Please disable your Ad Blocker in order to interact with the site.

Whenever I point out the fact that Hillary Clinton was the FIRST person in any White House staff EVER to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, or that famous hugging incident with Mrs Arafat, the liberals send me hate mail pointing out that the SOS designate has spotless record on Israel since she was elected to the Senate.  Well of course she does, she was the senator from New-freaking-York. A major part of her voter base were Jews. When she becomes Secretary of State and No longer has to worry about the Jewish vote, she will undoubtedly revert to her old Anti-Israel views, much closer to the Obama/anti-Israel position.

During the conformation hearings this week Hillary missed opportunities  to hold Hamas responsible for war crimes leading to civilian deaths in hostilities with Israel; she said that she would adopt the same benchmarks for dealing with Hamas, that didn’t work when her hubby Bill adopted toward Yassir Arafat, and failed to mention the incitement to hatred in the Palestinian media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feed terrorism, and that is something  she spoke out against when she needed the Jewish Vote.

Failing to hold Hamas responsible for war crimes: Senator Clinton testified that, “The President-Elect and I understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel’s desire to defend itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets. However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians.” (Text: ‘Hillary Clinton’s Statement at Senate Confirmation Hearing,’ Fox News, January 13, 2009).

Without in any way diluting her expression of concern for civilian lives, Senator Clinton could have squarely placed the onus for this state of affairs on the shoulders of Hamas. Former Canadian Attorney-General and veteran human rights lawyer and campaigner Irwin Cotler stated recently, Hamas is committing six types of war crimes:

“First, the deliberate targeting of civilians is in and of itself a war crime …A second war crime is when Hamas attacks [from within] civilian areas and civilian structures, whether it be an apartment building, a mosque or a hospital, in order to be immune from a response from Israel … Civilians are protected persons, and civilian areas are protected areas. Any use of a civilian infrastructure to launch bombs is itself a war crime … [Third], the misuse and abuse of humanitarian symbols for purposes of launching attacks is called the perfidy principle. For example, using an ambulance to transport fighters or weapons or disguising oneself as a doctor in a hospital, or using a UN logo or flag, are war crimes … [Fourth], of which little has been made, is the prohibition in the Fourth Geneva Convention and international jurisprudence against the direct and public incitement to genocide. The Hamas covenant itself is a standing incitement to genocide. [Similarly,] just before this fighting started, I saw Hamas leaders on television referring to Israel and Jews as the sons of apes and pigs … [Fifth] when you deliberately hit civilians not infrequently but in a systematic, widespread attack, that’s defined in the treaty of the International Criminal Court and international humanitarian law as a crime against humanity.” [Sixth] he final war crime for which Hamas is responsible is the recruitment of children into armed conflict. “Hamas is a case study of each of these six categories of war crime … [Unfortunately, the international community] has been minimizing the manner in which Hamas has engaged in consistent mass-violation of international humanitarian law.” (Haviv Rettig Gur, ‘Law professor: Hamas is a war crimes ‘case study,’ Jerusalem Post, January 13, 2009).

International law is clear that Hamas is committing war crimes leading to death and injury of civilians on both sides. Yet Senator Clinton did not mention Hamas’ war crimes and thus the loss of civilian life to which they lead, but rather referred to civilian losses solely in the context of Israel’s lawful exercise of self-defense.

Supporting flawed benchmarks for dealing with Hamas: Senator Clinton repeated the Bush administration’s opposition to negotiations with it, unless it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and abides by past peace deals saying, “That is just for me an absolute.” (Lachlan Carmichael, ‘Obama team takes new tack on Iran amid Mideast peace push,’ Yahoo News, January 13, 2009).

Clinton’s benchmarks are only a a starting point. She is saying that if Hamas, without dismantling its terror squads or its apparatus of indoctrinating children into hatred and murder of Jews, simply said the right words about recognizing Israel, renouncing terror and recognizing the past Oslo agreements, then she would forthwith deal with this terrorist organization that possesses a genocidal Charter. 


Formal recognition, statements about renouncing terror or accepting signed agreements are inadequate. What is needed is actual recognition – and thus the ending of propaganda, and indoctrination that demonizes Israel; verifiable action to arrest and jail terrorists and decommission illegal weaponry; and fulfillment of agreements, not mere ‘acceptance’ of agreements. Only if Hamas were to do these things would there be scope for diplomatic engagement with it.

Failure to mention incitement to hatred and murder in Palestinian media, mosques, schools and youth camps.

Senator Clinton made no mention at all of the poisonous incitement to hatred and extremism found in Palestinian curricula, textbooks and educational institutions.

In February 2007 when she needed the Jewish Vote, Ms Clinton spoke at the launch of a Palestinian Media Watch report ‘From Nationalist Battle to Religious Conflict: New 12th Grade Palestinian Textbooks Present a World Without Israel. There Hillary said, ‘I believe that education is one of the keys to lasting peace in the Middle East and for this reason I am very concerned with these findings. That was true then and it is true now. But Clinton was silent on this issue when she didn’t need the votes.

Folks Ms Clinton’s testimony is just another indication of what the Barack Obama foreign policy will be like, white-washing terrorism and a lack of a moral platform.

Source for the above the ZOA

Become a Lid Insider

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to friend