Harder Times for Palestine If Clinton Wins US Election
Published on
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
by
Al-Jazeera English
Harder Times for Palestine If Clinton Wins US Election
It is clear that Hillary Clinton will not be visiting any Arab capital with
a proffered fig leaf.
by
Stanley L. Cohen
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton on July 16, 2012 in Jerusalem. (Photo: Getty)
Have the Palestinians ever faced a worse American electoral season? A
sociopathic, New York "strong-man" narcissist versus a neo-liberal Zionist:
whoever succeeds - and anything can happen this time - we know it won't be
good for Palestine. Both candidates gave almost identical speeches to the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) convention this spring.
The temptation is to think Republican Donald Trump - with his love for
authoritarian "winners" like Israel, and his vow to "bomb to hell" out of
every problem - makes a better friend to Israeli aggression. Yet the record
reminds us, with Hillary Clinton's long history of defending Zionism, the
Palestinians are between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
The ironies run deep with this Democratic candidate. Clinton holds the
unprecedented distinction of being the only major party nominee, man or
woman, ever to have actually visited the Gaza Strip - a historic trip she
made at her husband's side in the final weeks of 1998, when US President
Bill Clinton faced impeachment at home.
Together during the first state visit by an American president to the
occupied territories they attended the opening of the new Gaza airport, the
signing of a revised Palestine National Charter, and meetings to shore up
the Wye River Accords.
Demolition of Palestinian aspirations
I recall visiting the new $83m airport with local Rafah friends, months
after her visit, and not a single commercial flight had been permitted.
The terminal stood shimmering and empty in the blazing midday heat, a
mirage. The paint still smelled fresh, and for kicks, we raced in civil
defence Jeeps down one of the empty runways, past the control tower and
hangars.
The next year, the whole place would be blown to bits by Israeli warplanes,
the tower a smoking ruin, the runways full of bomb craters.
The Clintons were long-gone by then, and no one in the US government raised
a hint of objection to what was both the symbolic and the practical
demolition of Palestinian aspirations to fly free of the occupation - Gulf
State and German money had built the place, who cared if the Israelis wanted
it destroyed?
A year later, Clinton's greeting with Suha Arafat stoked tabloid hysteria
screams of "blood libel", as if the First Lady, by embracing a Muslim woman,
had committed treason - and she moved swiftly to a vocal, pro-Zionism
position, where she remains today.
During that very same visit, Clinton campaigned to win the US senate seat
for New York, while in "the 51st state".
Every candidate makes pilgrimage there, to assure New Yorkers that they love
Israel more than the next guy: it is a sloppy mess, with politicians
competing for AIPAC approval, by kneeling to kiss the ring of a foreign
power.
Yet Hillary out-did them all in her fawning, gratuitously inserting the
Zionist formula for Jerusalem's subjugation in an official letter to an
Orthodox Jewish union, writing that she believed the city to be "the eternal
and indivisible capital" of Israel, while promising to move the US embassy
there from Tel Aviv.
The verbal formulation has long been a shibboleth of Israeli expansionism -
Republicans in the Congress had passed a bill - the Jerusalem Embassy Act of
1995 - ordering President Clinton to move the embassy, or face budget
consequences.
However, the law contained a presidential waiver, and Clinton invoked it to
get out of complying. This grotesque pantomime has has been repeated every
year for the past 20 years, as Congress renews the law, each president opts
out, and the embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
Naive or manipulated?
At the time, many wondered if the First Lady had been naive, or manipulated
- her adoption of the language of Israeli conquest and annexation stood in
sharp contrast to her party, her husband's official position,and
international law. It also contradicted the US State Department's policy.
If she did not understand its dangerous implications, then her competency
was in question; otherwise, it represented a shift for the party, signalling
quiet abandonment of the Palestinians.
Her record since then speaks for itself. As a senator, she has visited the
illegal wall destroying Palestinian life, praising it for its guarantee of
Israeli "security"; she visits Jerusalem, and repeatedly calls it "Israel";
and as a 2008 presidential candidate, her campaign extolled Israel's "right"
to an "undivided Jerusalem as its capital".
Since the beating she took for embracing Madame Arafat, Clinton is like the
child who has touched a hot stove - she fears the Palestinians and their
cause, and will not take it up again.
Palestinians will find no comfort at her official website. A look at her
current Israel page, "Hillary Clinton and Israel: a 30-Year Record of
Friendship, Leadership and Strength", gives the general drift of her Zionism
- record-breaking military budget increases for Israel's war-making machine;
opposing the Goldstone Report into rights violations during the Gaza
conflict; criticising the United Nations for its votes against Israel;
intelligence sharing with Mossad; and so on.
She promises, when she is president, to "defend Israel on the world stage"
by opposing "anti-Israel bias" in international forums (the International
Criminal Court and human rights venues), vowing the Security Council will
never help Palestine; and to "stand up against" the Boycott, Divestment,
Sanctions movement, while cutting off efforts to recognise Palestinian
statehood.
It is clear that Clinton will not - as Obama did - be visiting any Arab
capital with a proffered fig leaf. If, as Shakespeare warns us, "What's past
is prologue," Clinton can be expected as president to mount the ramparts of
Fortress Israel, and vigorously wave the flag - more aggressively than Bush
or Reagan, or any president before her, portending hard times for Palestine.
C 2015 Al-Jazeera English
Stanley L. Cohen
Stanley L. Cohen is an attorney and human rights activist who has done
extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Defeating Dakota Access
. Into the Anthropocene
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Jill Stein
. Donald Trump
Harder Times for Palestine If Clinton Wins US Election
Published on
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
by
Al-Jazeera English
Harder Times for Palestine If Clinton Wins US Election
It is clear that Hillary Clinton will not be visiting any Arab capital with
a proffered fig leaf.
by
Stanley L. Cohen
. 14 Comments
.
. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton on July 16, 2012 in Jerusalem. (Photo: Getty)
. Have the Palestinians ever faced a worse American electoral season?
A sociopathic, New York "strong-man" narcissist versus a neo-liberal
Zionist: whoever succeeds - and anything can happen this time - we know it
won't be good for Palestine. Both candidates gave almost identical speeches
to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) convention this
spring.
. The temptation is to think Republican Donald Trump - with his love
for authoritarian "winners" like Israel, and his vow to "bomb to hell" out
of every problem - makes a better friend to Israeli aggression. Yet the
record reminds us, with Hillary Clinton's long history of defending Zionism,
the Palestinians are between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
. The ironies run deep with this Democratic candidate. Clinton holds
the unprecedented distinction of being the only major party nominee, man or
woman, ever to have actually visited the Gaza Strip - a historic trip she
made at her husband's side in the final weeks of 1998, when US President
Bill Clinton faced impeachment at home.
. Together during the first state visit by an American president to
the occupied territories they attended the opening of the new Gaza airport,
the signing of a revised Palestine National Charter, and meetings to shore
up the Wye River Accords.
Demolition of Palestinian aspirations
I recall visiting the new $83m airport with local Rafah friends, months
after her visit, and not a single commercial flight had been permitted.
The terminal stood shimmering and empty in the blazing midday heat, a
mirage. The paint still smelled fresh, and for kicks, we raced in civil
defence Jeeps down one of the empty runways, past the control tower and
hangars.
The next year, the whole place would be blown to bits by Israeli warplanes,
the tower a smoking ruin, the runways full of bomb craters.
The Clintons were long-gone by then, and no one in the US government raised
a hint of objection to what was both the symbolic and the practical
demolition of Palestinian aspirations to fly free of the occupation - Gulf
State and German money had built the place, who cared if the Israelis wanted
it destroyed?
A year later, Clinton's greeting with Suha Arafat stoked tabloid hysteria
screams of "blood libel", as if the First Lady, by embracing a Muslim woman,
had committed treason - and she moved swiftly to a vocal, pro-Zionism
position, where she remains today.
During that very same visit, Clinton campaigned to win the US senate seat
for New York, while in "the 51st state".
Every candidate makes pilgrimage there, to assure New Yorkers that they love
Israel more than the next guy: it is a sloppy mess, with politicians
competing for AIPAC approval, by kneeling to kiss the ring of a foreign
power.
Yet Hillary out-did them all in her fawning, gratuitously inserting the
Zionist formula for Jerusalem's subjugation in an official letter to an
Orthodox Jewish union, writing that she believed the city to be "the eternal
and indivisible capital" of Israel, while promising to move the US embassy
there from Tel Aviv.
The verbal formulation has long been a shibboleth of Israeli expansionism -
Republicans in the Congress had passed a bill - the Jerusalem Embassy Act of
1995 - ordering President Clinton to move the embassy, or face budget
consequences.
However, the law contained a presidential waiver, and Clinton invoked it to
get out of complying. This grotesque pantomime has has been repeated every
year for the past 20 years, as Congress renews the law, each president opts
out, and the embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
Naive or manipulated?
At the time, many wondered if the First Lady had been naive, or manipulated
- her adoption of the language of Israeli conquest and annexation stood in
sharp contrast to her party, her husband's official position,and
international law. It also contradicted the US State Department's policy.
If she did not understand its dangerous implications, then her competency
was in question; otherwise, it represented a shift for the party, signalling
quiet abandonment of the Palestinians.
Her record since then speaks for itself. As a senator, she has visited the
illegal wall destroying Palestinian life, praising it for its guarantee of
Israeli "security"; she visits Jerusalem, and repeatedly calls it "Israel";
and as a 2008 presidential candidate, her campaign extolled Israel's "right"
to an "undivided Jerusalem as its capital".
Since the beating she took for embracing Madame Arafat, Clinton is like the
child who has touched a hot stove - she fears the Palestinians and their
cause, and will not take it up again.
Palestinians will find no comfort at her official website. A look at her
current Israel page, "Hillary Clinton and Israel: a 30-Year Record of
Friendship, Leadership and Strength", gives the general drift of her Zionism
- record-breaking military budget increases for Israel's war-making machine;
opposing the Goldstone Report into rights violations during the Gaza
conflict; criticising the United Nations for its votes against Israel;
intelligence sharing with Mossad; and so on.
She promises, when she is president, to "defend Israel on the world stage"
by opposing "anti-Israel bias" in international forums (the International
Criminal Court and human rights venues), vowing the Security Council will
never help Palestine; and to "stand up against" the Boycott, Divestment,
Sanctions movement, while cutting off efforts to recognise Palestinian
statehood.
It is clear that Clinton will not - as Obama did - be visiting any Arab
capital with a proffered fig leaf. If, as Shakespeare warns us, "What's past
is prologue," Clinton can be expected as president to mount the ramparts of
Fortress Israel, and vigorously wave the flag - more aggressively than Bush
or Reagan, or any president before her, portending hard times for Palestine.
C 2015 Al-Jazeera English
/author/stanley-l-cohen
/author/stanley-l-cohen/author/stanley-l-cohen
Stanley L. Cohen is an attorney and human rights activist who has done
extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
