I was just listening to Trump’s speech, and thus to his bashing of Obama on the issue of Israel. But the thought also occurred to me that with Hillary and Trump as the likely nominees, AIPAC has pretty much got their bases covered.
Here, for example, is a recent speech by Hillary Clinton at AIPAC from just about a month ago. It strikes me as a rather saber rattling speech. The issue of Israel’s occupation and settlement activities on Palestinian land gets one mention, and here it is.
Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace efforts. And as president, I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear — I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council.
Not much of a critique by her of the settlement activity even though the settlements are widely understood to be an obstacle peace. So, basically, according to the Clinton plan, Israel gets the mildest of warnings, and the UN gets shut out of trying to make sure that both sides — the Palestinians and the Israelis — abide by international laws. If so, how might that play out internationally?
Anyway, our weapons industry is likely to be applauding lines like this, as well as the implicit promise of more American taxpayer subsidies of the Israeli national security state
That’s why I believe we must take our alliance to the next level. I hope a new 10-year defense memorandum of understanding is concluded as soon as possible to meet Israel’s security needs far into the future.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: That will also send a clear message to Israel’s enemies that the United States and Israel stand together united.
It’s also why, as president, I will make a firm commitment to ensure Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.
(APPLAUSE)
The United States should provide Israel with the most sophisticated defense technology so it can deter and stop any threats. That includes bolstering Israeli missile defenses with new systems like the Arrow Three and David’s Sling. And we should work together to develop better tunnel detection, technology to prevent armed smuggling, kidnapping and terrorist attacks.
(APPLAUSE)
One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House.
Here’s the video of the speech
I suppose such bellicosity is to be expected, particularly given that Hillary gets some of her foreign policy advice from the same advisors as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz .
It is probably in all of our interest to learn much more about the work of Beacon Global Strategies and of advisors like Philippe Reines, Andrew Shapiro, Eric Edelman and others here selling the business of war. It’s also in our interest to learn much more about the interactions of Hillary Clinton and AIPAC.
Here’s one last comment on this relationship, from Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, an organization which progressives should be inclined to want to support (as opposed to supporting a war mongering organization like AIPAC
Yousef Munayyer , Executive Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
“The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,” said Yousef Munayyer in a statement.
Munayyer, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, noted that Clinton’s speech “could well have been written by an Israeli government public relations firm.”
He accused Clinton’s remarks of being “out of touch with Americans and in particular the base of the Democratic party.”
“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians,” Munayyer said. “When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”
“This reflexive deference to pro-Israel interest groups has been at the foundation of failed U.S. policy on the peace process,” he said.
And finally, a comment, from Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace.
Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”
“From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,” Vilkomerson said.
Something tells me that while the Israeli hawks will get a sympathetic hearing by a Hillary Clinton administration, the likes of activists like Munayyer and Vilkomerson will find themselves shut out of the official dialogue as our government pursues more of the same policies on behalf of this special relationship with one particular ally.
Oh, and back to the Hillary-Trump comparison. Some, such as Amy Goodman, someone I greatly admire as a voice of progressive, critical insight into American policies and politics, has suggested that Hillary is actually to the right of Trump on the issue of conflict in the Middle East
