Hillary Clinton’s love of apartheid reaches new heights in online pledge of allegiance to Israel.

Hillary Clinton has done and said a lot of stupid things in her time. Her consistent and unapologetic support for brutality, state violence, and terrorism, which she had made a career and sizeable profit from, is entirely ignored both by Republicans (because they support it too) and by her ‘liberal’ supporters, who will apparently settle for anything. As progressives and self-identified leftists we have a responsibility to debase those who falsely claim to represent us. Clinton claims to be a progressive, and she must be tried for that lie.

I’ve previously written about how Clinton is essentially a puppet candidate for violent special interest groups, and so when it comes to her latest facepalm moments, it takes a lot to shock me. But her latest article for Forward, on the issue of Israel, is nothing short of horrific.

The piece is her first articulated statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a 2016 Presidential candidate, and perhaps her first codified attempt at outlining a policy. In it, she distances herself dramatically from the Obama Administration’s policies, which were awful in themselves, and throws herself into the arms of the far-right white supremacists currently occupying the Israeli government.

Unlike Obama, who loves Israeli apartheid but doesn’t want Netanyahu in charge of it, Clinton’s piece for Forward effectively dismisses criticism of his butchery, passive aggressively cuts Obama down for letting relations sour, and reaffirms her commitment to a racially pure ethnocracy devoid of pesky Arabs. You think I’m joking? Let’s examine a handful of statements from the article:

“My first visit to Israel, in December 1981, sparked an enduring emotional connection for me — to the land and its people — and admiration for how Israelis have built a thriving democracy in a region full of adversaries and autocrats”

For a veteran stateswoman like Clinton, you’d have thought she’d find better excuses for apartheid than pretending Israel is a democracy, a force that “made the desert bloom”. A democracy is universally defined as a governmental system where all citizens are permitted to participate in decision making, regardless of their class, gender, sexuality or, crucially, their ethnic background.

For the four million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, democracy does not apply, for they are ineligible to vote in Israeli elections whilst being subjected to Israeli military rule. For the millions of Palestinian refugees living in exile in places like Syria or Jordan, they too are exempt from democracy, stripped of their rights, and deprived of their property. Even the Israeli-Arabs who have managed to avoid being ethnically cleansed, they face threats against their lives, are segregated in maternity wards, and subject to verbal abuse from politicians in power.

Furthermore, democracy is generally understood as a situation where all people live under the same set of rules, and a constitution must apply to everybody equally. This, again, does not apply to the Palestinian population, who live under Israeli marshal law but not Israeli civil law. Palestinians are barred from accessing the welfare system of Israel, as well as the education and healthcare systems, and live under a constant state of military surveillance. They are prisoners of war, not citizens, and any country that perpetuates such a brutal occupation cannot possibly call itself a democracy.

As a final note, it is stunning to me that Hillary can criticize the “autocrats” of the region when her State Department ensured that these autocrats could massacre and imprison their own people at will, prevent democratic reforms, and generally suppress any criticism of their regimes during the Arab Spring. Clinton is a great lover of dictatorships, provided the dictators do what the United States wants. In summation, when we’re trying to examine whether a state meets the requirements of a democracy, Clinton is probably the last person we should be asking.

“Bill and I fell in love with Jerusalem as we walked the ancient streets of the Old City. Even amid all the history and traditions, it was a city pulsing with life and energy. I am appalled that those same streets are now filled with terrorism and fear”

The implicit assumption here is that Jerusalem was peaceful when Palestinians just got out of the way, kept their heads down, and didn’t complain about being systematically displaced to make way for settlers. Israelis have the right to force somebody out of their house and move themselves in – the person forced out of their house doesn’t have the right to retaliate. Targeting civilians is actually perfectly acceptable behaviour in Clinton’s eyes, provided the target isn’t Jewish, because barbarism is reserved for the non-whites.

So what exactly should a displaced Palestinian do? Well, let’s follow Clinton’s train of logic. You have to renounce terror and appeal for your rights through the proper channels. The proper channels are owned by the people who displaced you. The international community is not owned by the people who displaced you, but you can’t go to them because the conflict can only be resolved between you and the people who displaced you. You can appeal to us for your rights but we’re sending millions to the people who displaced you. So your only other option is to fight the occupation, but that makes you a terrorist and you have to renounce terror to appeal for your rights.

“As secretary of state, I requested more assistance for Israel every year, and supported the lifesaving Iron Dome rocket defense system. I defended Israel from isolation and attacks at the United Nations and other international settings, including opposing the biased Goldstone report”

The 2009 Goldstone report is biased because Hillary Clinton says it is biased. It was actually conducted by the United Nations, not by an advocacy group, and documented the systematic abuse of civilians as well as the multitude of war crimes committed by the IDF. It even criticized Palestinian militants for their aggression, but it criticized Israel, so it must be biased. Anything short of collapsing at Israel’s feet and pledging undying devotion to its military occupation is bias in favour of Palestinians, which even makes Obama worthy of criticism in Clinton’s eyes.

Furthermore, I would like to see Clinton tell people living in places like Detroit or Chicago that she helped ship over $3 billion a year in military aid to Israel. I would like her to stare into the eyes of impoverished inner city children who were left out of the financial recovery and tell them the money for their food and homes and textbooks had to go halfway around the world to kill other little children, all in the name of an apartheid state. I would give anything to see her explain to those who lost their homes or their benefits that money is better spent on Israeli attack helicopters and chemical weapons than it is on affordable housing.

But rest assured, she’s got your best interests at heart.



Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s