A firm believer in the democratic process.
“2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election,” by Ken Kurson, Observer, October 28, 2016:
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer….
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”
Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency.
Regarding capturing combatants in war—the June capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants who came across the Gaza border via an underground tunnel was very much front of mind—Clinton can be heard on the tape saying, “And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know, there’s a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you know, well, if they captured a soldier, we’ve got to capture a soldier.”
Equating Hamas, which to this day remains on the State Department’s official list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, with the armed forces of a close American ally was not what many expected to hear in the Jewish Press editorial offices, which were then at Third Avenue and Third Street in Brooklyn. (The paper’s office has since moved to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.) The use of the phrase “these cultures” is also a bit of a head-scratcher.
According to Chomsky, Clinton was “gracious, personable and pleasant throughout” the interview, taking about an hour to speak to, in addition to himself, managing editor Jerry Greenwald, assistant to the publisher Naomi Klass Mauer, counsel Dennis Rapps and senior editor Jason Maoz.
Another part of the tape highlights something that was relatively uncontroversial at the time but has taken on new meaning in light of the current campaign—speaking to leaders with whom our country is not on the best terms. Clinton has presented a very tough front in discussing Russia, for example, accusing Trump of unseemly ardor for strongman Vladimir Putin and mocking his oft-stated prediction that as president he’d “get along” with Putin.
Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.
“Do you think it’s worth talking to Syria—both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel’s point [of view]?”
Clinton replied, “You know, I’m pretty much of the mind that I don’t see what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you’re not stupid and giving things away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary, they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our shores, we never stopped talking to them,” an answer that reflects her mastery of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.
Shortly after, she said, “But if you say, ‘they’re evil, we’re good, [and] we’re never dealing with them,’ I think you give up a lot of the tools that you need to have in order to defeat them…So I would like to talk to you [the enemy] because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I’ve got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my campaign against you. That’s my take on it.”
A final bit of interest to the current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to terrorism, Clinton said, “I think you can make the case that whether you call it ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamo-fascism,’ whatever the label is we’re going to give to this phenomenon, it’s a threat. It’s a global threat. To Europe, to Israel, to the United States…Therefore we need a global response. It’s a global threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of principle…So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as you realize that underneath that global vision there’s a lot of variety and differentiation that has to go on.”…

Rob says
Does HRC have any guiding principles at all?
Don McKellar says
In all fairness this statement could mean two different things:
“And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.” — Hillary Clinton
Yes, she could mean influencing the election.
However, she could also mean that the US should have done some investigation before pushing for an election to determine whom the likely winner was going to be. And if they didn’t like whom the signs were pointing to, they shouldn’t have pushed for an election.
Frankly, I think the latter is the case. I just can’t see her letting her mask slip with people who are not inside her circle of cronies. Too vulnerable that way for a master influence and corruption peddler like her. Sorry, but this tape is not a smoking gun.
Don McKellar says
Okay, read the statement over again. Yes, it doesn’t say FIRST we should have made sure, it just says “we should have made sure” like it was AFTER the fact of pushing for an election. So I’m not so sure anymore. If it were spun right in a TV ad, it could be very effective.
El Cid says
Related note to Robert Spencer since I do not know else to communicate.
New York Times yesterday had an article about a Palestinian woman in Israeli jail for violent attacks against civilians.
The New York Times report that she is now looking to engage in “non-violent Jihad”.
Observation: The New York Times broke a taboo, namely by insinuating what we all know, that the attacks against civilians are religiously motivated Jihad.
Are we entering a new dawn? Let’s hope.
Debbie says
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
I’m no defender or fan of Clinton, but there is some legitimacy in the vile harpy’s point there. The Bush administration foolishly pressured PA filth and Israel to have the election which they wanted to delay, and to allow Hama filth to participate in it. Bush to this day still hasn’t figured out that Islam isn’t peace and the Muslim Brotherhood aren’t his friends.
Jay Boo says
Jimmy said, “Yes Sir” to Yasser
Former President ‘Dhimme’ Carter polished the terrorist (Yasser Arafat ‘s) image to the point that by adding 2 Jews (Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin) it was possible to get 1/3 of the Nobel Peace Prize to a murdering Muslim, (Yasser) by — A very weak MSM Sniff Test.
Champ says
“A firm believer in the democratic process.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed …
In addition to that, Hillary is also a firm believer in a 2-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Angemon says
Clearly the people doing the interview had no idea who they were talking with.
Huh, is Hillary stupid, or ignorant, or both? The US of A didn’t just “talk” with the Soviet Union, they fought it whenever they could, much like the Soviet Union fought the US whenever they could. South Korea didn’t keep its sovereignty because the US “talked” with the Soviet Union. If the Soviets thought all American would do was “talk” there would be missiles in Cuba to this day. The US stood for better values that the Soviet Union, and they were not ashamed of it, or apologetic about it, or afraid to stand for them. That’s what brought the Soviet Union down, not “talks”.
ISIS, al-qaeda, al-shabaab, etc., all say they’re muslims following islamic tenets. Why are you not listening to what they say to know more about them and what makes them tick?
Peter Charles says
There was damned little talking when Kennedy had the bombers in the air, sub’s on station and Cuba blockaded, we were 15 min, from the balloon going up when the USSR backed down. We were never so close. The USSR’s Amb. was dead white faced on his way to see Kennedy that evening, knowing he was looking the end of civilization as we knew it……
Lorensacho says
Gee, imagine an American government interfering in elections in foreign countries. For a time and maybe even today, many South and Central American countries were governed by governments put in place by the U.S. The U.S. overthrew the government of Iran that wanted to nationalize the oil and put the Shah into power. Who do you think put the government of Iraq in place if not the Americans? So to maintain that Hillary Clinton is an anti-democratic official for wanting to help Israel which eliminating Hamas from the ballot would have done is attacking a friend of Israel.
Darmanad says
RS has merely reprinted the Kurson piece appearing in the Observer, however, the sarcastic intro (” a firm believer etc”) insinuates a harsh criticism, but for what? For believing the Hamas win was avoidable?
Adopting this Kurson piece as a criticism of Clinton is unconvincing. Stretches like this only serve to undermine RS’s credibility on other issues, issues about which he is expertly informed.My advice to RS is to avoid undermining your credibility on issues concerning Islamic ideology by advancing weak arguments about politics in general.
Peter says
She, the DNC, and the media are doing everything they can to make sure she wins no matter what. The ends, as Trotsky said, ennoble the means, and as an Alyinskite, destroying “the system” is the end.
Steve Brown says
On a side but related issue. IF Clinton becomes POTUS, I hope that she would NOT wear a headscarf when visiting Muslim countries. For them to insist on this or ‘insult’ the country would instead be a huge insult to the US forcing their leader to humble herself before Muslim men.
Paul Gawler says
Robert please make the font color black instead of this insipid hard to read grey. It has only recently changed to this grey but it’s not encouraging me to read your great work.