[Peace-discuss] 1500 Prisoners on Hunger Strike for Basic Rights: Could Hillary Say Boo?

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/10/1090426/-1500-Prisoners-on-Hunger-Strike-for-Basic-Rights-Could-Hillary-Say-Boo-


 1500 Prisoners on Hunger Strike for Basic Rights: Could Hillary Say
Boo?<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/10/1090426/-1500-Prisoners-on-Hunger-Strike-for-Basic-Rights-Could-Hillary-Say-Boo->

yRobert Naiman <http://www.dailykos.com/user/Robert%20Naiman>

More than 1500 prisoners are currently
observing<http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-demand-un-action-hunger-strikers-155206236.html>
an
open-ended hunger strike in defense of basic human rights: the right not to
be detained without charge, the right not to be subjected to sustained
solitary confinement, the right to be visited by one's family. Two of the
prisoners have been on hunger strike for more than 70 days and have been
widely reported to be "near death."

Is it possible that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could say a few
words about this situation?

 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally said
something<http://ph.news.yahoo.com/ban-speaks-palestinian-hunger-strikers-041910165.html>
under
pressure. So did theEuropean
Union<http://ca.news.yahoo.com/eu-asks-israel-let-families-visit-hunger-strikers-164642470.html>.
The International Committee of the Red
Cross<http://ca.news.yahoo.com/red-cross-u-n-appeal-palestinian-hunger-strikers-152126152.html>
 and Human Rights
Watch<http://news.yahoo.com/palestinian-hunger-striker-moved-israeli-hospital-140525905.html>
have
spoken up. There was a
report<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/world/middleeast/palestinian-resistance-shifts-to-hunger-strikes.html>
in
the *New York Times*; before that, there was
areport<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-hunger-strikes-draw-attention-to-israeli-detention-practice/2012/04/23/gIQAF2DmbT_story.html>
in
the *Washington Post*.

But so far, Secretary of State Clinton hasn't said boo. Is it impossible
that she could say something?

What might happen if a bunch of Americans tried to put pressure on Hillary
to speak up <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/pal-hunger-strike>?

Some people may say: Hillary? Dream on. The prisoners that you're talking
about are Palestinian. Some will recall that in the 2008 Democratic
Presidential primary, Hillary ran as the "more AIPAC than thou" candidate.
Before that, she was a Senator from New York. At a recent conference in New
York City sponsored by the *Jerusalem Post*, the *Jewish Daily Forward*
reports<http://forward.com/articles/155621/explosive-dust-up-over-iran-policy/>,
when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel should work with
the international community in addressing the issue of Iran rather than
trying to "go it alone," people in the audience cried out: "Neville
Chamberlain!" So that's what Senators from New York have to deal with,
apparently.

But Hillary represents the whole country now, and as a representative of
the whole country, Hillary has a different history. If you count being
First Lady as being a U.S. official - and why wouldn't you? - Hillary was
the first U.S. official to publicly
endorse<http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/07/world/hillary-clinton-supports-a-palestinian-state.html>
the
creation of an independent Palestinian state. In his book the *The Crisis
of Zionism*, Peter Beinart reports that as Secretary of State, Hillary
argued for President Obama to put pressure on the Israeli government to
negotiate seriously with the Palestinians (p. 147). And here's what
Secretary of State Clinton said about Israeli settlements in the West
Bank<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html>
in
May 2009:

Speaking of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
said, "He wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not
outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions." Talking to reporters after a
meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said:
"That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly."

What can we conclude from this? Hillary Clinton is a political figure
capable of taking different stances in response to different political
situations. I know, it's shocking, isn't it?

Writing in *Salon <http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/e_3/singleton/>* about
President Obama's historic declaration that gay marriage should be legal,
Glenn Greenwald makes a point that should be obvious, but seems to have
escaped many people who consider themselves savvy about politics: if you
support the Obama Administration no matter what it does, or oppose the
Obama Administration no matter what it does, you are likely to be an
impotent political actor. Sometimes the Obama Administration is good and
sometimes it's bad, and the point is to increase the good and decrease the
bad: "power concedes nothing without a demand."

If you want to be effective in your efforts to increase the good and
decrease the bad, it helps a lot to focus on things that are plausible. Is
it plausible that Hillary could speak out about the hunger strikers?

Obviously, there isn't anything essential in her being that stops her from
speaking out. What about the current politics of the situation?

We all know that the U.S. has spoken out loudly about human rights abuses
in Syria. But that is an "adversary regime." We all know that the U.S. has
no hesitation in speaking out about human rights abuses in adversary
regimes.

But consider Bahrain, a close U.S. ally. The U.S. has been very quiet as
the regime cracked down on the pro-democracy movement there. But the State
Department finally did speak
up<http://www.humanrights.gov/2012/04/25/on-violence-in-bahrain-state-department-spokesperson-nuland/>about
the case of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, also on hunger strike to oppose his
unjust detention. Why? Because there was
pressure<http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107399>.
Some people got off their butts and demanded that the State Department
speak up.

At this writing, there are news
reports<http://news.yahoo.com/ban-speaks-palestinian-hunger-strikers-041910503.html>
that
negotiations are taking place between the prisoners and Israeli prison
authorities that could result in an agreement. A few words from the State
Department could help tip the balance towards a more positive resolution.

I can't guarantee you that if we ask Hillary to speak up about the
Palestinian hunger strikers, she will. But would it kill us to
try<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/pal-hunger-strike>
?

*Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign
Policy<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/>
.*
-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120510/fcb45977/attachment.html>