I’m delighted to introduce a new blogger at Semitism. Rasheeda will be posting on her own here, but, for now, I’m including a missive she sent on the Democratic presidential candidates:
Speaking at an AIPAC dinner on February 1, Hillary Clinton said she would not rule out attacking Iran:
The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face. US policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.
But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis, and now, we believe, attacking American soldiers.
What struck me even more is her response to a question by Anne Miller, director of New Hampshire Peace Action:
Anne Miller: I asked her about the comments that she had made at the AIPAC meeting earlier in the week and asked her if she really would leave all options on the table and how could she threaten, in effect, other countries’ children with nuclear genocide. She looked me right in the eye, and she said, “No options are off the table. We cannot abide by a nuclear-armed Iran. It would be an existential threat to the United States.”
What I found really interesting in that comment, in that use of the word “existential,” is that isn’t a word that’s used very much in US political discourse, but it is used in Israel’s political discourse.
So my question to Hillary: Are you campaigning for the presidency to serve US interests or Israeli interests?
That’s from Ellen. Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam has been blogging at The Guardian, and he’s also weighing in on Hillary and Barak:
Besides what (Obama) is, one of the most compelling aspects of his candidacy is what he is not. He is not Hillary. She seems to represent, at least at this stage, centrism at its most stolid.
One of the most conventional elements of her campaign is her position on Israel. She marches in lockstep with AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby…
That’s why, at least at this point, Barack Obama’s views on Israel are such a breath of fresh air. Unlike Hillary, he hasn’t entirely swallowed the AIPAC line. While he defends Israel as strongly as any candidate, he also speaks to the suffering of the Palestinians. And normally, presidential candidates either can’t or won’t express sympathy for anyone but Israelis during a campaign.
For my part, if I support any Democrat, it will be Kucinich. It seems to me the Democrats, for the most part, are worse than the Republicans on Israel. Notice the total silence from both parties regarding Recommendation 17 of the Baker Commission Report on Iraq:
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict…
Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace should include:
- Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
- Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.
- A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
- Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
- Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President Bush’s two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.
0 Responses to “Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama on Israel”