Clinton Considered Secret Plan to Spark Palestinian Protests

[lostinblue 1,989]

Clinton Considered Secret Plan to Spark Palestinian Protests

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her then-advisers to foment unrest among Palestinian citizens and spark protests in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table, according to emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.

In a Dec, 18, 2011, email, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by kickstarting Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest. Clinton requested that his email be printed.

“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he continued. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. Many men and others will denigrate the idea. I don’t and I don’t think that was your message.”

Palestinian women, he noted, are less likely than men to resort to violence.

“It must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote, comparing the effort to the protests in Egypt that deposed former leader Hosni Mubarak. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.

“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”

As relations with Israel remained tense, another Clinton confidant, Anne Marie Slaughter, sent a staff-wide email to Clinton staffers recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign aimed at convincing U.S. millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the Palestinian cause.

The effort, Slaughter wrote in the September 2010 email, could help shame Israel.

“Such a campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state and could offset the ending of the moratorium for Palestinians,” Slaughter wrote. “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

Slaughter, who described the effort as a “crazy idea,” suggested tapping the “Clinton fundraising network” in order to raise the money needed.

“With even 30 calls to the right people in the Clinton fundraising network it should be possible to generate a substantial enough amount quickly enough to capture the public imagination,” she wrote in the email, which was sent to top Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-considered-secret-plan-to-spark-palestinian-protests/

On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote, comparing the effort to the protests in Egypt that deposed former leader Hosni Mubarak. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Fomenting peaceful protest. The horror. The horror.

[Ban Hammer 13,716]

Fomenting peaceful protest. The horror. The horror.

because it would never ever turn violent ............

[OriZ 3,157]

because it would never ever turn violent ............

Not without men...lol

Honestly if I'm a Palestinian I'm offended by this.

[Darnell 8,479]

whoa - what?

it was considered, thought about, and a plan made,

to contact prior donors to the Clinton Foundation

to

fund this spike of 'unrest' ?

Wow !

And all evidence stored on the Clinton Server ? Double Wow !

[ExPatty 502]

This could make for an awkward conversation between clinton and netanyahu.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

It's just a vast right wing conspiracy . Sad part is that the Muddy ditch bought yet another lie, and anyone who thought the Clintons were actually guilty of the many many criminal things they did was a RWNJ.

because it would never ever turn violent ............

I wonder if they ever caught that film maker that was responsible for Benghazi.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/19/court-rules-anti-mohammed-film-blamed-for-benghazi-shouldnt-have-been-forcefully-removed-from-youtube-205716

A federal appeals court handed down a victory to free speech Monday when it ruled the anti-Muslim video the Obama administration blamed for Benghazi should never have been forcibly removed from YouTube.

The full 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned a 2-1 decision by three of its judge that ordered YouTube to remove “The Innocence of Muslims,” Fox News reported.

In 2012, the low-budget film inspired riots and demonstrations around the world by Muslims who considered it blasphemous. President Obama asked YouTube to remove the 14-minute video, but the company said it was within its guidelines because the film criticized Islam, not Muslims as a group.

YouTube voluntarily blocked the video in a handful of Muslim countries due to local laws, and to help quell what it called a “very difficult situation.”

In the original case, actress Cindy Lee Garcia, who had a bit part, sued to have the video taken down after she received death threats. Her lawyer argued she had a copyright claim to the video because she was deceived by the filmmaker about its real subject matter.

Lawyers for Google, which owns YouTube, countered Garcia’s claim, arguing that the filmmaker controlled all aspects of the product.

Garcia’s lawyer, M. Cris Armenta, said in a statement emailed to Reuters, “The decision short changes the threats on the life of Cindy Lee Garcia who did not voluntarily participate in the hateful message that the controversial trailer about the Prophet Mohammed espoused around the world.”

But free speech is more important, the court ruled, saying that Garcia’s argument “would enable any contributor from a costume designer to an extra to claim copyright in random bits and pieces” of a movie.

“The film, featuring a crude production, depicts the Prophet Mohammed as, among other things, a murderer, pedophile, and homosexual,” the court said in its ruling.

“In this case, a heartfelt plea for personal protection is juxtaposed with the limits of copyright law and fundamental principles of free speech.”

The movie’s producer, Mark Basely Youssef, was arrested in 2012 for violating probation from a 2010 check fraud case, and returned to prison before being released in 2013.

Youssef paid Garcia $500 to appear in a movie called “Desert Warrior,” but her lines were dubbed over in the final cut, where her character asked if Muhammad was a child molester.

Citing the public’s right to free speech, the American Civil Liberties Unions, along with Twitter and others had urged the court to rule in favor of Google.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Nature Boy Flair