Hillary agreed to go on “The View,” a guaranteed friendly forum but also a den of morons, and, apparently off the cuff, gave a clear, coherent explanation for why the pro-Hamas postures of many in her own party are ignorant and ethically wrong. The only aspect of her explanation that I would fault is her not making it plain that Hamas “took over” Gaza because the population wanted it to., and thus she does not counter the fatuous “innocent Gazans” talking point.
I also give her credit for explaining why Barack Obama, worshipfully cited by peak idiot Sunny Hostin as if his despicable comments on the war were profound rather than fatuous and facile, was in fact full of it while nodding her head and pretending to agree with her ex-boss. She makes it clear (except maybe to the idiots she is talking to) that he is dead wrong. “We’re all accountable to history,” is brilliant doubletalk, absolutely meaningless but diplomatic.
Yes, yes, Hillary dutifully gives lip-service to a future “two-state solution.” It’s about on par with singing “Imagine,” annoying, but forgivable. There’s nothing wrong with saying you want impossible things, as long as you know they’re impossible.
Ethics Alarms 
That was surprisingly refreshing.
I wonder if she still thinks I am deplorable.
Concise, non-emotional, summaries of recent history, the true nature of the opponent’s flouting of previous agreements, even including concessions already provided by Israel. ::applause::
As a person who claimed to have been under terrorist sniper fire, she did great. Now who in the DNC propaganda mill forgot to send her the memo?
Judging by the White House’s response to Oct. 7th, I think the memo going around is, “Pay lip service to Israel, while placating the Muslim world”. The only major Dem politicians I’m aware of that ignore the memo and don’t even pretend to support Israel are the Squad, but they don’t represent the Democrat establishment, just the young SJW voters.
Well, good for her. A well, reasoned, and reasonably sensible analysis.
So now the antisemite racists in the Democratic party and elsewhere can have someone else to ignore.
It’s a strange day when a good share of the deplorables are agreeing with Hilary Clinton. And it nicely illustrates Jack’s assertion that you can find ethics heroes in the strangest places.
I view the two state solution as much more realistic than I think you do, Jack. Except now, I think we maybe need to think about a three state solution, where Gaza, led by someone who isn’t Hamas, might get theirs first.
The west bank has gotten extremely complicated and the landswaps to disentangle them is going to be a mess, Gaza is relatively simple and could exist if the people who live there get something approximating good government.
How could it possibly happen? With just one small Palestinian territory bordering on Israel, it still defaulted to trying to kill Israel. What, at this point, after repeatedly offering some version of that concession, would a sane Israel suddenly decide that having an entire hostile nation, a few steps from being allied with all the other nations in the region who have tried to wipe out Israel in the past, would be rational concession? The two-state solution had sailed BEFORE this latest mess.
I don’t think this is right… I mean, after the Abraham accords, Israel has basically normalized relations with most of their neighbors. Meanwhile, Egypt, a majority Muslim, Arab nation, has the same blockade up against Gaza that Israel has.
The problem is that Hamas is an avatar of a particularly militant, death-culty version of Islam, and it doesn’t matter how many babies die. If you have a worldview where a dead Muslim gets to God faster, and a dead infidel gets to hell faster, then it doesn’t matter whether your Jihad hits a schoolbus full of kids every day of the week, because dead people is a good outcome.
I grant you that there can’t be a state led by Hamas, and I grant you that Gazans elected Hamas, but I wonder if there’s enough moderates left in Gaza to elect a government after Hamas that’s less extreme. Because the alternative is that there aren’t, that the population has been educated and indoctrinated into that death cult, and the killing only stops when one side is dead.
Which… Might happen. I remember thinking in the fallout of the Afghanistan withdrawal how poignant it was that a generation of young men, after 20 years of American intervention and occupation, still thought the best opportunity for their lives was to take up arms against the moderates.
that the population has been educated and indoctrinated into that death cult, and the killing only stops when one side is dead.
Oh, this is definitely where we are, and where things will stay. What could change it?
Honestly?
I think that the best thing for the Gazan people might be to become a refugee diaspora. If the population could be displaced and dispersed into Arab majority nations, then maybe in a couple of generations outside of the reinforcing pressures that have created the circle of hate we’re seeing, maybe they moderate over time.
The alternative is the status quo, and that’s just not good for anyone: Israel isn’t going to unilaterally disarm. The country isn’t going anywhere. The Gazans don’t have a win condition.
But reality asserts, and I don’t think anyone is really in for that, the Muslim majority nations in the region included. Eyes wide open, I’m aware that what I’m suggesting amounts to ethnic cleansing, and American progressives would probably label me as genocidal for even suggesting it.
Call me crazy, but I think that the well-being of the people is more important than the physical location they happen to be in, and I think that displacement is the most likely of the impossible solutions. The reality is that after a year or two of bunker busting (because I don’t think the Gaza situation resolves itself quickly, not with 300 miles of tunnel to bust through) the Gazans will be asked to hold an election, they’re going to elect Hamas 2.0, and the cycle repeats.
What’s in it for Hillary?
Cynical blind squirrel finds acorn.
Isn’t this the person who irresponsibly left U.S. facilities unsecured in an unstable Islamic country on the anniversary of 9-11? Trump had to push her into using the term “radical Islamism” (isn’t that a redundancy?) during their contest. This woman says or does nothing at any given time that isn’t designed to further her own agenda.
She’s utterly despicable. Also from an appearance (the same one? who knows) on The View:
Clinton said: ‘The wreckage is almost unimaginable. You know, when I was Secretary of State, I used to talk about “won and done”. What I meant by that was people would get legitimately elected and then they would try to do away with elections, and do away with opposition, and do away with a free press.
‘And you could see in countries where – well, Hitler was duly elected right – all of a sudden someone with those tendencies, those dictatorial, authoritarian tendencies, would be like OK we’re going to shut this down, we’re going to throw these people in jail.
‘And they didn’t usually telegraph that. Trump is telling us what he intends to do. Take him at his word. The man means to throw people in jail who disagree with him, shut down legitimate press outlets, do what he can to literally undermine the rule of law and our country’s values.’
Remember, this is the woman who hired Marc Elias to irreparably poison American politics forever with the made up from whole cloth pee tape dossier.
I still have sympathy for Hillary on the Trump score. Nobody, even a less crummy person, would be bitter at someone like him in her situation. She was convinced, with good reason, that she was going to be elected the first female President. She won the popular vote, making her loss in the Electoral College a statistical fluke. She knows the her confidence and natural tendency to lie also did her in, because the whole private servor mess would have been a one week story if she had just said, “Yup, that’s what I did, I know now it was wrong, I didn’t understand the implications, I’m sorry, and I’ll cooperate with any investigation.” It would have been so easy. Her choice is to hate Trump or hate herself and the universe. I’d pick Trump too.
She couldn’t defeat a rank amateur flim-flam man in a race for the largest electoral prize in the world with the entire AUC behind her? She shouldn’t be allowed to show her face or open her mouth in public ever again. If incompetence is unethical, she’s the most unethical person ever to exist.
Additionally, the AUC’s use of “Trump!” as their only reason to exist and their only policy is the worst thing to happen in politics since … the piss tape dossier. She’s a hack for trotting it out. And she’s projecting. Trump wants to put political opponents in jail? Surely you jest, Hillary. Oh, I get it, Trump only wants to put opponents in jail in a single prosecution, not THREE!
Presenting history to moronic individuals is not heroic.
No, bucking Democratic hesitance to call the conflict what it is for an infamous calculating politician like Clinton is heroic.
Just so. And the show she did that on would have applauded her if she’d taken the side of Hamas and thrown Israel under the bus — she had to know that going in. Again, she’s a generally deplorable person, but in this instance a genuine ethics hero.
Next week she can go back to deplorableness. 🙂
Oh, she did that on the same show!