PDA

View Full Version : Clinton criticism sparks Israeli anger



Rockntractor
12-05-2011, 12:02 AM
Israeli ministers reacted angrily on Sunday after local media quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as saying she feared for the future of Israel’s democracy and the rights of women in the Jewish state.

Clinton’s remarks, reportedly made Saturday behind closed doors at the Saban Forum in Washington, made headlines in most Israeli newspapers, which reported them without explaining how they obtained the comments.

Top-selling Yediot Aharonot said Clinton had expressed concern about a slew of “anti-democratic” bills proposed by right-wing members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

And the newspaper said Clinton had described shock at hearing that some buses in Jerusalem were gender segregated and some religious Israeli soldiers refused to attend events where women would sing.

The comments sparked a quick backlash in Jerusalem, where Israeli ministers holding a weekly cabinet meeting accused Clinton of hyperbole.

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz called Clinton’s remarks “totally exaggerated,” Israeli media reported.

“Israel is a living, breathing liberal democracy,” he said.

Steinitz reportedly acknowledged that gender segregation was a problem in Israel, “but to claim there is a threat on Israeli democracy is a big stretch.”
Read More>http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/04/180800.html


Oh, the old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be,
Ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be.

Odysseus
12-06-2011, 01:35 PM
Israeli ministers reacted angrily on Sunday after local media quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as saying she feared for the future of Israel’s democracy and the rights of women in the Jewish state.
As opposed to the surrounding Arab states, where there is no democracy and women are chattel. :rolleyes:


Clinton’s remarks, reportedly made Saturday behind closed doors at the Saban Forum in Washington, made headlines in most Israeli newspapers, which reported them without explaining how they obtained the comments.

Top-selling Yediot Aharonot said Clinton had expressed concern about a slew of “anti-democratic” bills proposed by right-wing members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

And the newspaper said Clinton had described shock at hearing that some buses in Jerusalem were gender segregated and some religious Israeli soldiers refused to attend events where women would sing.

Why would the refusal of a few Israeli Soldiers to attend an event where a woman sang be indiciative of the death of Israeli democracy? Do Israeli women suffer from unequal rights before the law? Do they have to go out with a male relative in order to protect their "honor"? Are they subjected to sexual mutilation by their relatives? Between this, Panetta's comments about Israel getting back to the "damned" negotiating table and the US ambassador to Belgium's outrageous comments about how Israel is to blame for Muslim anti-semitism, it's becoming obvious that the Obama administration is looking to ratchet up the pressure on Israel to give the Teleprompter something to crow about.

noonwitch
12-06-2011, 02:26 PM
I wonder what the "slew of anti-democratic bills" consist of. I don't believe every complaint that the Israeli government makes. For a country that gets a lot of aid from us, they sure complain a lot.

I would not be comfortable in a society that had gender segregation in their buses or other similar public settings. If in this country, women were suddenly required to ride separate buses, or sit in a separate section at the movies, I'd start getting paranoid about what was going to be the next restriction placed upon me.

Elspeth
12-06-2011, 07:57 PM
Israeli ministers reacted angrily on Sunday after local media quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as saying she feared for the future of Israel’s democracy and the rights of women in the Jewish state.

As opposed to the surrounding Arab states, where there is no democracy and women are chattel. :rolleyes:


If the surrounding Arab states are the yardstick for Israel's behavior, then we should adjust the aid we send to Israel to be equal (and not greater than) the monies we send elsewhere in the region.

Odysseus
12-07-2011, 03:21 PM
If the surrounding Arab states are the yardstick for Israel's behavior, then we should adjust the aid we send to Israel to be equal (and not greater than) the monies we send elsewhere in the region.

The surrounding Arab states are not the yardstick for Israel's behavior, because if they were, Clinton wouldn't have said a word. But, if we're going to hold them to that, then by all means, let's raise the amount of aid that we give to Israel to match that of the Arab states. We send billions of dollars in emergency food aid to various Arab states (while the Saudis and other oil-rich states give nada), not to mention our subsidies for the Palestinian Authority. The total amount that we give to Islamic states is $17.363 billion, which includes $9.83 billion in economic aid and $7.533 billion in military aid. That's aid that goes to Egypt, which was just taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, Afghanistan, whose president just promised to side with Pakistan if they were to go to war against us, the aforementioned Pakistan, which harbored Bin Laden and continues to harbor other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, the Palestinian territories, which include Gaza, which rewards us by thumbing their noses at our attempts to broker a lasting peace. We even give money to Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Iran. Compare that to Israel, which gets $2.38 billion in military aid and next to nothing in economic development money. I say that we split the total spent on the Middle East and Islamic states with Israel. After all, it's only fair that we be even-handed, right?