U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke for a half hour or so at the annual Saban Forum, held this past weekend in Washington D.C. New Yorker editor David Remnick, who attended the forum, cuts to the chase:
Hillary Clinton is running for President.
Remnick says a lot more than just that in a piece he had posted Sunday at the New Yorker web site. He is not pleased with what he saw at the forum:
Hillary Clinton is running for President. And the Israeli political class is a full-blown train wreck. These are two conclusions, for whatever they are worth, based on a three-day conference I attended this weekend at the annual Saban Forum, in Washington, D.C.
Remnick was clearly upset by what he saw. He’s a very good writer when inspired or angered. Here is his description of a laudatory film on HRC, presented to forum attendees:
Hillary Clinton was the main speaker. In a packed ballroom of the Willard Hotel, she was greeted with a standing ovation and then a short, adoring film, a video Festschrift testifying to her years as First Lady, senator, and, above all, secretary of state. The film, an expensive-looking production, went to the trouble of collecting interviews with Israeli politicians—Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni—and American colleagues, like John Kerry. Tony Blair, striking the moony futuristic note that was general in the hall, said, “I just have an instinct that the best is yet to come.”
The film was like an international endorsement four years in advance of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The tone was so reverential that it resembled the sort of film that the Central Committee of the Communist Party might have produced for Leonid Brezhnev’s retirement party if Leonid Brezhnev would only have retired and the Soviets had been in possession of advanced video technology. After it was over there was a separate video from the President. Looking straight into the camera, Obama kvelled at length: “You’ve been at my side at some of the most important moments of my Administration.” [emphases added]
Remnick was a bit disturbed by the closeness of National Public Radio‘s Robert Siegel to Israeli Foreign Minister and avowed ethnic cleanser-racist, Avigdor Lieberman:
[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu was not at the Saban Forum, but his notorious foreign minister and hard-right-wing coalition partner Avigdor Lieberman was. Lieberman, who has a history of making vicious remarks about Israeli Arabs and a range of other subjects, is rarely made available for interviews with the foreign press; the chance of embarrassment and international incident is too high. But here he was, in D.C., as Clinton’s pre-dinner opening act. Lieberman, who was born in the U.S.S.R. and lives on a settlement, was interviewed onstage by NPR’s Robert Siegel.
“Everyone wanted me to be politically correct,” Lieberman said as he settled into a chair onstage. “I’ll do my best.”
And so he did. Lieberman avoided any language that would fly into the headlines as racist or xenophobic. A keen and intelligent interviewer, Siegel seemed uncharacteristically reluctant to press Lieberman very hard or bring up Lieberman’s history of indelicacies where Arabs are concerned. [emphases added]
Here’s the paean:
And here is her subsequent speech:
Philip Weiss, writing today at Mondoweiss, concentrated on parts of Clinton’s address:
At a time when Britain and France are considering withdrawing ambassadors from Israel over its latest settlement plans, Hillary Clinton addressed the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Friday night and, declaring “America and Israel are in it together,” said nothing about settlements or occupation except when she three times praised Benjamin Netanyahu for a “settlement freeze.”
Weiss goes on:
She faults the Arab spring and praises rightwing Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
She blames the Iranians for a skein of terror and “hegemonic” ambitions.
She blames Palestinians for the Gaza conflict.
…. her only references to settlements, [are] all praising Netanyahu and damning the Palestinians.
The usual demographic chatter, supporting Israeli discrimination against Palestinians:
“And without peace, the inexorable math of demographics will, one day, force Israelis to choose between preserving their democracy and remaining a Jewish homeland.”
Not once but twice:
“if you look at demography, you see the population shifts and the problems that that will cause for Israel.”
More from Weiss:
She speaks about Israeli settlements as if they are part of Israel:“[I] walked along the fence near Gilo.”She never uses the words occupy or occupation except in a favorable context:“It gives Israel a moral high ground that I want Israel to occupy. That’s what I want Israel to occupy, the moral high ground.”
I commented at the Mondoweiss article, responding on whether HRC is running or not:
“Clinton won’t have much of a chance in 2016. She’s too old”
— Driving into town to go to a concert Saturday, the four of us talked about Clinton’s 2016 chances. That’s pretty much what I said too. I added that people are getting tired of the Clintons, even though Bill’s 2012 Democratic Party Convention speech showed he’s still got a spark or three of demonic life left.
The questions went on to “who will be the most likely 2016 Democratic Party prez contenders, then?” I suggested Rahm Emanuel, as he’s got the best operating money machine, even better than that of the Clintons.
The flag, morphing the American and Israeli flags into one banner, creeps me out. How about you?
At the same time Clinton and a host of others at the forum were further Israelifying the USA, here’s what was happening in the sane world:
According to three senior diplomats from various EU countries, Britain and France were coordinating their moves against Israel, which they will reportedly implement over the next few days, and have discussed the extraordinary step of recalling their ambassadors from Tel Aviv for consultations. This step has never been taken before by these countries toward Israel. It would be so extreme that Britain and France may not take such action at this point but, rather, could invoke it in the case of further escalation of Israeli actions against the Palestinians. A final decision in the matter will be made today by the British and the French foreign ministers. [emphasis added]
I want my country back.




30 Comments

More creepy flag images.
I now know what the Kremlinologists became after the fall of the Soviet Union — Clintonologists.
Joint flags are not unusual at bilateral “friendship” dinners where foreign lobbyist lobby American officials and pile it on extra thick. It is the usual valedictory garbage for a retiring official. And a nudge to think about running.
Unfortunately, the two things that would cap Secretary of State Clinton’s career are anathema to Israel — successful conclusion to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the renormalization of relations with Iran. (The other items by the way include renormalization of relations with Cuba, renormalization of relations with North Korea, an arms agreement that brings US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles to a point that it makes sense to include other nations in negotiation towards zero nukes).
I would see Avigdor Liberman’s presence instead of Netanyahu as an assertion that Israel doesn’t care what the US thinks and not a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
Anything that Hillary Clinton says is diplo-speak and as the saying goes, “it is a diplomat’s job to lie on behalf of his country.” Even when the lies are flattery instead of bluffs or denials.
Fascinating that so much is being read into this event. My prediction is that Hillary will not run in 2016 (unless the Democratic field is really performing miserably). We know Schweitzer’s close to in. O’Malley is contemplating. And Cuomo is frequently mentioned.
Good points, all of them.
…Clintonologists…
Oh Snap…! ;-)
Funny how Harper condemns Obama’s ‘outrage’…, of which, the latest count is up to 5 nations retaliating against Bibi’s actions…
Btw, I’m working on a new post on the preposterous Syrian WMD ‘threat’…!
Sorry. It’s bought and paid for.
OMIGODDDDD, jooooooooos!!!!!!!!! AAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
The first image has this caption:
‘U.S.-Israeli Relations in a Changing Environment’ Well, a combo flag is a changing environment. Yes, it’s very weird, ET. Not to mention aesthetically displeasing.
When a similar article popped up on HP this morning the Clintonista’s were out in force.
So we could be looking at a HRC vs. Jeb Bush race in 2016. What a dreadful thought. When has dynasty politics ever been a good thing?
Less than a week ago, I got a begagram from Hillary asking me to help retire her 2008 campaign debt. I find it hard to believe she can raise the money for a credible run.
Sure hope I’m right although watching Rahm and Billary go head to head courting the big dem doners could be an event worth paying to see. It could also create a fracture in the party that could be very hard to heal.
Oh…HC is the ultimate Dem candidate. The very epitome of the Democratic party. If she wins the nomination, the soccer mom vote is locked up.
Less than thirty days and we are back in election mode. Why must we suffer so, especially at the hands of that hawk faced harridan.
I don’t think she’ll run. My best bet for the Democratic nomination in 2016 is Andrew Cuomo. He’s the most popular Governor in the country right now. In 2010, he called himself the “real Tea Party candidate”, basically running as a pro-gay marriage Carl Palladino without the impulse control issues that Palladino had. He’s a liberal darling right now because of gay marriage, and also probably, because well…he’s a Dem.
I agree with each of your points, as I don’t think Hillary wants to run in 2016. However, don’t be surprised if she’s begged to do so: The Democrats are at a huge funding disadvantage because of Citizens United, and they’re not going to want to have to spend $200 million on a candidate just to build favorable name recognition for him or her. Hillary’s probably the most popular living Democrat, and that’s the equivalent of starting out with $300 million in the bank as far as that goes.
Rahm’s name got mentioned here as a possible candidate. He doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting the Dem nomination. Primaries are for base voters. Rahm despises the base of the Dem party, and hates liberals and liberal policies.
Now if Rahm ran for the GOP nomination, he might have a chance at that.
This announcement was at the annual Saban forum, which alternates between Washington and Jerusalem. Per the Wikipedia entry on Haim Saban:
Less than a week ago, I got a begagram from Hillary asking me to help retire her 2008 campaign debt.
Doesn’t she owe most of that debt to her ham-fisted–and not very competent–pollster Mark Penn?
Anybody that knowingly spends time with Tony Blair is very, very suspect.
Every few months B’liar makes some statement via the UK press…….. and gets completely panned………… with knobs on.
The likes of Clinton and Blair wander the world and have no clue that the average sod hates them with a passion.
Here’s my post, folks…! ‘Concern’ Over Syria’s WMDs…
Two years ago, I’d have responded “just like the rest of the Dem leadership.” But it turns out that those Blue Dogs are a vanishing breed. Barack Obama may be the last of the lot.
Taking a little break here after watching the first revolting video you have up. God save us.
It’s hideous. Looking at it just kind of shrivels my soul. The message it sends makes it even worse. The US and Israel need to be two separate countries.
I try hard not to judge people on their looks — especially women, who are judged that way far too much — but I saw a video clip of Hilary making a statement about something a few days ago, and she looks old and haggard and exhausted. Nothing about her hair or makeup or dress was flattering at all.
She isn’t a pretty woman, but I have often seen her look reasonably attractive. Not this time. I wonder if she’s just worn out?
Don’t know how much or to whom.
Shortly after the 2008 election, I divided the total reported campaign debt by the total number of primary votes she received and sent her campaign a contribution of that amount even though I did not vote for her. I believe that her campaign was a valuable contribution to our electoral system.
I find it sad that the rest of her primary voters were not equally as supportive.
We’re all tired of the Blue Dogs, i.e. the Democrats who love Republicans. So are the American people.
— I had no idea. Since reading your comment, I’ve done some googling, and have found nothing. Can you help?
While some politicians in the USA may be especially friendly to the Israeli government and AIPAC, etc., the basic contradictions involved are often left unaddressed even by many in the peace and justice movement.
Very simply, to seek “an Israel which is at once a democratic state and a Jewish state” is as logical as to seek “a California which is at once both a democratic state and an Anglo state.” (And here the contradiction is obvious whether one means only Alta California or includes Baja California also.)
While indeed “the occupation” and “the settlements” (i.e. post-1967) are part of the problem, the problem itself is al-Nakba, which goes back to 1947-1949. Indeed this November 29 marked the 65th anniversary of U.N. General Assembly Resoution 181, which defined human and civil rights guarantees which the State of Israel has violated since its establishment in May of 1948.
The basic “demographic problem” for a “Jewish state” in Israel, at least as interpreted since 1948, is the same as for an “Anglo state” in even Alta California: the inconvenient truth of a minority not fitting such a political design, at least if “Jewish state” or “Anglo state” means ethnic hegemony.
The good news for social justice is that not quite enough Palestinian Arabs were cleansed from what became the State of Israel in 1948 — where there are now 1.5. million or more Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite 64 years of suppression ranging from outright military rule (1948-1966) to zoning laws, house demolitions, and generally fourth-class citizenship.
The practical question is one of power-sharing through what may be called either Historical Palestine or post-1967 Israel. It’s also one of basic justice: recognizing and effectuating the Palestinian Right of Return, and designing a political solution starting with that act of justice as the first premise.
Interestingly, President Kennedy back in 1962 may have come closest to a sane foreign policy in this area when, influenced by Jewish moral witnesses such as the Rabbi Elmer Berger, he raised the issue of the Right of Return, which the USA at the time was on record as supporting, at least in theory.
I hope that this latest episode involving HRC and Likud may remind us that with Israel, as with Mississippi and South Africa, a clear focus on ending discrimination and exclusion — not just in the post-1967 territories, but within 1948-1949 or Green Line Israel itself — is the first key to peace. In practice, this may largely come down to negotiating full and equal Israeli citizenship for Palestinians living anywhere within post-1967 Israel and those refugees who wish to return.
At the same time, of course, it means negotiating some constitutional basis — whether it is called binationalism, bicommunalism, or something else — for guaranteeing the rights of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs alike while recognizing that Israel/Palestine is a single land of two peoples.
Mahalo, Margo, a very worthy comment…! Balad’s MK, Haneen Zoabi has been carrying that very same torch into the Knesset itself, for a good number of years now…! *g*
Indeed it was.
Clinton/wasserman shultz in 16…to gals with chutzpa!!!
gag me!
Aloha, CTuttle, and thanks for the reminder about Balad! I should check as to what’s happening with former MP Azmi Bishara also. Balad is a good reminder that incremental solutions aren’t excluded, but they need to be incremental in the right direction! And greetings to you, juliania, also!
it amazes me in a country of 300,000,000 people,the only eligble presidential materials are,Kenedys Bushs Clintons or old washed up/out white guys…yes BHO was the token other,but sheesh,where is the political talent in this country?