• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hillary: Must elect "a president with a deep, personal commitment to Israel’s future"

Status
Not open for further replies.

nib95

Banned
is there any candidate running that doesn't agree with her? Bernie agrees, right?

Not exactly. He has a much more diplomatically fair approach to it, instead of blind support. He's not afraid to speak about the other side, nor draw as much attention to the occupied territories, which in this area of US politics, likely ruffles some feathers.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
What exactly did ya'll expect her to do?

Not giving Israel a complete free out of jail card that absolve all of their responsibilities?

The "everyone's doing it" and "I don't blame her" rhetoric is just weak. She's about to become the leader of a country whose policy in Israel-Palestine conflict can affect millions upon millions of innocent people. You'd *think* people, especially those calling themselves "progressive" or whatever, can and should be expected to expect more out of her.

But apparently not. It's okay because "everyone is doing it."
 

Tesseract

Banned
Not giving Israel a complete free out of jail card that absolve all of their responsibilities?

The "everyone's doing it" and "I don't blame her" rhetoric is just weak. She's about to become the leader of a country whose policy in Israel-Palestine conflict can affect millions upon millions of innocent people. You'd *think* people, especially those calling themselves "progressive" or whatever, can and should be expected to expect more out of her.

But apparently not. It's okay because "everyone is doing it."

You gotta play the game, bro. House of cards and shit, you know?
 
It's a semi democracy (ask the Muslim, Arab or other minority populations of Israel if they think it's a democracy) that has enacted some of the worst human rights violations in our time, is an apartheid state, that is systematically colonising another state by stealing more and more of its land, displacing millions, imprisoning thousands without due process, illegally occupying territory, oppressing an entire people, and more. Bloody great democracy to be championing and defending right?

Lest we forget that it's leaders actually privately ridicule the US for being so easily swayed to Israel's will, and about being lied to, and even sell American military secrets to China with little repercussion.

Great friend and ally.

So can you explain what these "worst human rights violations" in our time that Israel has commited are? Especially when you compare to stuff done by groups like ISIS (and yes, they aren't a nation, but you don't need to be a nation to commit human rights violations) North Korea, or even genocides like Sudan? I'm not going to claim that Israel is perfect, or that they haven't done some incredibly shady shit, but I'm genuinely curious what these "worst human rights" violations are
 

Anastasia

Member
I keep seeing people say that this is basically the expected position to take. And? That doesn't excuse her from taking it. I'm certainly getting that implication in this thread.
 

orochi91

Member
Iran is not a reliable actor. America going back to a belligerent position out of the blue would probably force them restart their nuclear programme out of fear*, which is something that would violate the current agreements. And then we'd be back to square one, only that this time around with a lot more tension and a Middle East that looks like a bigger clusterfuck each day it passes.

*Ukraine giving up their nuclear deterrence and then getting fucked by a foreign military is probably something that plagues Iran's mind.

Iranian reliability aside, Hilary has repeatedly called for further sanctions against Iran.

I can't think of a worse successor to Obama's initiative of normalizing US-Iranian relationship than her.

If Iran has doubt in the back of their mind, akin to those of Ukraine, then I can't really fault them.

It is not a secret that Hillary is a lot less open minded than Obama when it comes to Iran and the place he's given to its relationship with America.

While she supports a nuclear deal, she only wants one in order to preserve the status quo. Unlike Obama, she doesn't seem to be comfortable defusing the volatile relationship between America and Iran. Which is a problem by itself when coupled with an attitude clearly shaped by her Cold War convictions.

Defense One had an interesting article that touched this subject.



Obama's deal with Iran is one of his biggest accomplishments and it would be a crying shame if Hillary were not to take it further.

Oh my god, this further cement my negative impressions of her.

D:

Out of curiosity, what's Bill Clinton's stance on this matter?
 
What exactly did ya'll expect her to do?

Honestly, this is pretty expected of her. But people want to believe Hillary will shy away from her hawkish ways as President.

That's why it's disappointing.


Have you missed the last 6 years between Obama and Netanyahu.

But no politician is going to be openly against Israel in a presidential election

Ah, sorry, should have mentioned besides Obama.
 

nib95

Banned
So can you explain what these "worst human rights violations" in our time that Israel has commited are? Especially when you compare to stuff done by groups like ISIS (and yes, they aren't a nation, but you don't need to be a nation to commit human rights violations) North Korea, or even genocides like Sudan? I'm not going to claim that Israel is perfect, or that they haven't done some incredibly shady shit, but I'm genuinely curious what these "worst human rights" violations are

You just absolved or diminished Israel's actions by comparing it to ISIS (lol), and then completely ignored the rest of my post, which briefly outlined some of those very human rights violations. Or is the mass displacement, land theft, starvation, imprisonment, oppression and abuse of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some instances even millions of people, not enough for you?
 

Blader

Member
Have you missed the last 6 years between Obama and Netanyahu.

But no politician is going to be openly against Israel in a presidential election

Have you? Obama and Bibi acting frosty to each other has done fuck all on a policy level.

I keep seeing people say that this is basically the expected position to take. And? That doesn't excuse her from taking it. I'm certainly getting that implication in this thread.

It's not that this is the expected position for Hillary to take, it's the expected position for any American president to take.
 
You just absolved or diminished Israel's actions by comparing it to ISIS (lol), and then completely ignored the rest of my post, which briefly outlined some of those very human rights violations. Or is the displacement, land theft, starvation, imprisonment, oppression and abuse of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some instances even millions of people, not enough for you?

I never said they didn't commit human rights violations. I argued you were being hyperbolic in your claims that they're commiting some of the "worsr human rights violations in modern times"
 

Cerium

Member
Really wish America would stop bending over for Israel one of these days.
I agree but

THERE IS NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE IN THIS RACE


Bernie is pro-Israel. Trump is pro-Israel. Trump is so pro-Israel he will make it his mission to cancel the Iran deal, weaken the UN, and move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Read or watch his speech today; if you don't like Hillary's words in the OP, you're gonna really hate what he had to say.

Again I cannot reiterate enough my disgust with the OP for the dishonest and thinly disguised boosterism of Trump who sucked more Netanyahu dick today than anyone else in the race. He washed those Israeli balls even better than Ted Cruz. And yet the thread that gets posted is focused on smearing Hillary? The agenda could not be more obvious.

This is why Bernie needs to drop out before his deranged supporters completely shift over to Trump.
 

bionic77

Member
Has there ever been a logical explanation given for our bending over to Israel for seemingly everything?

Israel must be giving us something back in return that is pretty damn important and it obviously it is not protecting democracy or whatever the PR message is because we clearly never gave a fuck about that before.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
You gotta play the game, bro. House of cards and shit, you know?

At least Obama has shown some unexpected stance towards Israel, his civilian-killing drones notwithstanding.

So can you explain what these "worst human rights violations" in our time that Israel has commited are? Especially when you compare to stuff done by groups like ISIS (and yes, they aren't a nation, but you don't need to be a nation to commit human rights violations) North Korea, or even genocides like Sudan? I'm not going to claim that Israel is perfect, or that they haven't done some incredibly shady shit, but I'm genuinely curious what these "worst human rights" violations are

Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison with millions upon millions trapped inside plus basically everyone except the US has universally stated the illegality of the settlements that Israel is pursuing and you're *still* confused about what exactly Israel has done?

OH NO, LOOK AT THAT DIRECTION GUYS! THERE"S ISIS! LET'S IGNORE ISRAEL AND NOW EVERYONE CAN FOCUS ON ISIS!
 
Has there ever been a logical explanation given for our bending over to Israel for seemingly everything?

Israel must be giving us something back in return that is pretty damn important and it obviously it is not protecting democracy or whatever the PR message is because we clearly never gave a fuck about that before.

Having a voice in the international community that will almost always agree with us on any issue is a pretty big thing politically
 
Have you missed the last 6 years between Obama and Netanyahu.

But no politician is going to be openly against Israel in a presidential election

They have been personally adversarial, but policy has remained the same. Richard Nixon and Golda Meir were personally adversarial as well, and yet, the US came to the aid of Israel in the Yom Kippur War (although, the US later prevented Israel from destroying Egypt's army when they had defeated them)
 

Blader

Member
Has there ever been a logical explanation given for our bending over to Israel for seemingly everything?

Americans like Jews more than Arabs?

Israel must be giving us something back in return that is pretty damn important and it obviously it is not protecting democracy or whatever the PR message is because we clearly never gave a fuck about that before.

Not "protecting democracy," but obviously it's in the U.S. government's interests to help bolster a (kind of?) pro-American country in a largely anti-American region.
 

stolin

Member
Found her campaign hat...

12822354_180012162383406_1530901941_n.jpg
 
Has there ever been a logical explanation given for our bending over to Israel for seemingly everything?

Israel must be giving us something back in return that is pretty damn important and it obviously it is not protecting democracy or whatever the PR message is because we clearly never gave a fuck about that before.

Yes, there have actually been thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of logical explanations for US' support of Israel. The latest seems to be linked in the OP:

http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

But the general consensus of this thread and basically all others is that "Fuck Israel and Hillary Can Fuck Off" is taken as a "logical explanation for why the US should not support Israel," while Clinton's well articulated reasons for why the US should continue to support Israel is reduced to "Hillary sucking Israeli cock again."
 
At least Obama has shown some unexpected stance towards Israel, his civilian-killing drones notwithstanding.



Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison plus basically everyone except the US has universally stated the illegality of the settlements that Israel is pursuing and you're *still* confused about what exactly Israel has done?

OH NO, LOOK AT THAT DIRECTION GUYS! THERE"S ISIS! LET'S IGNORE ISRAEL AND NOW EVERYONE CAN FOCUS ON ISIS!

I'm not in favor of the settlements. And I don't know much about Gaza, so can you explain why it's so bad so I can understand.

But my point wasn't just ISIS, or that Israel isn't doing shitty things. My point was that you're saying Israel is one of the world's worst and ignoring countless other countries and organizations who are doing much shittier things IMO, but get far less attention
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Having a voice in the international community that will almost always agree with us on any issue is a pretty big thing politically

Are you sure it's the US that can say that instead of Israel?

I'm not in favor of the settlements. And I don't know much about Gaza, so can you explain why it's so bad so I can understand.

There's probably thousands of articles about this already on the Internet. Google is your friend, knock yourself out.

But my point wasn't just ISIS, or that Israel isn't doing shitty things. My point was that you're saying Israel is one of the world's worst and ignoring countless other countries and organizations who are doing much shittier things IMO, but get far less attention

Who it is that we're ignoring in favor of "our" "concentrated attack" on Israel? And even so, we can't say anything bad about Israel if we're not saying anything bad about any other things? You can't say murder is bad when you're not saying smoking is bad?
 
Bernie outlined his thoughts on Israel today: https://berniesanders.com/sanders-outlines-middle-east-policy/

Wish he would have said them in front of AIPAC though. It's definitely an area I agree with him more than Hilary as a supporter of the latter.

I agree, and here's my email to the campaign (to save other Bernie supporters the trouble):

Daniel B· said:
I much appreciated Bernie's "Outlines Middle East Policy"
(https://berniesanders.com/sanders-outlines-middle-east-policy/), as
this is where I "hoped" he stood on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It's a real shame he couldn't have delivered his remarks in person, at
AIPAC.

I noticed an obvious mistake, which I'm sure he would like to correct:
"Now, I think all of us agree that Iran must be able to acquire a
nuclear weapon.".

Best regards,

Daniel.
 

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
Sanders is talking about Israel right now on CNN; he's definitely more critical than Hillary.
 
Ugh, and my dislike further increases for Hilary. Why can't their be someone better to vote for..? :( I don't want her as president for anything other than Trump not being in there. Damn fucking shame this country has people of this caliber actually running for president.
 

nib95

Banned
I never said they didn't commit human rights violations. I argued you were being hyperbolic in your claims that they're commiting some of the "worsr human rights violations in modern times"

Slowly colonising an entire other state by force, displacing millions of innocent people (Eg leaving them homeless and without anything), imprisoning thousands without due process, oppressing millions to inflict intentional starvation, suffering and subjugation, giving minority migrants birth control medicine without their knowledge in order to control their population, having apartheid rules and laws, carrying out acts of military aggression that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, action that is not only gravely disproportionate, but often based on false or misguided notions, claims or evidence, and even going as far as taking out UN convoys, hospitals, shelters etc, and so on and so on. None of these count as some of the worst human rights violations of our time?
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Sanders is talking about Israel right now on CNN; he's definitely more critical than Hillary.

It's no surprise, he has a bunch of College Age people as his voters who are less keen on Israel. In his own way he is pandering.

Hopefully that becomes more normal moving forward as the older people pass on, and AIPAC loses it's influence.

Seriously guys. On foreign policy Clinton is a straight up neocon.

Have you SEEN the other side's policy?

Ugh, and my dislike further increases for Hilary. Why can't their be someone better to vote for..? :( I don't want her as president for anything other than Trump not being in there. Damn fucking shame this country has people of this caliber actually running for president.

You would get this with any leading democratic candidate for the next generation at least.
 

bionic77

Member
Yes, there have actually been thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of logical explanations for US' support of Israel. The latest seems to be linked in the OP:

http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

But the general consensus of this thread and basically all others is that "Fuck Israel and Hillary Can Fuck Off" is taken as a "logical explanation for why the US should not support Israel."
I guess I don't think destabilizing the Middle East and supporting the fucking over of the Palestinian people are logical reasons.
 

Sibylus

Banned
I am far removed from being in favor of Israel's foreign policy and its dealings with Palestine, but she's right when she says Israel's security is non-negotiable. Israel is the brick that will bring down the Middle East if it's pulled from the tower.
 
It's no surprise, he has a bunch of College Age people as his voters who are less keen on Israel. In his own way he is pandering.

Hopefully that becomes more normal moving forward as the older people pass on, and AIPAC loses it's influence.



Have you SEEN the other side's policy?



You would get this with any leading democratic candidate for the next generation at least.

The next generation after Hilary? I really do contemplate moving from this country sometimes. I'm fixing to turn 28 but damn, the older I get, the more upset I get with the situation we are in.
 

jaekeem

Member
I'm not a single issue voter, but fuck does this blind loyalty irritate the shit out of me.

blind loyalty? Lol. Israel is our closest ally in the middle east. Israel has done plenty of fucked up things, but let's not pretend like we're just supporting some random country just on some politician's whim for no realistic reason.
 
Slowly colonising an entire other state by force, displacing millions of innocent people (Eg leaving them homeless and without anything), imprisoning thousands without due process, oppressing millions to inflict intentional starvation, suffering and subjugation, giving minority migrants birth control medicine without their knowledge in order to control their population, having apartheid rules and laws, carrying out acts of military aggression that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, action that is not only gravely disproportionate, but often based on false or misguided notions, claims or evidence, and even going as far as taking out UN convoys, hospitals, shelters etc, and so on and so on. None of these count as some of the worst human rights violations of our time?

I mean that's shitty stuff, but I still think worse shit happens in plenty of other parts of the world.

And while I don't necessarily agree with the methods, I can understand why Jews would want to create a Jewish state where they compose a majority of the population and can be free from persecution after a long, long history of being persecuted and subject to multiple genocides. I don't agree with persecuting others to do that, but at the same time the Jews would pretty much have to colonize a new area in order to create such a state because they've historically been scattered across many different countries
 
I guess I don't think destabilizing the Middle East and supporting the fucking over of the Palestinian people are logical reasons.

Aah, so you read her remarks and that's what you're getting from it? Clinton's policy is "destabilize the Middle East and fuck over the Palestinians."

Is Obama's policy the same?

Because they have the same policy. Clinton was executing Obama's policy -- which is also her policy -- while she was his Secretary of State. Her comments at AIPAC today are an affirmation of Obama's policy, which is her policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom