Hillary Stabs israel in back repeatedly

True anti Israel colors come out
Politics to go: Jeff Dunetz

Hillary Clinton goes anti-Israel in ‘Hard Choices’
   
By Jeff Dunetz
 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be happy the news of the Bergdahl release and the ISIS terrorist march on Baghdad overshadowed her gaffe-filled “Hard Choices” book tour. Beginning with her interview with Diane Sawyer where she spoke about being broke and looked foolish answering questions about Benghazi, to her tense exchange about gay marriage to NPR, the content of Ms. Clinton’s book as well as her interviews were panned by pundits and columnists on the left as well as the right. Some of the big left-leaning names bashing the Clinton effort include MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, John Heilemann of Bloomberg, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post among others.

Not mentioned in the criticism are the sections within “Hard Choices” where Clinton makes comments about Israel that may concern people who support the Jewish State.

For example:

On page 302: “When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”

It’s interesting that when Chris Christie called Judea and Samaria “occupied,” supporters of Israel forced him to apologize. It’s OK however, when Hillary Clinton says it. Additionally, nowhere does Ms. Clinton mention the fact that during her husband’s presidency Yasser Arafat turned down a deal that would have given him about 98 percent of what he wanted (at least that’s what Bill Clinton said).

On page 308: “There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.” Like many whose political leanings are anti-Israel, Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend herself. To follow her ridiculous logic, the U.S. should be chastised because more al Qaeda terrorists died in the War on Terror, than Americans were killed on 9/11/01

 

 

Hillary Clinton's Anti-Israel History

An article appearing in the Jewish Daily Forward announced the formation of "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" A truth those progressive Jews for Hillary ignore, with the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009, except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel.

On their website, "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" claim, "Throughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans."

Of one issue that "matters most to Jewish Americans," Hillary Clinton is most certainly not a supporter that is the health and security of the Jewish State of Israel.

Even before her marriage to Bill, Hillary Clinton was opposing Israel and promoting the forces of terrorism.  In his book American Evita on page 49, Christopher Anderson writes.

At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was "sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else," said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from their Israeli "oppressors."

On page 50 the author relates an experience that Hillary and and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.

It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well-connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.

"My daddy was half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit , my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."

To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah."

Hillary's attitude did not change when she became first lady. In May 1998 Ms Clinton became the first member of any presidential administration ever to call for a Palestinian State. She told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: "These remarks are her own personal view."

In November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat's wife Suha. Mrs. Arafat made a slanderous fa allegation:

"Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children." Suha also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with "chemical materials" and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases."

Mrs. Clinton sat by silently listening to a real-time translation, and the terrorist's wife hug and a kiss when she finished speaking.

Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political "boo boo Mrs. Clinton called on all sides to refrain from "inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations," including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Glossing over this repugnant affair, Hillary Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat's wife in her presence. Only years later did she make feeble attempt at an excuse, the translator screwed up.

Before her tenure in the State Departing, Bill and Hillary Clinton made mega dollars from their extensive involvement with Dubai. Besides being a leader in the movement to boycott Israel, Dubai is the "Hong Kong" of the Arab world. And a major commerce and shipping point for the "business-side" of terrorism. Bill and Hilary are major friends of Dubai, to the point where the Clinton Foundation have established Dubai Study departments in universities in the US and London. They worked hard at granting legitimacy to this Jew-hating, terrorist supporting nation.

While she was running for President in 2007, San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, wrote that Clinton made $10 million a year from Yucaipa a Dubai firm. Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies was a major fund-raiser for Bill and Hillary.

The Clintons also had a connection to the worlds biggest exporter of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal Family donated $10,000,000 to the Clinton Library.

According to a 1993 New York Times article, Prince Turki bin Feisal was a college classmate of Bill’s at Georgetown University and (at the time of the article’s writing) was the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service. While he was still governor of Arkansas, it looks like Bill Clinton cashed in on that relationship, “work[ing] hard to secure a multimillion-dollar Saudi donation to a Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas.” Due to the intervention of the Gulf War, the first installment of $3.5 million didn’t arrive until 1992, with another $20 million arriving after Bill Clinton’s first inauguration.

During her Senate years Ms. Clinton became a vocal supporter of Israel because she needed the Jewish vote.

One of her first actions after leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State was to ignore a previous deal with Israel and call for the end of the construction of new homes in existing settlement neighborhoods. Five years later her call for the end of building is till is haunting Israeli/Palestinian peace talks.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton first demanded the "settlement" freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What she perceived as a minor concession (a "settlement" freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. For all intents and purposes Clinton was telling Israeli parents their married children could no longer live in their neighborhoods

This was a major error by the Clinton State Department and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and the constant public berating of the Jewish State by Clinton and Obama.

Clinton's demand for a building freeze in existing settlement communities broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Ms Clinton said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. But Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States said Clinton’s contention is simply not true.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used the administration's demands, to make a "settlement" freeze a precondition to further talks even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Hilary Clinton became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten-month "settlement" freeze. It was approved by the cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first 9+ months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. Based on their experience with Clinton denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, as any oral deal with Clinton and the Obama administration was worth the paper on which is was printed on.

The written offer never came; the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch." As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source finally came forward saying that no such letter is on its way.  The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

In 2011 speaking at the at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the liberal Brookings Institute, Clinton expressed concern for Israel's social climate in the wake of limitations the regarding female singing in the IDF and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel

She referred to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing; she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. It did? Wow! In Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel they sang, but the people who felt it was against their religious beliefs walked out. Most senior officers in the IDF supported the women's right to sing. 

Clinton also poke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women. "It's reminiscent of Rosa Parks," she said, taking the typical progressive position that faith should not matter outside a place of worship. Clinton's statement was part of the continued attempt by the Obama administration/Clinton State Department to de-legitimize the Israeli democracy and destroy one of the reasons for American support of Israel, the fact it is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Now Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. The truth is as Secretary of State; she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State.

tries to distance herself from Obama

Team Obama to Hillary: Be Careful What You Wish For
Seth Mandel | @SethAMandel
08.12.2014 - 12:00 PM

Hillary Clinton finally has a primary challenger for 2016: Hillary Clinton. After the former secretary of state’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in which she criticized President Obama’s approach to the world, people wondered if Hillary was truly a foreign-policy centrist with a proud vision of American global power projection, or if she was making it all up. Obama administration officials have offered their answer: she was making it all up.

It was perhaps inevitable that Obama loyalists would come forward and paint a picture of Hillary as fundamentally dishonest and engaged in self-aggrandizement in the pursuit of power. But it’s still somewhat surprising to see this all play out so far from the 2016 presidential election. As Jonathan wrote yesterday, Clinton’s interview signaled that she is already running her general-election campaign: with no serious lefty challenger, she has no need to play to the base on foreign affairs. Obama’s defenders have, however, cast her as her own rival by seeking to portray the presidential aspirant as she was during her time as secretary of state, not the new and improved “neocon” Hillary.

The Obama pushback has taken two forms. The more entertaining is David Axelrod’s shot across the bow this morning. In Clinton’s interview, she disparaged Obama’s foreign-policy mantra, telling Goldberg: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Today, Axelrod fired back, tweeting:

Just to clarify: “Don’t do stupid stuff” means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.

In other words, “don’t do stupid stuff” as an organizing principle is only necessary because people like Clinton insisted on doing stupid stuff. Of course, by this logic Obama is hardly in the clear: Democrats, including Obama’s Cabinet, were enthusiastic supporters of the Iraq war. Axelrod may be trying to insult Clinton’s intelligence, but he’s also reminding the public that, accordingly, the president has surrounded himself with dullards.

In addition to the enlightening Axelrod vs. Clinton “no, you’re a stupidhead” debate, White House officials also told the New York Times that when her opinion actually mattered in the formation of policy–and when it was offered behind closed doors–Clinton wasn’t exactly the bold outlier:

Still, when Mrs. Clinton says that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force” against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria “left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” the suggestion is that Mr. Obama’s refusal to arm the rebels might end up being a singular misjudgment. But at the time of the Obama administration’s internal debate over that decision, several officials said, Mrs. Clinton’s advocacy was far less thunderous: The United States had tried every diplomatic gambit with Syria, she said, and nothing else had worked, so why not try funneling weapons to the moderate rebels.

As Mrs. Clinton stakes out her own foreign policy positions in advance of a possible campaign for the White House, it is only natural that some of her statements will not be entirely in sync with her record as secretary of state, when she served at the pleasure of the president.

At the end of her tenure, for example, Mrs. Clinton wrote a memo to Mr. Obama recommending that the United States lift its half-century-old trade embargo against Cuba. It was not a position that she seriously advocated while at the State Department, officials said.

The Times article draws attention to the fact that Clinton was hardly a dissenting voice in the Obama administration. She sometimes disagreed, but equivocated when doing so. And that gets to the real significance of this row: both sides, Obama and Clinton, are aiming for the other’s Achilles’ heel.

Obama is vulnerable right now on the topic of former officials trying desperately to distance themselves from him. Bob Gates’s memoir caused a bit of a stir for criticizing his former boss before Obama was out of office. After leaving the State Department, Vali Nasr slammed Obama’s foreign-policy conduct. And now Clinton is doing the same. Gates and Clinton are particularly harmful to Obama, since they were both Cabinet members and are both vastly superior intellects to their successors, Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. Obama’s current Cabinet cannot match the credibility of his previous Cabinet, and it’s his previous Cabinet going public with their disapproval.

For Clinton, her weakness continues to be her Clintonian lack of principle and authenticity. Whatever their reasons for backing Clinton, it’s doubtful any of her supporters thinks Clinton believes anything. To Clinton there are no facts, only focus groups. She is yet another representation of the modern Democratic Party’s identity politics: it isn’t what she thinks that matters, but what she represents. The Obama team’s rebuttal of her attempts to throw the sitting president under the bus constitutes a warning to be careful what she wishes for. She may want to pivot to the general election already, but non-liberals might not be so enthused about her constant attempts at misdirection and reinvention.

liar, unethical etc.

                                                   

Hillary is the real enemy

by Roger L Simon

The Principal Enemy

December 30th, 2013 - 9:32 pm

inShare

 

Back in the seventies when I was a lefty and under the sway, like the new mayor of the city of New York, of various Central and South American marxists, we used to speak of “el enemigo principal,” the principal enemy. In fact, there was a rather graphic (and well made) Bolivian movie of that name by leftwing director Jorge Sanjines. (Clip here.)
Not surprisingly in those days the principal enemies of Sanjines’ film were los yanquis and their dreaded CIA — a bit of a cliché, one must admit, but the idea of having a principal enemy in itself is not bad, if you know who it really is. Identifying your enemy can make you more effective, whoever you are.
And, whether they know it or not, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, center-right folks, all those who favor smaller government and increased freedom, do have a principal enemy. But, surprisingly, it’s no longer Barack Obama. He is over. He was already a lame duck when Obamacare plucked most of his remaining feathers. The damage he can do may still be serious, but most of it will be reparable.
The principal enemy for the right and the center-right is now Hillary Clinton, the vastly favored frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. She is so far in front, in fact, that her competitors are not even in hailing distance. Hillary is the one who can consolidate and solidify the “gains” of the Obama era in a way Obama himself never could because she is much more politically savvy — Obama was only savvy about getting elected, not governing — and has the backing of her even more politically savvy husband. Hillary is the one who can fully remake the United States into some version of Western Europe or, yet more frighteningly, China, a permanently stratified state capitalism governed by quasi-totalitarian bureaucrats. (We can call this system Soros Marxism, meaning a ruling clique of increasingly rich corporate czars employing a propagandistic veneer of socialist equality to keep the power and wealth for themselves.)
As Roger Kimball pointed out, the New York Times (the very model of that propagandistic veneer) already knows their bread is buttered with Hillary, not Obama. They demonstrated that Saturday with their revisionist article on Benghazi, bent on taking that scandal (Hillary’s Achilles’ heel) off the table for the coming elections or at least seriously defusing it. Republicans would do well to redouble their efforts to make sure this particular obfuscation does not succeed by doing the proper research and communicating the results to the public — succinctly and repeatedly.
But to do this our group must concentrate on the principal enemy and not upon each other. My inbox is filled with emails on both sides of the inter-right wars (the Tea Partiers and the so-called RINOs) excoriating each other. What unmitigated idiocy — as if Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz was the principal enemy and not Hillary Clinton. It’s a war between those who favor cutting government by seventy percent versus those who favor cutting it by fifty or sixty, ignoring those who want to expand it by a hundred. Although not nearly as violent, it’s in some weird way reminiscent of the party rectification campaigns practiced by Stalinists back in the 1940s.
Sensible? Obviously not. And monumentally self-defeating. It has the word “loser” written all over it — and at a time when the opposition is reeling. 2014 is a time for victory not defeat. We shouldn’t be wasting our ammunition on each other. Nobody has unlimited quantities. Concentrate on principal enemy Hillary. Even though she is a well-documented liar, she is still “most admired.” Tell the truth (well) and end this. And end the hostility toward each other before you destroy all of us and our children’s future.

Hillary will be worse than even Obama

I know I don't have to tell you the damage a Hillary Clinton presidency will do to the America we know and love. Building upon the dangerous Obama legacy, President Hillary Clinton will cement the disastrous policies of Obama into the fabric of America forever. 

>>>	Open Borders and Permanent Amnesty: Hillary will finish what President Obama and Harry Reid have started – an immigration policy that rewards law breakers and leaves our citizens vulnerable to criminals and thugs.

>>>	A Bigger and more Overreaching Government: Hillary will continue Obama's assault on free markets and plot to gut conservative and Tea Party groups. Will the IRS start targeting all conservatives under President Clinton?

>>>	A Foreign Policy that leaves America Weak and Vulnerable: Does anyone really believe America is stronger in the world after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been in charge?

>>>	Obamacare expanded into Hillarycare: Hillary will be the ultimate implementer Obamacare – resulting in sky rocketing taxes, health-care costs and rationing of care?

>>>	Jimmy Carter style Joblessness and Unemployment: From the big banks to the taxpayer funded government takeover, a Hillary Clinton Administration will be a dangerous anti-capitalist government that will destroy our economy.

Dangerous Soros is major Hillary backer

Liberal billionaire investor George Soros kicked in $25,000 to Ready for Hillary, the super PAC organizing support for a possible 2016 presidential run by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Politico reported Thursday.

Soros will be co-chair of the group's national finance council, Soros' political director Michael Vachon said in an emailed statement.

"George Soros is delighted to join more than 1 million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary," Vachon said. "His support for Ready for Hillary is an extension of his long-held belief in the power of grass-roots organizing."

TOP 10 LISTS

TOP 10 REASONS GEORGE SOROS IS DANGEROUS

By: Human Events
4/2/2011 03:01 AM

RESIZE:AAA

PRINT

Human Events’ readers, in an online poll, recently votedbillionaire financier George Soros “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country.”  Here are the Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous:

1.  Gives billions to left-wing causes:  Soros started the Open Society Institute in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to progressive causes.  Using Open Society as a conduit, Soros has given more than $7 billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups.  This partial list of recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation, Huffington Post,Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.

2.  Influence on U.S. elections:  Soros once said that removing President George W. Bush from office in 2004 was the “central focus of my life.”  He put his money where his mouth is, giving $23.58 million to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating Bush.  His early financial support helped jump-start Barack Obama’s political career.  Soros hosted a 2004 fund-raiser for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and gave the maximum-allowed contribution within hours of Obama’s announcement that he was running for President.

3.  Wants to curtail American sovereignty:  Soros would like nothing better than for America to become subservient to international bodies.  He wants more power for groups such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, even while saying the U.S. role in the IMF should be “downsized.”  In 1998, he wrote:  “Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

4.  Media Matters:  Soros is a financial backer of Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group that hyperventilates over any conservative view that makes it into the mainstream media.  Now its founder, David Brock, has openly declared war on Fox News, tellingPolitico that the group was mounting “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the cable news channel, and would try to disrupt the commercial interests of owner Rupert Murdoch—an odd mission for a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation that is barred from participating in partisan political activity.

5.  MoveOn.org:  Soros has been a major funder of MoveOn.org, a progressive advocacy group and political action committee that raises millions for liberal candidates.  This is the group that had on its website an ad comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler and ran the infamous “General Betray Us” ad in the New York Times, disparaging the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus.

6.  Center for American Progress:  Headed by John Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Clinton, the Center for American Progress has been instrumental in providing progressive talking points and policy positions for the Obama administration.  There has also been a revolving door between the White House and the Soros-funded think tank, with Obama staffing his administration with many CAP officials.

7.  Environmental extremism:  Former Obama green jobs czar Van Jones and his leftist environmental ideas have been funded by Soros’ money at these groups: the Ella Baker Center, Green For All, the Center for American Progress, and the Apollo Alliance, which was instrumental in getting $110 billion in green initiatives included in Obama’s stimulus package.  Soros also funds the Climate Policy Initiative to address global warming and gave Friends of the Earth money to “integrate a climate equity perspective in the presidential transition.”

8.  America Coming Together:  Soros gave nearly $20 million to this 527 group with the express purpose of defeating President Bush. A massive get-out-the-vote effort, ACT’s door-to-door canvassing teams included numerous felons, its voter registration drives were riddled with fraud, and it handed out incendiary fliers and made misleading taped phone calls to voters.  ACT was fined $775,000 by the Federal Election Commission for violations of various federal campaign finance laws.

9.  Currency manipulation:  A large part of Soros’ multibillion-dollar fortune has come from manipulating currencies.  During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad accused him of bringing down the nation’s currency through his trading activities, and in Thailand he was called an “economic war criminal.”  Known as “The Man who Broke the Bank of England,” Soros initiated a British financial crisis by dumping 10 billion sterling, forcing the devaluation of the currency and gaining a billion-dollar profit.

10.  Delusions:  Soros has repeatedly said that he sees himself as a messianic figure.  Who but a megalomaniac would make these comments?  “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance—to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god” or “I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin.”  If only the loony bin were an option.  As it is, one of the wealthiest men in the world is using his billions to impose a radical agenda on America.