Holier than thou

Front-runner Democratic candidate to the White House Hillary Clinton gave the world, in general, and the Arab countries, in particular, especially the Palestinian people, a hint at what her foreign policy would be if she were elected US president in November.

Addressing the packed annual American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Monday, she stressed that “America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival”, and “anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president”, at once reasserting her undying commitment to Israel and taking a jab at rival presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders whom she accuses of keeping a neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Clinton defined her stance against neutrality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by calling for stronger ties with Israel, more robust military assistance to it and criticism of the Palestinian knife attacks against Israelis, with not a peep about the horrible state terrorism practised by Israel.

“And as president, I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear — I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the UN Security Council.”

So much for showing respect to the organisation that should be the ultimate arbiter in world problems, of which her country is an important member!

Clinton has all the chances to become the president of a country most of the world still looks up to.

By giving unconditional support to Israel, by not finding anything wrong with the policies of its extreme-right government, Clinton shows not only bias in favour of a racist state, she in effect gives Israel green light to continue its defiant policies, and this gives the Arab world a real cause for concern.

She even finds “alarming” the peaceful manner of protesting Israel’s unfair policies — the boycott, divestment and sanctions BDS movement — telling her AIPAC audience: “Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and universities.”

Eerie, as these are words she should have spoken to proponents of BDS, but then the world seems to have gone upside down, so why should a US presidential candidate be different?

The only encouraging statement Clinton made was in defence of a negotiated two-state solution to the Palestinian case, the one that “can provide peace and security in the region”.

The least one would expect of Clinton is to put the blame where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of a state that for 50 years has been occupying, oppressing, killing and dispossessing a captive population.

But she could not find it in her to name a spade a spade, instead kowtowing and seeking the support of a powerful lobby that, judging by the applause, would appear fairer in regard to the Palestinian issue than the woman who might be the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Frustrating, giving cause for alarm, but in all honesty, not unexpected.

Just sad.