Hillary Clinton: Hypocrite

Today in Israel, Hillary Clinton endorsed the Apartheid Wall that Israel is building in the West Bank. 

"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton, a New York Democrat, said during a tour of a section of the barrier being built around Jerusalem.

"This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

So, either every Palestinians is a terrorist, or by some miraculous feat, the wall only exists when terrorists get near it?  Funny how during her three-day trip, Clinton couldn't find any time to visit the West Bank - except for the part that Israel is stealing - yet she managed to hop over it and go to Jordan after the atttacks there.

Her support of the wall isn't that much of a surprise - you have to supplicate yourself to Israel if you want to elected, and we all know politicians do not have souls.  The irony of all this is that just a few days ago, on November 10, she spoke at the American Bar Association International Rule of Law Symposium, and made statements such as this:

Strength and respect for the rule of law is a value that knows no national boundaries. And social and economic advances can only be lasting if they are built on a foundation of respect for human rights.

The rule of law may begin in law books and congressional or legislative debates and courtrooms. It doesn’t end there. It finds its most vibrant expression in the actions of citizens – ordinary men and women who draw courage from the law to take a stand for their own rights and for those of others.

I guess she forgot to slip "except for Palestine" in there.  Perhaps someone should remind Clinton that the International Court of Justice - ya know, the place that upholds international law - found Israel's Wall and the path of the wall to be illegal. 

Israel is also adding 1,500 homes to the Tsufim settlement in the West Bank to connect it with a town inside the Green Line for eventual annexation to Israel.  Again, in violation of international law.  But I'm sure Clinton wouldn't mind.  (Thanks to a fellow ISMer for most of this info.)

Comments

[Jenna]

Scott, why are you so sexist? Your viciousness seems to be drawn from the fact that Clinton is a woman. You, a man, in a patriarchal, sexist and racist society, A WHITE MAN NO LESS, have no right to attack a woman. Even if she was doing something wrong, it's entirely because of the oppression she has faced as a woman, in the same way that Israeli oppression turns innocent Palestinians into suicide bombers. You are so arrogant.

[thecutter]

man o man, Jenna. I didn't catch a whif of sexism there. I am very glad Scott has brought out the empty expressions that Mrs Clinton dared to speak, knowing full well that she means nothing of the sort in those noble words she utters.

She put it in her head to be a leader, but, she seems to only want power. Yet, she is a politician, not an intellectual, so we can't expect that much more out of her.

[scott]

hey cutter,
thanks for the defense, but pay this person no mind. s/he thinks s/he's being clever, but is actually just a troll.

True or false Scott, we're living in a "patriarchal" and sexist society? And hence we must conclude that all women are oppressed? You didn't shy away from a statement earlier about how "all" minorities in the United States are "oppressed". Isn't it the same for women?

[scott]

Of course we live in a patriarchal society, and that patriarchy affects politicians as well. I'm not arguing that point. Your conclusion that I attacked Hillary because she is a women is just idiotic. I attacked her because of her policy decisions - or did you not read the post?

I know you don't actually even care about the oppression of women, which just proves how empty your argument is. Which is why this is the last time I'll respond to any of your comments.

[Jenna]

If women are oppressed, we must naturally conclude that their actions are the result of sexism, and the psychological damage that it has rendered. Hence, when black people riot and burn things, it's a reaction to racism. Hence it's not really their fault. Therefore, when Hillary Clinton does something equally unethical, we must conclude that it is only because of sexist pigs like you that she is engaging in this kind of self-destructive activity.

Hence, it's your fault Scott.

[senatortombstone]

Clinton is an opportunist who cares little about israelis or palestinians.

The Israelis have a right to protect their borders, nation, and people from an extremely aggresive, hostile, homicidal and regularily occurring threat of terrorism.

No, most Palestinian are not terrorists, that's not the point. There are enough who are and there are even more who support terrorism againt the Israelis.

Palestian terror groups will only be appeased when they have taken over Israel and have killed every single Jew. How doe a nation deal witht that sort pressure? If you ask me, building a wall to keep them out is very reasonable. Unless, of course, you enjoy seeing dead Jews on the news. Some people do.

[Tulip]

Jenna,

Oppression is not to be used as a rationalization for people to be not held accountable for their actions. To not hold Hillary Clinton responsible for what she said supporting the wall is patronizing towards her and shows a lack of respect for her ability to make intelligent decisions. To not hold rioters responsible for their rioting makes it sound like you think they are angry morons instead of people choosing to create disorder and destruction in order to further their own cause. You're making women and people of color less than equal to white hetero men when you blame oppression for their actions. They choose their actions just like white hetero males do and how are you supposed to be a feminist unless you believe in equality for women. Just because Jenna is a girls name doesn't make you not a sexist.