Op-Ed: Hillary Clinton's Ambitious Foreign Afffairs Plan

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

Clinton described both Hamas and Hezbollah as existential threats to Israel, but said that, if elected president, she would consider entering into limited talks with Hamas if Israel deemed such outreach was in its best interests.

Here is my take on this: if a foreign country believes that it would be a good idea for the President of the United States to say, broker a limited peace accord in the volatile Middle East, then and only then would she, as President of the United States, go ahead and do that. Well, I am so glad to see that it will be another country's "best interests" that will be driving American's foreign policy when Hillary is President.

From the official Hillary Clinton website under the heading Rejecting Hamas:

The Hamas terror campaign has claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians in Israel and as a co-sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act in 2006, Hillary voted to prevent any U.S. foreign assistance to flow to a Palestinian government in which Hamas was a participant. Hillary believes that Hamas and indeed all Palestinian groups need to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally their commitment to peace by renouncing violence and terror, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and complying with previously signed agreements.

For Hamas' viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue, follow the link to the Hamas Charter (1988) and read Part III - Strategies and Methods, where they state the following:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

and a little further on:

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Well, it is as clear as mud to me that anyone looking for a peaceful, two state Palestinian/Israel solution would be basically talking to a brick wall. This self-same argument was also pointed out to the UN a few years ago.

Back to yesterday's interview, the eight-year co-President also had this to say:

I think what we did in the '90s was beneficial in a strategic way and led to a period where, at times, there were no attacks being made, no suicide bombings and no deaths.

The former First Lady was of course, referring to the diplomatic efforts her husband Bill Clinton, the actual President of the United States, undertook in regard to the Middle East and at the same time quite possibly, in her own unique way, was blaming the current President, George W. Bush, for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Isn't she smooth? Just keep repeating the words "we did", mis-speaking and stretching the truth, and no matter how many people challenge her, one would surmise that she believes eventually everyone will eventually just give up and take whatever she (or any member of her immediate family) says as the truth. D'ya think so?