Hillary Clinton Backs Israel on Gaza War

Forums: Israel, Politics, War, Sanders, President
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hillary Clinton Backs Israel on Gaza War After Bernie Criticism
By Forward Staff

April 10, 2016

Hillary Clinton backed Israel’s 2014 war in Gaza in a television interview Sunday amid a controversy over Democratic rival Bernie Sanders’s claim that it acted “disproportionately” in the campaign.

The Democratic frontrunner told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Jewish state bombed and invaded the Hamas-ruled enclave in self-defense, Politico reported

When “your soldiers are under attack, you have to respond,” she said.

“It’s a very different undertaking for Israel to target those who are targeting them,” she said. “And I think Israel has had to defend itself, has a right to defend itself.”

Sanders sparked a firestorm of criticism last week when he challenged Israel to do more to make peace with the Palestinians and called the Gaza war “disproportionate.”

The Vermont senator, who is Jewish and spent time on a kibbutz as a young man, also asserted that Israel killed about 10,000 innocent Palestinians in the conflict, a figure that is about five times higher than the actual death toll.

Forward.com

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 5,123 • Replies: 31

You are not doing Hillary any favors here, I hope you know?

3 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

You are not doing Hillary any favors here, I hope you know?

It is good that Hillary isn't an anti-Semite.

Anti-Semites are vermin.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

There is room here to agree with both Sanders and Clinton. Israel does have a right to protect itself and the response was overboard and inappropriate.

2 Replies

@engineer,

How do we know that Clinton doesn't also agree that the response was overboard? She certainly didn't say that in this piece.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

We don't know that Clinton didn't think the response was overboard (although she is criticizing Sanders so you might infer she doesn't, nor do we know if Sanders would have agreed with a more measured response.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I have a feeling that both Sanders and Clinton would handle the Israel situation pretty much the same way. Hell, many of our allies and treaties dictate a pretty consistent approach.

I understand that they need to say things to try to differentiate themselves, but realistically (like most of their policies) they'll end up in the exact same place regardless of which of them becomes president (assuming a republican doesn't win).

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

There is room here to agree with both Sanders and Clinton. Israel does have a right to protect itself and the response was overboard and inappropriate.

Why would it be overboard and inappropriate for Israel to defend themselves when people try to murder them?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I have a feeling that both Sanders and Clinton would handle the Israel situation pretty much the same way.

I think that is likely too, and the same with the Republican candidates.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Of course he knows. Its his way of damning Hillary, as in Lash bashing her. He knows exactly what he is doing.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Miller was for Hillary in 2008 which I remembered surprised me as I thought he/she (I am not sure) was a republican.

1 Reply

The question is not whether you support Israel or you support the Palestinians. In truth, both sides are justifying their own acts of violence by the acts of violence of the other side. There is not much difference between the two sides.

The question is whether you support war or peace. There are Israelis who reject the use of bombs and bulldozers by the Israeli government, and there are Palestinians who reject the use of rockets by militants.

Peace is going to require Israel to reject violence and work for a just solution that gives Palestinian rights. And, peace is going to require the Palestinians to reject violence and work for a just solution that allows Israelis to live in security.

In my opinion Hillary leans towards justifying violence by Israel, including overlooking the excessive use of force and ignoring settlement activity and civil rights violations.

I would like the US to become a fair broker that rejects violence and provocation on both sides. The pro-war forces (on both sides) want you to believe that this is not possible.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You can't possibly be that daft. It should be obvious that not all cases of "defending yourself" are created equal and that self defense is not mutually exclusive with doing so with a disproportionate response.

1 Reply

@Miller,

If Hillary wasn't campaigning this Passover, wouldn't she and Bill be at a Seder? Trump too for that matter? Maybe you need to find someone that is not thought of as a philo-Semite. Cruz being an Evangelical Christian would be disqualified also. God, where did all the anti-Semites go? I think I am suffering from cognitive dissonance in this 21st century.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is not much difference between the two sides.

Sure there is. The Israelis are willing to make peace, and the Palestinians are not.

maxdancona wrote:

Peace is going to require Israel to reject violence and work for a just solution that gives Palestinian rights.

Israel has offered that for decades.

maxdancona wrote:

And, peace is going to require the Palestinians to reject violence and work for a just solution that allows Israelis to live in security.

Bingo!

And that is exactly what the Palestinians absolutely refuse to ever agree to.

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion Hillary leans towards justifying violence by Israel,

Violence IS justified by Israel. They have the right to defend themselves against someone who keeps attacking them and who refuses to ever make peace.

maxdancona wrote:

including overlooking the excessive use of force and ignoring settlement activity and civil rights violations.

No such excessive force. No such civil rights violations.

Since the Palestinians refuse to ever make peace, it is entirely reasonable for Israel to keep all the land and to build on it as they please.

maxdancona wrote:

I would like the US to become a fair broker that rejects violence and provocation on both sides.

We've been that from the beginning.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You can't possibly be that daft. It should be obvious that not all cases of "defending yourself" are created equal

It is not obvious to me.

Robert Gentel wrote:

and that self defense is not mutually exclusive with doing so with a disproportionate response.

There is nothing even remotely disproportionate about Israel's defense.

If anything, Israel is far too restrained.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
You can't possibly be that daft. It should be obvious that not all cases of "defending yourself" are created equal

It is not obvious to me.

I still refuse to believe you are this daft, something must be getting lost in translation here.

Are you saying that all forms of self-defense are perfectly equal in scope, intensity, proportionality etc? Because that is quite obviously absurd. It is clear that the nature of responses can vastly differ.

Quote:

There is nothing even remotely disproportionate about Israel's defense.

If anything, Israel is far too restrained.

We disagree there too, but that wasn't even the point of disagreement we were having and I'm not going to get into the political part of the discussion. I am just trying to see if you are capable of awknowledging basic logic. That a lack of proportionality and self defense are not mutually exclusive concepts.

You tried to rebut a claim of lack of proportionality with an argument that it is self-defense. Whether it is self defense or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is proportional, these are distinct concepts and I just want to see if they can both occupy your brain at the same time or if you really are gonna double down on the strength of conviction and insist that disproportionate responses and self-defense are mutually exlusive concepts.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

You tried to rebut a claim of lack of proportionality with an argument that it is self-defense.

Do you mean my response to "overboard and inappropriate"? I didn't really see that as a claim of disproportionality.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Whether it is self defense or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is proportional, these are distinct concepts and I just want to see if they can both occupy your brain at the same time or if you really are gonna double down on the strength of conviction and insist that disproportionate responses and self-defense are mutually exlusive concepts.

I recognize the standard of proportionality. It is a requirement that the expected collateral damage from an attack not be excessive compared to the expected military gains of the attack.

Israel has not violated this requirement.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

If Hillary wasn't campaigning this Passover, wouldn't she and Bill be at a Seder? Trump too for that matter?

Since Trump has three Jewish grandchildren, I think he'll be at a family Seder.
As far as the Clintons, don't they have one Jewish granddaughter? If so, they, too should be at a family Seder.

Bernie is going to Rome for a big pontifical meeting. I assume he will be taking his wife ( ex-Catholic) with him and I also assume, that they will not be having a Seder in Rome, at the pontifical meeting.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Miller was for Hillary in 2008 which I remembered surprised me as I thought he/she (I am not sure) was a republican.

Yes,I was for Mrs. Clinton in 2008, as I am today. I am (she) not a republican and I have never been one, nor have any of my family been. I've always been a loyal democrat, both in Chicago and Boston.

1 Reply

Hillary Clinton Backs Israel on Gaza War

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know