More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Here’s Where Hamas Could Shoot From Hillary Clinton

A few days ago Hillary Clinton gave an interview which contained another great piece of Hamas PR. Built on the lie that Gaza is the most crowded place on earth (not even close to being true in the centre of Gaza City let alone the strip as a whole), Hillary basically justifies Hamas’s actions because there is nowhere else they could put their rockets and bunkers.

“I’m no a military planner,” she said, “but… Hamas puts its rockets, its missiles, in civilian areas – part of it is that Gaza’s pretty small, and it’s very densely populated. They put their command and control, of Hamas military leaders, in those civilian areas. Israel, I know has sent warnings and tried to get people to move, but in any kind of conflict there are going to be civilian casualties, and we need to try to get to a ceasefire as soon as possible.”

Bull Excrement. It’s not because Gaza is small. It’s not because it’s densely populated. It’s because Hamas wants “innocent civilians” to die. Frequently.

Here’s a screen shot from Google Earth of a chunk of northern Gaza. What do you see?

Northern Gaza beaches and famrs Google Earth

Me too. Farms, fields, beaches. Not many people.

This is the IDF Spokespersons map of where Hamas actually operate:


That’s a dense (poor) urban suburb of Gaza City. It’s not that there aren’t open fields its just Hamas WANTS Palestinians to die and especially telegenically die in front of the world’s media.

And having Indian TV actually film them setting up their rocket in the middle of the “safe” area where many foreign journalists are cowering proves exactly this point.

20 thoughts on “Here’s Where Hamas Could Shoot From Hillary Clinton”

  1. Not sure if you heard the question, but Hillary was defending Israel. Ramos asked why did Israel kill 700+ Palestinians. This was Israel PR, not Hamas. Plus, Gaza strip is the 6th most dense country in the World (which contradicts your above statement). Lastly, Hillary never said “the most crowded place on Earth”. Instead, she said “very densely populated”. Do you feel you have to lie to spin your propaganda?

    1. My suburb of Tel Aviv is more densely populated than Gaza or even Gaza City. She was trying to defend Israel but she inadvertently pops out the lie that there is nowhere else for Hamas to operate from. That’s what I’m skewering here.

      1. She and her husband are friends of Israel. Just read Bill’s book “My Life” where he blames the break down of the Camp David II process on Yasser Arafat, not the Israelis. Pro Israel people should not trash friends of either party.

        1. This is not about trashing people, friends or otherwise. This is about showing the truth and correcting the accepted lies and misinformation.

          1. A lot of us Americans on the Left very much do see this as some right-wing Israelis going out of their way to characterize political figures such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama as anti-Israel. Do you read this blog and others on the Right on a regular basis? I understand why Republicans are eager to make Israel a partisan political issue in America, but I don’t understand why some Israelis on the right are pushing us Americans in this direction.

            1. I agree that everyone should keep their cool and not drive away allies, even when we think they could have done more to support us. At the same time it is important to point out politely what Israelis think are errors in judgment or characterization of senior American figures concerning the conflict.

              1. Agreed, more should be done to support Israel, as it is completely in the right in this conflict. There have been issues with support for Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and The Oil Crisis regardless of administration. The most problematic leader has been President Carter-clearly not a friend or truth telling writer and speaker, unless he has a hidden pro-Israel agenda I am not aware of.

            2. Though I am not a Democrat, I have always admired Hillary for having a clear understanding that Israel is our ally. That doesn’t make her pro-Israel, necessarily. Misters Obama and Kerry are not pro-Israel at all. This is clear from their words and deeds.

                1. I guess it all depends on how one defines “pro-Israel”. I have no doubt that Kerry considers himself to be pro-Israel (laughing as I typed that). President Obama, however, has never supported Israel any further than he was obligated to by his high office. He has never tried to hide his contempt for, and hatred of Netanyahu. His administration deals with and supports, financially and otherwise, Israel’s chief enemy, Hamas. A terrorist organization. A criminal organization. It’s supposed to be illegal to support or deal with a terrorist organization. Illegal or not, giving aid and support to Israel’s enemy kinda disqualifies Mr. Obama from receiving the “Pro-Israel” label. As for Hillary, I said “necessarily…” Over the years, she has earned my true admiration because of her views of Israel. I think she “gets it”, mostly. She has really impressed me in her current job. A little serendipitous, I think – the right man for the right job at the right time. Even if she didn’t “get it”, she would still have a true understanding of Israel’s importance as America’s closest ally and the only democracy in that region. Obama does not seem to value either of those things. I realize a lot of this perspective, you are looking from the left, and most of the people on this blog are looking from the right. We’re gonna see the same things differently, but I really don’t think there’s enough evidence to make the charge of “being pro-Israel on a sunny day” stick.

  2. Hillary is making the exact same points, almost word-for-word that I have heard from Mark Regev, spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Peter Lerner, spokesman for the IDF. She is defending Israel’s actions and is pro-Israel, like the vast majority of Americans. No American could be elected president if there was the slightest doubt whether he/she supported our Israelis friends.

    1. It may sound the same as Mark Regev to you, and she is not blaming Israel over Hamas, but she is not emphasising the correct factual information. Mark Regev would always emphasise Brian’s point that Hamas uses the most vulnerable positions intentionally. Check out Richard Kemp’s assessment of the “densely populated” argument (Gatestone Institute) to see how it should be presented. He includes simple maps from BBC (so can hardly accuse of bias) which clearly show that there are plenty of not built up areas they could use to minimise casualties if they chose.

      1. Hillary Clinton and Mark Regev sound different and present different arguments because they have different jobs. Mark Regev’s job is to represent Mr. Netanyahu’s positions to the world and Hillary Clinton’s job is to become Leader of the Free World.

        1. But she’s still presenting an inaccuracy as fact – that there is nowhere else for Hamas to operate because Gaza is so crowded. That is clearly an untruth.

          Mark Regev is saying something true: Hamas has chosen to operate from crowded areas, and so Israel has a harder job avoiding civilian deaths as a result.

          How are they making the same point?

          1. It’s hard to see how you can be critical of someone who is making positive, pro-Israel statements. It’s like you’re looking for a fight. Israel has lots of enemies already. Why cultivate more with such an analysis?

              1. Yes it is, dabney. Hillary Clinton is making many of the same points as official Israeli spokesmen. Not identical ones, but generally the same. Israel has the right to defend themselves. It is difficult to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza due to population density. A cease fire is desirable to minimize civilian casualties. Being hyper critical of a national public figure respected by millions of Americans who has repeatedly demonstrated her pro-Israel orientation seems completely unnecessary to me.

                1. Still not the point. I’m not being “hyper critical”. I am pointing out that her inaccurate argument leaves wiggle room to be interpreted as a pass for Hamas. Democrat public figures, hard as it may be to believe, are not sacrosanct.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top