Hillary and Jerusalem
Garance and her friends look into their secret decoder rings and conclude that "[Hillary] Clinton does not really believe her stated position on Jerusalem, which would seem to preclude a peace process."
What's her stated position? Simply that she "believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."
You see stuff like this all too often: Politician states bad position on important issue, then sympathetic pundit defends politician by arguing that politician doesn't really believe stated position and everything's supposed to be a-OK. This happens with Barack Obama, too. He, I'm told, only supports liquid coal subsidies because if he loses the nomination, he'll still be a senator from a coal state--he'll have no choice but to toe the interest group line and keep fighting on behalf of coal.
I sort of get it. Maybe Hillary Clinton wouldn't, as president, insist on an undivided Jerusalem when conducting negotiations in the Middle East. Maybe Barack Obama wouldn't, as president, agree to subsidize liquid coal research as part of his energy platform. But I don't see why either candidate should be given a pass on misleading campaign rhetoric when that rhetoric is:
- dishonest, one way or another
- indicative of the fact that these candidates value their career plan B's more than the ideals which supposedly animate their bids for the presidency, and that they are likely to compromise on those ideals
- most importantly a big reason why these bad ideas stick around forever and ever and gum up progress along the way.
How easy does anybody suppose it will be for either Hillary or Obama to back away from these positions once in office? It's worth pointing out that both candidates are supposedly saying this stuff to appease powerful lobbies, and that those lobbies aren't going to magically disappear (or become gentle and forgiving) in January 2009.
All to say that it's difficult for candidates to walk away from stuff like this. Which is why I think there's usually a good case to be made for supporting the candidates who say the right things in their campaigns, decoder rings be damned.
Comments
Decoder rings = wishful thinking = spin for your friends.
The Hillary comment on Jerusalem is just awful. The Palestinian folks should interpret her exact words - since Hillary never says things that aren't analyzed six ways from Sunday, er, Saturday.
Talk about the heavy thumb on the scale. The so-called even-handed US (in a Dem. future) just revealed that one of the lasting obstacles to a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians was removed. The Palestinians lost, since the US thumb is very heavy.
With Gaza now an Israeli 'enemy entity', can removal of all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza be far behind on the AIPAC agenda? There's lots of open space in western (Sunni) Iraq, so maybe lots of trains with people loaded onto boxcars would work for the final solution.
Hillary's comment on Jerusalem is welcome, if only she is sincere about it. Jerusalem certainly should remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Jordanians once controlled the Old City and were (how shall we put it?) poor stewards. They blew up the Hurvah synagogue. They used ancient tombstones from the Mount of Olives to build latrines. They denied Jews entry to the East Jerusalem entirely. They never loved Jerusalem so much as to make it their capital. The Israelis have treated the city with loving care (has Jim ever been there, I wonder?) and have taken great pains to assure that all faiths have access to it. The Arab claim to Jerusalem is has been so tarnished that the Arabs should simply be told "no way." Hillary might just have spine enough to do so.
Jim's sneering comment about the boxcars, by contrast, is most unwelcome. Perhaps the Israelis have the power to do whatever they might choose with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, but they have acted with great patience despite decades of murderous provocation from a people sworn to destroy them. Not only do they not put them into boxcars, but so far, where Gaza is concerned, they have given them free water, fuel and electricity and have gotten a hail of rockets in return. Why should they?
Post A Comment