(no nuance to HillaryClinton's views) she made it clear in her recent book

IN THE MIDDLE EAST CHAPTER OF HER BOOK MS CLINTON MAKES STATEMENTS THAT AT BEST COULD BE CONSIDERED INSENSITIVE TO ISRAEL, OR AT WORST THAT ARE CLEARLY ANTI-ISRAEL

Israel Revolt

Supporters of the Jewish State of Israel may be concerned about a section of Hillary Clinton's new book "Hard Choices." In the Middle East chapter of her book Clinton makes statements that at best could be considered insensitive to Israel, or at worst, clearly anti-Israel. That chapter features the former Secretary of State calling the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria "occupied territories," ignoring the negotiations which occurred during her husband's administration, drawing a false moral equivalence terrorism and Israel's defense of terror, echoing John Kerry's gaffe describing Israel as a potential apartheid state, and ignoring any Israeli claim to East Jerusalem.

On page 302, Clinton writes:

When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted

Clinton fails to recognize a truism of peace negotiations, "It takes two to tango." During her husband’s presidency, Israel offered Yasser Arafat a deal that would have given him about 98% of what he wanted. Bill Clinton said after Arafat broke off talks, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." PA President Abbas turned down a similar deal offered by Ehud Olmert during the Bush presidency.
It is important to note that when Chris Christie called Judea and Samaria “occupied,” supporters of Israel forced him to apologize.  But when Hillary Clinton writes it in a book, her liberal supporters are at a loss for words.
Clinton says on page 308:

There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.

Like many whose political leanings are anti-Israel, Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel's attempts at self-defense. The second intifada was a bloody and violent period of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians: busloads of children blown up on the way to school, pizza places bombed, even families peacefully celebrating the Passover Seder in a hotel massacred. There is no moral equivalency between an act of terror and a nation's attempts at self-defense.

By writing that more Palestinians were hurt than Israelis, Clinton is alluding to the anti-Israel meme of the IDF's unequal response to Palestinian terror. If one were to follow Clinton's logic, the US should be chastised because Americans in the War on Terror killed more Al Qaeda terrorists than the number of Americans killed during the 9/11/01 attacks.
On page 312, the former Secretary of State writes:

Because of higher birth rates among Palestinians and lower birth rates among Israelis, we were approaching the day when Palestinians would make up a majority of the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and most of those Palestinians would be relegated to second-class citizenship and unable to vote.

In addition to being factually inaccurate, her comment is essentially a rewording of what current Secretary of State John Kerry said two months ago, that Israel was on the road to becoming an apartheid state. Israel's deputy defense minister Danny Danon gave the best answer to Kerry's remark, a response which is apropos to the Clinton passage as well:

To suggest that the Jewish people would ever establish an apartheid regime was particularly hurtful. Equally hurtful was the implied double standard. Although the administration has from time to time chided the Palestinians for “unhelpful” steps, those comments have not come close to the pointed criticism that has been leveled at our government. This policy of sharing the blame for the collapse of the peace talks, which from the outset was deemed by most independent experts as a long-shot attempt at best, has created the illusion of parity between the two sides. The secretary’s comments make it seem that Israel’s decisions to issue housing tenders, or to exhaustively debate whether to release convicted murders who would have very likely received the death penalty in U.S. courts, were just as damaging to the peace process as the “unity” pact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has now signed with Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization.
 All citizens of Israel, including the more than 20 percent of the population who are non-Jews, enjoy the same democratic freedoms as well as full human and civil rights. Minorities in Israel participate in our vigorous democracy, are elected to parliament, have served as ministers and preside at all levels of our judicial system, including the Supreme Court. Even the Palestinians of Judea and Samira enjoy full autonomy via the Palestinian Authority. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Middle East, where Christian minorities are persecuted and women and homosexuals routinely oppressed. This includes, of course, Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The final entry in Hillary's anti-Israel screed appears on page 317, where Clinton writes:

The sticking point would be Jerusalem. East Jerusalem had been captured along with the West Bank in 1967, and Palestinians dreamed of one day establishing the capital of their future state there.

Clinton ignores the possibility of any validity to Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Israel didn't capture Jerusalem; Jordan did in 1948. Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population from the first records in 1844 through the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 when Jordan kicked out all the Jews.  In fact, Muslims were the third largest religion in the city until roughly 1890.
The Palestinians didn’t want East Jerusalem as their capital until after 1967. Their reason for desiring it is based on the fact that they refuse to recognize any Jewish claim of a historical heritage to Jerusalem or any other part of the Holy land. This despite the fact that there is even a Koranic passage (Koran, Sura 2:145, "The Cow") indicating that Jerusalem is not quite so holy to Muslims, and is passed on to the Jews. The 13th-century Arab biographer and geographer Yakut noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims, and Jerusalem to the Jews."

In all probability, Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. As TruthRevolt reportedlast week, as Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton was the architect of the policy for the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy that reflected views Hillary Clinton has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State and relied on Jewish voters. Her lifetime of views about Israel is repeated in her book "Hard Choices." 

(Man In Glass House Dress In Basement)

HUMA ABEDIN: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PRINCESS

(Shiek) In an era when the most minute and lurid descriptions of her husband’s anatomical and sexual details are common talk, Huma Abedin’s familial and professional connections to the world of jihad are unspeakable.

In a nutshell – quoting former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy writing at National Review this week – Huma Abedin “worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.” That would be for at least seven years (1996-2003), by the way, during which Abedin also worked for Hillary Clinton.

Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal Huma worked for – which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization – is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma’s father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, “the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel.”

Given these alarming professional and family associations, it is hard to imagine how Huma Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work closely with the secretary of state. But she did, and from her powerful post, she undoubtedly exerted influence over U.S. policy-making. (In his National Review piece, McCarthy lists specific actions that bespeak a shift in U.S. foreign policy to favor the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Isn’t the Abedin-Clinton national security story at least as newsworthy as Weiner’s private parts?

The Bush letter nine years on

(Carl) Rick Richman reminds us that Sunday is the 9th anniversary of the famous Bush letter that effectively promised Israel the 'settlement blocs.' At the time, the letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by both Houses of Congress, but in 2009, President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, tried to pretend that it didn't exist, and Obama has continued to behave as if the letter did not exist.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is unable to pretend the letter didn't exist. But that doesn't mean he's going to back Israel's position. Rick Richman explains.

At an April 9 press conference in Tel Aviv, Bow Shapira from Israeli TV (Channel 1) told Kerry he wanted to ask about “a guarantee from the past”–the 2004 Bush letter, which he described as “telling that blocs of settlements can stay, cannot [be] removed from the territory.” His question about the guarantee was straightforward: “well, does it exist?” Kerry responded in part as follows:

I remember that commitment very well because I was running for president then, and I personally have supported the notion that the situation on the ground has changed, and obviously, we’re talking about blocs that are in a very different status. I’m not going to get into telling you what ought to happen with respect to any particular piece of geography today because that’s for the parties to decide in their negotiation. But I have certainly supported the notion publicly myself that we need to deal with the ’67 lines, plus the swaps that reflect some of the changes that have taken place since then.

It is not surprising that Kerry remembered the commitment so well. He appeared on “Meet the Press” on April 18, 2004–four days after the Bush letter was issued–and was asked directly about it by Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush … said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Completely?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.

Kerry’s response to the Israeli reporter last week is significant, because he recognized: (1) that the Bush letter was in fact a commitment, subsequently endorsed by both the Senate (95-3) and the House (407-9) in concurrent resolutions; and (2) that he supported it at the time, in unambiguous terms.

But it is indicative of the continuing problem President Obama created with his refusal in 2009 to endorse the Bush letter that an Israeli reporter felt it necessary to ask whether the U.S. commitment exists. The president has been attempting to assure Israelis with his have-your-back, all-options-on-the-table rhetorical commitments, but they remember that in the past he did not feel constrained to respect even a written commitment to Israel.

Given that Obama doesn't live up to his commitments, why should Israel give up real assets to appease him?

unbelievable!

Greta Van Susteren interviews #Hillary #Clinton about #MiddleEast ,Pres #Morsi and #Benghazi.

You see the way this feminist hussy is trying to spin why an insecure embassy was in Libya? We were giving the Muslim Brotherhood weapons, but Clinton spins it. We were there to keep the weapons from going to Israel? Those were our weapons. Wow... that takes some progressive chutzpah. The lies never... ever... ever... stop!

Video - Greta Van Susteren interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East ,Pres Morsi and Benghazi.HT: BarrackNow. Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.
Hillary's response?
At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.
What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.
At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:
"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".
Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

via mfs-theothernews.com

Clinton calls on Israel to embrace moderate Palestinians, negotiations

(Haaretz) Speaking at the 2012 Saban forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington DC Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that without progress towards peace Israel will be forced to choose between "preserving democracy and the Jewish identity of the state." ‫Clinton rejected Lieberman's pessimism on concerning the Palestinian Authority's capability to govern its territory and bring about a lasting peace. "With very little money, no natural resources, they have accomplished quite a bit, building a security force that works every single day with the IDF. They have entrepreneurial successes. They are nationalistic - but largely secular. Israel should support them." "Some Israelis claim Abbas is not a partner for peace", Clinton continued, possibly with the Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, who sitting just several feet away, in mind. "Well, I think that should be tested."‬
Please leave your spawn in America Hillary. Abu Mazen just claimed that some of the rocket attacks were Fatah's action. Secondly the Palestinians are the world's largest charity. It is the end all of a welfare state... and if Fatah were largely secular then the hadith about the tree of the Jews would not be in the charter.

‘Embarrasing Defeat For U.S.’: UN Votes Overwhelmingly To Recognize State Of Palestine

‘Embarrasing Defeat For U.S.’: UN Votes Overwhelmingly To Recognize State Of Palestine

Comment: Kahane Chai. He was right. Oslo's accord has been dead, dug up... shot... buried again, dug up, hanged then buried again... then dug up and certified. Push the Muslims out. This is not just a religious argument. This is a survival argument. No Jew can take an Israeli government seriously about safety of their family that does nothing now

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians and an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.
The resolution upgrading the Palestinians’ status to a nonmember observer state at the U.N. was approved by a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions, in the 193-member world body.
A Palestinian flag was quickly unfurled on the floor of the General Assembly, behind the Palestinian delegation. In the West Bank city of Ramallah, hundreds crowded into the main square waved Palestinian flags and chanted “God is great.” Others who had watched the vote on outdoor screens and television sets hugged, honked and set off fireworks before dancing in the streets.
Real independence, however, remains an elusive dream until the Palestinians negotiate a peace deal with the Israelis, who warned that the General Assembly action will only delay a lasting solution. Israel still controls the West Bank, east Jerusalem and access to Gaza, and it accused the Palestinians of bypassing negotiations with the campaign to upgrade their U.N. status.
The United States immediately criticized the historic vote. “Today’s unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles in the path peace,” U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the vote “unfortunate” and “counterproductive.”

it's a bit more extreme then that, but take what you can get with those two

The United States and Israel voted against recognition, joined by Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly shortly before the vote “defamatory and venomous,” saying it was “full of mendacious propaganda” against Israel. Netanyahu called the vote meaningless.
Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was “being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine.” Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.
After the vote, Netanyahu said the U.N. move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.
Thursday’s vote came on the same day, Nov. 29, that the U.N. General Assembly in 1947 voted to recognize a state in Palestine, with the jubilant revelers then Jews. The Palestinians rejected that partition plan, and decades of tension and violence have followed.
Just before Thursday’s vote, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Ron Prosor, warned the General Assembly that “the Palestinians are turning their backs on peace” and that the U.N. can’t break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.
The vote had been certain to succeed, with most member states sympathetic to the Palestinians. Several key countries, including France, this week announced they would support the move to elevate the Palestinians from the status of U.N. observer to nonmember observer state.
Unlike the more powerful U.N. Security Council, there are no vetoes in the General Assembly, and the resolution to raise the Palestinian status only required a majority vote for approval.
The vote grants Abbas an overwhelming international endorsement for his key position: establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. With Netanyahu opposed to a pullback to the 1967 lines, this should strengthen Abbas’ hand if peace talks resume.
The overwhelming vote also could help Abbas restore some of his standing, which has been eroded by years of standstill in peace efforts. His rival, Hamas, deeply entrenched in Gaza, has seen its popularity rise after an Israeli offensive on targets linked to the Islamic militant group there earlier this month.
Israel has stepped back from initial threats of harsh retaliation for the Palestinians seeking U.N. recognition, but government officials warned that Israel would respond to any Palestinian attempts to use the upgraded status to confront Israel in international bodies.
The Palestinians now can gain access to U.N. agencies and international bodies, most significantly the International Criminal Court, which could become a springboard for going after Israel for alleged war crimes or its ongoing settlement building on war-won land.
However, in the run-up to the U.N. vote, Abbas signaled that he wants recognition to give him leverage in future talks with Israel, and not as a tool for confronting or delegitimizing Israel, as Israeli leaders have alleged.

via patdollard.com