Truthout:
'Hillary Clinton's Silence Is Deafening on Massive Palestinian Prisoner Hunger Strike
Thursday, 10 May 2012 16:07By Robert Naiman, Truthout | News Analysis
Palestinian and israeli protesters demonstrate in support of hunger striking prisoners, outside of Ramle Prison in Ramle, Israel, May 3, 2012. (Photo: Rina Castelnuovo / The New York Times)More than 1,500 prisoners are currently observing an open-ended hunger strike in defense of basic human rights: the right not to be detained without charge, the right not to be subjected to sustained solitary confinement, the right to be visited by one's family. Two of the prisoners have been on hunger strike for more than 70 days and have been widely reported to be "near death."
Is it possible that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could say a few words about this situation?
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally said something under pressure. So did theEuropean Union. The International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have spoken up. There was a report in The New York Times; before that, there was a report in The Washington Post.
But so far, Secretary of State Clinton hasn't said boo. Is it impossible that she could say something?
What might happen if a bunch of Americans tried to put pressure on Hillary to speak up?
Some people may say: Hillary? Dream on. The prisoners that you're talking about are Palestinian. Some will recall that in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Hillary ran as the "more AIPAC than thou" candidate. Before that, she was a senator from New York. At a recent conference in New York City sponsored by the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Daily Forward reports, when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel should work with the international community in addressing the issue of Iran rather than trying to "go it alone," people in the audience cried out: "Neville Chamberlain!" So, that's what senators from New York have to deal with, apparently.
But Hillary represents the whole country now, and as a representative of the whole country, Hillary has a different history. If you count being first lady as being a US official - and why wouldn't you? - Hillary was the first US official to publicly endorse the creation of an independent Palestinian state. In his book the "The Crisis of Zionism," Peter Beinart reports that as Secretary of State, Hillary argued for President Obama to put pressure on the Israeli government to negotiate seriously with the Palestinians (p. 147). And here's what Secretary of State Clinton said about Israeli settlements in the West Bankin May 2009:
Speaking of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, "He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions." Talking to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said: "That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly."
What can we conclude from this? Hillary Clinton is a political figure capable of taking different stances in response to different political situations. I know, it's shocking, isn't it?
Writing in Salon about President Obama's historic declaration that gay marriage should be legal, Glenn Greenwald makes a point that should be obvious, but seems to have escaped many people who consider themselves savvy about politics: if you support the Obama administration no matter what it does, or oppose the Obama administration no matter what it does, you are likely to be an impotent political actor. Sometimes, the Obama administration is good, and sometimes it's bad, and the point is to increase the good and decrease the bad: "power concedes nothing without a demand."'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten