have been opened, and no force, no
matter how powerful, can now close them.

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US
Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).
Links to the latest articles in this section

An unsatisfactory answer
The US and nuclear programs in the Middle East