It was on December 15, 1998, when President and Mrs. Clinton made their historic visit to Gaza. Being mobbed by impoverished Palestinian children when she visited Shati refugee camp, the first lady right there declared her support for a Palestinian state while the President lamented the Palestinian "history of dispossession and dispersal."
Two years later, however, when she ran for U.S. senator from New York, Hillary ceased expressing any kind of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, nor did she think it opportune to criticize the brutalities of the Israeli occupation. By 2001, she praised the U. S. veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution to send a UN observer force into Israeli-occupied territory. On a visit to Jerusalem in 2002, she claimed that she had always believed that “Israel is a place that deserves our support, not only at this moment of peril, but at all times.”
In 2003 she expressed outrage at Europeans and Arabs treating Yasser Arafat as legitimate leader of the Palestinians.
In 2004, she reversed her opposition to Israel's “security fence” and defended its “legality.” After a visit to the region in 2005, her report totally ignored the predicament of the Palestinians.
In 2006 she reassured Israel’s ambassador that “I will continue to work in the Senate on measures that demonstrate support for Israel.” While she has every right to express her sympathy for the people of Israel, she failed to stress the American people’s vital interest in an end to the occupation and an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Last year, she profusely praised the intransigent lobbyists of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for advancing America’s interests in the Middle East. Altogether over the past seven years, Mrs. Clinton’s words and actions have been so one-sided that as U.S. President she could hardly remain credible as an impartial mediator.
On October 11, 2002, Senator Clinton voted for the Congressional resolution that authorized an invasion of Iraq. The day before, she had told the Senate “that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” Just like the President and the Vice President, she made these false assertions without any qualifications.
Six months later, Senator Clinton still defended her vote for
war and told the Washington Times that she had checked the accuracy of the administration’s charges against Saddam “with trusted Clinton administration officials.” Yet, when
U.S. troops began to struggle against the growing anti-American insurgency, Hillary denounced the President’s “aggressive unilateralism.”
Early in 2005, she opposed a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In 2006, however, she was no longer so certain: “I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment ... nor do I think it’s a smart strategy to set a date certain.”
Yet, after she had decided to run for president, she called on Congress to repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization. If elected, she recently claimed, she would “convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.”
She wants to negotiate with all countries bordering on Iraq, including Syria and Iran, in order to explore peaceful solutions for the Middle East. Nevertheless, she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard--a part of Iran’s armed forces--a terrorist organization.
In view of so much flipflopping and fence-hopping, the New York Post impatiently asked: “Is Hillary a hawk or a dove? Or is she playing New Yorkers for bird brains?” If you want to see an opportunist politician, just study Hillary Clinton’s views on U.S. foreign policy.