Clinton’s Word Choice Raises Questions
Her controversial Independence Day message for Israel
In a video greeting marking Israel’s Independence Day, Hillary Clinton promised that the U.S. stands “in solidarity” with the nation. Using a classic trope, she expressed her awe at watching “the desert bloom,” and offered a (slightly martyrish) vow to Israel that she and President Obama will continue “sharing your risks and helping shoulder your burdens.” She also stated that “pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel is one of our top priorities.”
A history lesson from the website American Thinker highlights a potential problem with Clinton’s message: “U .N. Security Council Resolution 242, adopted after the 1967 Six-Day War called on Israel to withdraw from some—but not all—captured territories in exchange for ‘secure and recognized’ borders for the Jewish state. Ever since, UN Res. 242 has been the international template for a permanent peace agreement.” So by using only the word “recognized” in her speech, was Clinton suggesting that Israel should be “settling” for less than secure borders, as suggested by American Thinker, Politico‘s Laura Rozen, and others? Maybe her word choice reflects a shift in perspective, or maybe she thought she had it covered when she said “Our nation will not waver in protecting Israel’s security.” As Clinton mentions, “In 1948 it took President Truman only 11 minutes to recognize your new nation.” If only we could parse her message as quickly.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.