Hillary Clinton slams young anti-Israel protesters as ignorant on Middle East: 'They don't know very much'

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 17, 2009
69,508
37,099
2,645
Las Vegas, Nevada
The pro-terrorist crowd on X has been losing their minds over Hillary Clinton's comments regarding their positions on the Middle East and Israel. Gen Z doesn't seem to be much of a fan of the Clintons, but she isn't wrong. They really are grossly ignorant about what's going on over there and what has historically taken place.

 
The pro-terrorist crowd on X has been losing their minds over Hillary Clinton's comments regarding their positions on the Middle East and Israel. Gen Z doesn't seem to be much of a fan of the Clintons, but she isn't wrong. They really are grossly ignorant about what's going on over there and what has historically taken place.

Didn't your hero send billions in cash to Iran? I'm sure you approved !
 
The pro-terrorist crowd on X has been losing their minds over Hillary Clinton's comments regarding their positions on the Middle East and Israel. Gen Z doesn't seem to be much of a fan of the Clintons, but she isn't wrong. They really are grossly ignorant about what's going on over there and what has historically taken place.

Hillary doesn't get much right, but as the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. So yes, give credit where credit is due.

And she is absolutely right. Palestine has been offered their own state since the U.N. partition in 1947, and not the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood or any other actual or de facto leaders or influencers of the Palestinian areas have agreed to that. Their only concern is to eradicate all the Jews and erase Israel from the face of the Earth. And not any of them care one whit about the Palestinian people who keep supporting these terrorist groups in power.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #5
Hillary doesn't get much right, but as the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. So yes, give credit where credit is due.

Given how far left the party has gone, she's actually fairly sensible these days. Bill could practically be a Republican now.
 
Who cares what a washed up looser has to say? The best thing Hillary can do is keep her opinions to herself and talk long walks in the woods
 
Given how far left the party has gone, she's actually fairly sensible these days. Bill could practically be a Republican now.
Maybe. Hillary is too ingrained in Alinsky theology to be considered an old style Democrat. I also considered Bill a person without much personal conviction and therefore Newt Gingrich and his reformer Republicans aided and abetted by Tim Penny's 33 conservative Democrats in the House were able to drag him into tax cuts and welfare reform that created a great economy and saved his presidency. Closest thing to a balanced budget any of us have seen in a very long time.

So how would Bill perform with the far radical left that the Democrat Party has become? I honestly don't know.
 
If that murderous shit beast finally got something right, it's certainly not derived from any compassion for mankind.... there's an angle to it, with the lowest common denominator being CASH..... lots of it.



hillury killer 003.jpg
 
Hillary doesn't get much right, but as the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. So yes, give credit where credit is due.

And she is absolutely right. Palestine has been offered their own state since the U.N. partition in 1947, and not the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood or any other actual or de facto leaders or influencers of the Palestinian areas have agreed to that. Their only concern is to eradicate all the Jews and erase Israel from the face of the Earth. And not any of them care one whit about the Palestinian people who keep supporting these terrorist groups in power.
I don't fellow this issue very closely, but every time they have been offered their own state, hasn't it always excluded. E. Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock? :dunno:

Isn't that sort of a disingenuous offer?

All the Times Israel Has Rejected Peace With Palestinians​

1715377697978.png


". . . The Arab side formally rejected the plans. The Zionist movement rejected the specifics of the Peel proposal and accepted the U.N. plan — but only in public. The founders of Israel privately agreed that once the country came into being, they would consolidate their power and then take over as much additional land as possible. David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, put it this way in a famous 1937 letter to his son: “A Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. … The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”

In any case, the U.N. adoption of the partition plan in November 1947 led to a moderate civil war between the Jewish and Arab populations. Then during the Arab–Israeli War of 1948 following Israel’s declaration of independence, the new country conquered 78 percent of Palestine, leaving 22 percent in Arab hands. Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians experienced the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe,” in which 700,000 people were expelled or fled, and 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed.

<snip>

This was in fact true: The records of the Taba talks show the Israelis and Palestinians had come agonizingly close to specific solutions to what the territory of a Palestinian state would be and whether and how any Palestinian refugees could return to Israel, with less progress on who would control which parts of Jerusalem.

But Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon, who did not want a Palestinian state and did not restart the talks. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the Clinton parameters “are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.”

Clinton then made a fateful, disastrous decision. In the 22 years since, he has lied over and over again about what happened, claiming that Arafat was the one who rejected a settlement. This has convinced both Israelis and Americans that Clinton made every effort to give Palestinians a state. But it was impossible, because — in what became a standard formulation — there was “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side.
Hillary Clinton, who was elected to the Senate in 2000 and later became secretary of state, also joined in this key deception.

The Arab Peace Plan

In 2002, Saudi Arabia proposed a solution to the conflict known as the Arab Peace Initiative. The API called for a settlement along the standard lines that had been known for decades: an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories with some small adjustments, a fair division of Jerusalem, and “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.” The 22 members of the Arab League endorsed it, as did the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Israel, with Sharon leading the country, simply ignored it.. . . . "

etc.
 
I don't fellow this issue very closely, but every time they have been offered their own state, hasn't it always excluded. E. Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock? :dunno:

Isn't that sort of a disingenuous offer?

All the Times Israel Has Rejected Peace With Palestinians​

View attachment 944873

". . . The Arab side formally rejected the plans. The Zionist movement rejected the specifics of the Peel proposal and accepted the U.N. plan — but only in public. The founders of Israel privately agreed that once the country came into being, they would consolidate their power and then take over as much additional land as possible. David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, put it this way in a famous 1937 letter to his son: “A Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning. … The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”

In any case, the U.N. adoption of the partition plan in November 1947 led to a moderate civil war between the Jewish and Arab populations. Then during the Arab–Israeli War of 1948 following Israel’s declaration of independence, the new country conquered 78 percent of Palestine, leaving 22 percent in Arab hands. Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians experienced the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe,” in which 700,000 people were expelled or fled, and 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed.

<snip>

This was in fact true: The records of the Taba talks show the Israelis and Palestinians had come agonizingly close to specific solutions to what the territory of a Palestinian state would be and whether and how any Palestinian refugees could return to Israel, with less progress on who would control which parts of Jerusalem.

But Barak was defeated by Ariel Sharon, who did not want a Palestinian state and did not restart the talks. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the Clinton parameters “are not binding on the new government to be formed in Israel.”

Clinton then made a fateful, disastrous decision. In the 22 years since, he has lied over and over again about what happened, claiming that Arafat was the one who rejected a settlement. This has convinced both Israelis and Americans that Clinton made every effort to give Palestinians a state. But it was impossible, because — in what became a standard formulation — there was “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side.
Hillary Clinton, who was elected to the Senate in 2000 and later became secretary of state, also joined in this key deception.

The Arab Peace Plan

In 2002, Saudi Arabia proposed a solution to the conflict known as the Arab Peace Initiative. The API called for a settlement along the standard lines that had been known for decades: an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories with some small adjustments, a fair division of Jerusalem, and “a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.” The 22 members of the Arab League endorsed it, as did the 57-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Israel, with Sharon leading the country, simply ignored it.. . . . "

etc.
To expect the Israelis to give up ALL their historic and sacred areas to Muslims to whom the area is neither sacred nor important is unreasonable.
 
Now that she’s not running for office she gets to tell the truth
 
Given how far left the party has gone, she's actually fairly sensible these days. Bill could practically be a Republican now.

Hillary and Bill have always been part of that Third Way thread of the Democratic Party that thinks the only problem Democrats have is that they aren't enough like the Republicans

Bill only found fealty to liberal ideals when Ken Starr started rummaging around in his underwear drawer.
 
To expect the Israelis to give up ALL their historic and sacred areas to Muslims to whom the area is neither sacred nor important is unreasonable.
The dome of the rock is not sacred to Muslims?

🤔

"The structure is situated on a flat elevated plaza known to Muslims as al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf (“The Noble Sanctuary”) and to Jews as the Temple Mount (the site where the Temple of Jerusalem once stood). According to Muslims, the rock above which the dome is constructed is the spot from which the Prophet Muhammad was taken up into heaven for an encounter with God (an event known as the Miʿrāj). Nearby, on the southern extreme of the plaza, is Al-Aqṣā Mosque; Muslims believe the Prophet was miraculously transported there from Mecca on the night of his encounter (see Isrāʾ). The term “Al-Aqṣā Mosque” is commonly extended to denote the entire plaza and, consequently, to the Dome of the Rock itself."
1715379022405.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top