The 2016 elections are more than two years away, so anything might happen between now and then. As of today, though, Democrats are giving overwhelming support for a Hillary Clinton run and she is ahead of presumptive Republican candidates by 6 or 7 points. As a one-term Secretary of State, she accomplished nothing of note. Today, her rhetoric on foreign policy as she gears up for the 2016 campaign is becoming hawkish to the point of stupidity. She is distancing herself from Obama's more moderate policies, getting in line with AIPAC's support of Likud policies, and, just may be, endangering the last chance for a two-state solution and a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
Andy Kroll in an August 15 Mother Jones post writes: "In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to separate herself from her former boss, President Obama, in the realm of foreign policy. She unabashedly defended Israel's actions in the ongoing war in Gaza, chalked up civilian casualties in that conflict to 'the fog of war,' drew a hard line on Iran, and argued that the 'failure' of the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebel forces led to the rise of the Islamic State." Her comments are decidedly not those of a future President - at least not anyone that I'd like to support. We've already had the Bush-era neocons lead us into unjustifiable wars and drain the Treasury of at least $4 trillion.
How any fair-minded person can defend Israel's actions against Gaza - killing at least 1400 civilians including more than 400 children, destroying more than 10,000 homes and the enclave's only power plant, shelling six UN shelters for persons displaced by the assault, to name a few - is beyond imagination. These actions are war crimes - not something to be sloughed off as consequences of "the fog of war." She's signaling AIPAC that they should not abandon the Democrats because of Obama's policies and comments - tepid as they are in light of the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis brought about by the Israeli assault. Hell, the Israelis don't really believe anyone will prosecute the war crimes committed in Gaza - they never have been held accountable in the past. By the time the war crimes inquiry has recommendations to make, Hillary, with her bizarre take on the destruction in Gaza, will be on the horizon as potentially the next President.
And you can bet that Netanyahu and the right-wing thugs that are in power in Israel today are also taking note. Clinton's statements are basically saying to Bibi and his crowd, "Don't worry. I won't be as tough on you as Obama." (Not that Obama was in any sense tough but at least when Kerry became Secretary of State the US made an attempt to bring about a just peace in the region.) The Israelis stonewalled the Kerry negotiations for nine months and then sabotaged them by escalating settlement construction. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the Palestinian Authority formed a unity government with Hamas. Netanyahu and his crowd then had the gall to blame that unity government for the breakdown of the peace talks. If they can drag their feet and be counterproductive for nine months while the world's eyes were focused on them, how easy it will be for them to delay any serious talks to produce a two-state solution for the next two years. Rebuilding Gaza and ending the seven-year blockade that has devastated that region will (or should) take up much of the world community's attention. Compared to what the IDF did to Gaza, the general oppression of the Palestinians seems "benign" - as some of the more ludicrous Israeli commentators and politicians describe the 47 year Occupation.
As for Clinton's comments blaming the rise of ISIS on Obama's failure to arm the Syrian rebels, one can only wonder if she has any comprehension at all at what is happening there. The Syrian civil war is a sectarian one. Assad and the Syrian government are primarily Shia. The rebel forces and ISIS are primarily Sunni. I'm trying to understand the logic of how arming the Sunni rebel forces would stop the rise of Sunni ISIS forces. That's right - there is no logic to the argument.
The Mother Jones article has an amusing "Who Said It, Clinton or McCain?" quiz. If I wanted John McCain to be President, I'd have voted for him in 2008. There's no groundswell of American support for a more belligerent foreign policy. Other than currying AIPAC support, I'm not sure why Clinton is making these comments.
It's difficult to support someone with these views and the Democratic Party needs a serious wake up call. It has been drifting rightward since the 1980's and its policies are centrist at best. Just saying "we're not as bad as the Republicans" is not good enough. Let's hope that Hillary gets a bit wiser on foreign policy in the next 2 years. Let's hope she gets to be more of a twenty-first century leader and less of a twentieth-century hawk.
No comments:
Post a Comment