Hillary’s advisers from Hell

So it turns out that the advice Hillary Clinton gets from her advisers regarding Israel is overwhelmingly anti-Israel:

…the stream of anti-Israel advice received by Hillary was much more comprehensive than that which came from just [Sidney Blumenthal]. In the entire batch of Hillary’s emails, you will be hard pressed to find a single email that is sympathetic towards the Jewish state, from any of the people on whom she relied. …

These emails seem to demonstrate that a huge segment of her close advisers and confidants were attacking Israel, condemning Netanyahu, and strategizing about how to force Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria at all costs.

Someone recently remarked that “soon the US will get a president from the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] generation,” and that this is true of younger staff members already. Clinton is old enough to know better, but it seems she is hearing only one side of the story.

President Obama, too, is a special case. He is ahead of most of his age group, probably because of his third-world anti-Western orientation. But soon most educated Americans will have absorbed what is becoming the conventional wisdom: Israel bad, Palestinian Arabs good.

The universities are not the only institutions working overtime against us. The US media systematically underreports Arab terrorism: how many Americans know that since October 1, virtually every day has seen at least one murder or attempted murder of an Israeli Jew by an Arab? And much of the media implicitly or explicitly promotes the administration’s position that the reason the conflict continues is that “Israel is building settlements and won’t negotiate” – both false propositions.

There isn’t much that can be expected from over-educated academics, who live on a planet that exists only on the insides of their eyelids, and under-informed media people who care more about access to administration sources than truth. But what’s with the hard-headed political analysts that are advising the candidates? They are supposed to be developing policies that will advance the interests of the US in the world. Are they unaware that the world has changed significantly since the 1990s?

I have always believed that it was both in America’s practical interest and consistent with its values to back Israel. But until recently, it was possible to argue (and many did) that the need to guarantee the oil supply required the US to maintain good relations with the Arab nations – which implied that it had to continue to try to force Israel to abandon all the territory it had come to control in 1967.

But in the past decade and a half, several very significant events have occurred which have vitiated this argument. They are:

  • Technological developments that have increased the oil supply, especially in the US and Canada, and have brought about a precipitous reduction in the world price of oil,
  • The burgeoning Sunni jihad against the West, and
  • The advance of Iran in the region, aided by the splintering of its traditional enemy, Iraq, and by its recent diplomatic and financial gains from its humiliation of the US in nuclear negotiations.

America no longer needs to live in fear of the Arab ‘oil weapon’. At the same time, it is menaced by both the Sunni jihad pursued by groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and the Shiite one of soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. The US then has a very practical interest in fighting the Sunni jihad and restraining Iran, as well as supporting Israel – which is the key to defending Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt against the jihadists of both stripes.

The “domino theory” applies here. If Israel goes down, so do its neighbors – and so does the rest of the eastern Mediterranean region. And there is no doubt that the Sunni and Shiite jihads are pressuring Israel with an eye on Europe. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi claims that the IS will “conquer Rome,” and it isn’t unimaginable that it might succeed.

The Obama Administration has taken a course almost completely opposed to America’s real interests, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood – part of the axis of jihad – allowing Iran a free hand in Iraq and Syria as well as failing to interdict its nuclear program, not taking serious action against the IS, and doing its best to force Israel to accept indefensible borders.

Barack Obama not only won’t act against it, he refuses even to admit that jihadist Islam is a threat to the West.

Obama’s motives are opaque, but they are probably composed of anti-colonialist ideology, a strong pro-Islamic and anti-Western bias, historical ignorance, and cowardice in the face of terrorist threats (like that historically displayed by European leaders). Regardless of the reason, his policy can seriously damage the US in the long run, exposing it to the threat of terrorism and even nuclear attack. And if it is in the American interest to keep the entire Middle East from becoming a jihadist stronghold, a strong Israel is the best defense.

So what’s wrong with Hillary Clinton’s advisers? Probably they are less concerned with the American interest than with personal interests. Although the Saudi regime is threatened by the IS, Saudi individuals are its biggest backers. They have a history of buying influence by paying off American functionaries – sometimes after they leave office, as in the case of Bill Clinton and of course Jimmy Carter. There are also persistent rumors that Hillary’s closest assistant and adviser, Huma Abedin, is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The continued anti-Israel (and essentially pro-jihad) American policy is profoundly immoral, contrary to traditional American values, and not justifiable in terms of Realpolitik or in any other way. Its practitioners are either antisemitic or corrupt, and if it is not changed, it may result in the destruction of the Jewish state and a triumph for the Islamic jihad.

In that case, historians will write that if the first blow of World War III was struck on 9/11, its turning point against the West and toward Islam was the loss of Israel. Assuming anyone is left to write from a Western viewpoint, they will not be kind to those American leaders who sold Israel – and ultimately their own country – out.

A new American president will have the opportunity to reverse this irrational and dangerous policy. Here’s a tip for the folks advising Hillary and the other candidates: as my father used to say, the American people are not as dumb as they look.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hillary’s advisers from Hell

  1. Keefe Goldfisher says:

    Pry Mrs. Clinton from the Presidential race by indictment for her egregious handling of National Security documents on her email server or for the pure pay-for-play corruption of the Clinton Foundation and you will have gotten rid of the train of advisors who flock to and are protected by her. Nevertheless, under Obama, the Progressives of the Democratic party will have torn off a bigger chunk of liberties from the country this time than they had ever succeeded in doing before by the time these awful two terms are over. Part of their success is the distraction and partisanship the Press is able to provide, and, sadly another portion can be ascribed to an overlap of faltering Republican policies that have also promulgated the Saudis-are-our-friends and Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace myths of recent governance.

    It will take forceps and strong arms to extract victories out of the current situation.

    My wife and I attended a discussion at which Victor Davis Hanson spoke in support of a new author for whom he had contributed the introduction, along with the author himself (Robert Curry) answering questions from the small crowd. My wife is a citizen of the Netherlands and doesn’t get the animosity toward socialism on the Right, and gave me a full-throated defense of it on the ride home. But she herself is sickened by the lack of will to stick up for their country that the Dutch are displaying in the face of the hijra swamping them and Germany and Sweden now. They have sharp and witty tongues, the Dutch, and the words are no-nonsense and practical as befits anything Dutch, but everywhere it is clear the elites and the governing classes do as they please and force the population to adapt. To have your country wracked by invaders is an uprooting of memory and love of place, but to have it be met with passivity is a special sort of shame… one that Israelis have been chastened for this week with the revelations that compare with its own passivity in the face of EU and American hostility and manipulation, and the century-long Palestinian jihad of terror.

    I hope that Israelis will stand up for themselves against our President soon–what is there to lose! I hope that Vladimir Putin will prove the better friend that he can be to Jews than Obama professed to be but never was. I hope that the Left is forced more and more to be irrelevant in Israel’s defense.

    Most of all, I hope my country is the strong one that truly believes what your father meant, that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time; that we choose neither fire nor ice, but our own way, which will be magnanimous with its defeated enemies, but will defeat them thoroughly first.

  2. traderjoe91 says:

    I’m glad to be making my first post here. You wrote this near the conclusion of the post:

    “The continued anti-Israel (and essentially pro-jihad) American policy is profoundly immoral, contrary to traditional American values, and not justifiable in terms of Realpolitik or in any other way. Its practitioners are either antisemitic or corrupt, and if it is not changed, it may result in the destruction of the Jewish state and a triumph for the Islamic jihad.”

    Looking at Europe’s diminishing influence (insofar as Islamic jihad is now on their doorsteps and they have these domestic issues that Israel has faced, and which I think is very likely going to flip the continent on its proverbial head within the next decade or so), it makes me think – what will be the ramifications of Europe’s gradual demise for American power and global influence in general? Europe has always served as a sort of “buffer” for America, and without this buffer is the country much weaker, or can it adopt new policies to avert this sort of outcome?

    My worry is that any “new policies” may in fact be very anti-Israel; in terms of Realpolitik, doesn’t it make sense for a Europe-less America to make friends with the Arabs than Israel? Whether or not it is possible to count on the Arabs is a different issue, I think, since Americans don’t seem to really seem to appreciate the mentality of the Arabs and what motivates them and their governments.

    Is it perhaps a viable alternative, instead, for Israel to continue pushing their recent spate of diplomatic initiatives/outreach efforts with the Arab countries – especially those threatened by extremism and by Iran – and form a new alliance with states such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, whatever is left of Iraq, and the other Gulf states in the interest of a) diminishing Iranian power and extending Israel’s borders/air bases to the very borders of Iran, b) relying on their manpower and lack of regard for loss of life by training their forces to the minimum degree necessary for them to hold back the extremists within their own borders, and eliminate ISIS as well with a ground incursion and set up pro-Israeli/Arab alliance governments in Syria and Iraq, perhaps even Lebanon – and I recall Turkey reaching out to Israel not too long ago as well, seeking cooperation, and c) to have such an alliance serve as the new deterrent against a potential Russian threat, and drastically diminish Israeli reliance on American support or eliminate it all-together.

    Within such a scheme I imagine Israel is unquestionably the “ring-leader,” the “brain” of the short or long term alliance…and the Arab/Turkish governments who are turning to Israel seem to recognize Israel’s capacity to help advance their own interests very well. An obvious precondition, I think, of any such alliance is Israel’s free reign in annexing the Western Bank and deporting a certain, likely significant percentage of the Palestinians living there today to Jordan or elsewhere.

    And, of course, – oil.

    Israel should be prepared for an alternative where it doesn’t have America supporting it, and I don’t see any other viable option besides this one. The only other direction I can conceive of is Israel’s appeal to Europe, an appeal to HELP Europe deal with the radical threat they are now facing at home with their investment (and not boycott!) of Israel’s superior security tactics. This way Europe can stave off the threat of domestic terrorism while figuring out a “solution” (i.e., finding the crazy jihadists and locking them up in prisons on Greenland or some far-away Pacific Island) for the refugee problem. And on the condition that Israel, again, does what it wants in the West Bank and has European support.

    That seems much less tenable. In any case – do you think I am overstating the imminent collapse of Europe and the implications of this, or have any thoughts about the potential alliance forming between Israel and the Arabs?

    Thanks for your time,


  3. djf says:

    Vic, I’m afraid that you’re naïve about the extent to which things have deteriorated in the US. The foreign policy establishment here, like the ruling classes of Western Europe, no longer operates out of a coherent view of American national interest, but to advance a leftist (but simultaneously Islam-friendly) agenda and, secondarily, the perceived short-term of corporate America, which includes the advancement of the same establishment “progressive” agenda as an exercise in virtue-signaling and to buy the indulgence of the leftist bureaucrats and courts. Even if the next president is a pro-Israel Republican, like Cruz or Rubio (which I doubt), it will be extremely difficult for him to change the course, given that the permanent bureaucracy, even in the military (now transformed by Obama and hopelessly distracted by mandates to integrate gays, women, Muslims and the transgendered), and the corporate world are committed to this course. Anyway, in view of our inundation with third world immigrants, America’s next Republican president, if there is one, will probably be her last. As for Hillary, her views on Israel are basically identical to Obama’s, only held less vehemently. Her advisor Huma is from a prominent MB family in Pakistan – that Hillary chose this person as her chief advisor, out of all the people she had to choose from to work for her, should tell you all you need to know.

    Israel is going to have to figure out a way to survive with a United States that is functionally insane. I would not count on the American people – who are in the process of a radical demographic transformation, at the instigation of our elites, just as in Europe – not being as dumb as they look.

  4. Traderjoe91:
    I think that Israel is doing its best to improve relations with moderate elements in the Arab world, especially to make a common front against Iran. But Islamic prejudice against the Jewish state is powerful and I suspect that if Iran and the IS were to be defeated, they would immediately turn their policy back to driving the Jews into the sea. I find it hard to believe that a liberal/democratic Europe will survive. This puts us in a very bad situation — France and Britain have nuclear weapons, for example.
    I don’t think it makes sense for the US to try to cozy up to the Muslim world, because of the Islamic tendency toward anti-Western extremism. This is precisely what Obama and the American Left don’t get, as you point out.
    I hope you are wrong. But if what is happening on college campuses is a ‘leading indicator’, then you may not be.

    • traderjoe91 says:


      With the Arab countries, it isn’t really so much the people there that matter, but the regime in place, isn’t that the case? I recall Obama’s address at Cairo where I believe he extolled the virtues of democracy or something alone those lines – it could not even remotely be in America’s self interest to promote “democracy” among the Arab powers, and so it really does seem like Realpolitik isn’t as operational as it was before.

      Politicians – many of them, at least – today are modifying policy according to an ideology that runs counter to national interests. This is exactly where Israel has the advantage – there are actual leaders, there, and Bibi isn’t the best hope by any means. America is currently considering a clown – Trump – for the presidency, and so the climate here points to the indication that the American people are more interested in a celebrity than a leader. I believe the philosophy of Pragmatism was developed here first, with Pierce, James, Dewey the prominent figures of the only school of philosophy this country has ever really produced.

      But it seems pretty clear that a new philosophy has taken place, that Americans are now more interested in preserving the “idea” of American global dominance than actually…keeping hold of that global dominance. America really seems frail now, and with what’s happening in Europe I don’t have the greatest hopes for the future here. For Jews, at least.

      The most talented and skilled among those Jews in the diaspora particularly have to find their way to Israel, and Judea and Samaria needs to be annexed. There’s simply no ceding control of any territory – it’s not an option, and everybody knows it’s not an option. Europe and America harass Israel over this option because they know Israel can never do it without compromising itself in a devastating way, and so this “global issue of social justice” needs to be eliminated once and for all: they need to unilaterally annex the entire region, make a deal with Jordan or Egypt, etc., to take a good portion of the Arabs there, enough to keep demographic considerations in our favor, give those who remain a very conditional offer of Israeli citizenship after an extended period of loyalty is demonstrated by them, and the introduction of certain industry opportunities to stimulate their crappy economy. Give them something to be happy about – like work – and maybe they’ll really be too busy to hate Israel (wasn’t this the case before the first “uprising,” to some more or less degree?). We could sure use the labor and pawn off some of the dirty work to them – whatever.

      And if we grant the premise that America will lose its foothold among the powers of this world, with Europe falling alongside them, then I don’t think there is any other alternative than the diaspora/Israeli and repressive-regime Arab/Turkish alliance. It seems like the one thing the Arabs have never even been close to is friendship between one another, and the only thing that ever distracts them more than killing Jews is their lust to kill their brothers. Israel needs to change this – show them a common enemy to unite against (besides itself!).

      Jews have always yielded disproportionate influence in both relative and absolute terms, with regard to their achievements in the various fields and industries and so on…what choice does Israel really have than to figure out how to become more than just the focus of world attention and actually one of the world’s true powers?

      Everything in technology is becoming more efficient and compact – Israel needs to be the geopolitical version of that trend. Israel needs a fresh philosophy, an original direction, that promotes confidence and conviction to produce the toys that will tilt global influence in their favor, and continue to achieve even more than they already have in every crucial sector of the economy and the world of ideas, and they need to control the Arab dictators and the distraction of the people they rule over. And I’m not suggesting that “That’s all they gotta do!”

      That’s quite a feat; but is there really any other choice? In the long run, at least. What else is there? America isn’t to be relied upon – I think we have to grant that. Who can we rely on besides ourselves?

    • djf says:

      What is happening on college campuses has long since ceased to be a leading indicator. The same ideas are now mainstream in the government, in the professions, and business. I wish I was wrong.

Comments are closed.