When the threat to her campaign was the greatest, due to Bernie Sanders’ popularity and progressivism, Hillary Clinton embraced the policies of Barack Obama as if they were her own. Of course when his policies appeared to differ too much with the majority of the populace Ms. Clinton did an about face and embraced other positions as her own, like she did on the Trans Pacific Treaty. Such contrast with Obama was ignored by the media and the projected image to voters, especially in the Deep South was that electing Hillary was like having another term for Barack. At the same time as this Hillary sponsored love-fest the candidate was making charge after charge that there was little agreement between Barack and Bernie, and that electing Bernie would end the Obama legacy.
But curiously this love fest did not include foreign policy and yet the media continued the fiction that the President and the candidate were in complete sync. Almost without exception it is Hillary that is the Hard-Liner of the two, who pushes for the more extreme Syrian “no fly zone “that the President (and Bernie Sanders) opposes. Bernie is also more in agreement with the President regarding discussions with Iran that Hillary opposes. She constantly refers to Iran as a terrorist state but offers great support for Saudi Arabia, the homeland of 95% of the terrorists that attacked the residents of New York on that fateful day. And then there’s Hillary’s defense of the hard-liner position in Israel, the hard-liner position that showed vigorous disrespect for our President, the President she claims to adamantly support.
The media has given a token critique of her foreign policy chops as demonstrated by her speech yesterday at AIPAC. See below:
“American taxpayers already give approximately $3.1 billion in military aid alone to Israel every year. The U.S. also ensures that its close ally has complete political impunity at the United Nations, where the U.S. has vetoed more than 70 Security Council resolutions on Israel’s behalf.”
“Clinton’s speech was overtly biased in countless ways. She spoke in detail of violence endured on Israel’s side, but made no acknowledgment whatsoever of Israel’s many crimes against the indigenous Palestinian population.”
“Since 1967, Israel has military occupied Palestinian territories in direct violation of international law. Clinton did not mention Israel’s illegal military occupation once in her prolix address.”
“In the almost five decades since the illegal occupation began, Israel has slowly colonized Palestinian land with ever-expanding settlements. Today, there are more than 600,000 Israeli settlers living in the occupied territories, in flagrant contravention of rulings by the United Nations.”
“She condemned “Hamas rockets” in the summer 2014 war with Gaza, but glossed over the more than 2,250 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military, roughly two-thirds of whom were civilians, including more than 550 children, according to the U.N. — not to mention the fact that leading human rights organizations including Amnesty International and independent investigations by experts accused the Israel Defense Forces of intentionally targeting civilians and committing war crimes. In Clinton’s world, Palestinians are responsible for all of Israel’s woes. Although she fearmongered about the militant Palestinian party Hamas, she failed to mention that it was only created in 1987 — two decades after the beginning of the illegal Israeli military occupation.”
“She also ignored the fact that, when Hamas was first forming, the Israeli government secretly supported it, in order to undermine the secular socialist militant groups that dominated the Palestinian resistance.” http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/she_sounds_like_netanyahu_hillary_clinton_goes_extra_hawkish_in_her_biased_die_hard_pro_israel_aipac_speech/
The major media in this country, in its normal vapid and perhaps corrupt way of reporting fails to answer the question on how Ms. Clinton, the supposed foreign policy expert of all the candidates will lessen the tension behind the Arabs in Palestine and Israel given her heavy-handed support for one side. And how is she going to be able to develop a working coalition of Arab support against terrorism given her refusal to open discussion lines with Iran and her lack of support of fair treatment for the Arabs in Palestine?