Skip to content

Tuesday Appointment Schedule: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the UN

November 16, 2010


Secretary Clinton will be at the UN first thing this morning then she will be back in DC in the afternoon.

9:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton participates in the UN Security Council Meeting on Sudan, at the United Nations.

3:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Austrian Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger, at the Department of State.

4:20 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Attorney General Eric Holder, at the Department of State.

5:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.

5:45 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.

7:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, in Washington, D.C.

27 Comments leave one →
  1. HillaryFan permalink
    November 16, 2010 1:20 pm

    I know she’s already spoken- can’t wait to see the video! Thanks Stacy!

  2. Susan permalink
    November 16, 2010 1:24 pm

    I love when she’s at the UN- very presidential!

  3. CDJ60 permalink
    November 16, 2010 1:31 pm

    Hi! Found you through the site Tikkun Olam- so glad there is a blog like this- I miss all the daily coverage of Hillary like there was during the election. But you have it all here! Thanks so much for this great blog!

  4. Thain permalink
    November 16, 2010 1:37 pm

    NY in the morning, DC at night. Craaaaaazy. I don’t know how she does it. Makes me tired just thinking about it.

  5. Terry permalink
    November 16, 2010 10:24 pm

    A good opinion piece by Roger Cohen in the NY Times on how Secretary Clinton is the muscle behind the continuing Israel/Palestine talks:

    • filipino-american4hrc permalink
      November 16, 2010 10:50 pm

      You beat me to it, Terry 🙂 This is what struck me about the piece:

      The Clinton of today is not the Clinton of a decade ago. Compare that sharp criticism of Israel’s East Jerusalem building with her 1999 position that Jerusalem is “the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel.” Somewhere in the past decade her conviction hardened that the state of Palestine is achievable, inevitable and compatible with Israeli security.

      “A bit of an epiphany,” in the words of one aide, came in March 2009 on the road to Ramallah. “We drove in a motorcade and you could see the settlements high up, and the brutality of it was so stark,” this aide said. “Everyone got quite silent and as we approached Ramallah there were these troops in berets. They were so professional, we thought at first they were Israel Defense Forces. But, no, they were Palestinians, this completely professional outfit, and it was clear this was something new.”

      Of course I don’t like the condescending references to the Palestinians’ “self-pitying unilateralism” — but Cohen comes the advantaged side (figuratively speaking), so I’ll give him a pass on that. What’s important is you now see pieces like this dribbling into NYT that acknowledge the long-term unsustainability of Israel and its allies keeping the Palestinians at bay.

      • Thain permalink
        November 17, 2010 8:22 am

        Yeah, it’s nice the media has noticed Hillary has been working her butt off butt the fact is, she’s been the key person on Mideast peace from the get-go. Just because they don’t consider behind-closed-doors diplomacy to be worthy of note doesn’t mean she wasn’t involved. So after she had a 7 hr mtg with Bibi suddenly they are like “wow, she’s doing something!”

        The way the media refers to the Palestinians is unbelievable- they make no effort to hide their bias. Cohen is Jewish – can you imagine if an Arab American journalist talked about the Israelis the way Jewish reporters/commentators talk about the Palestinians. They would lose their jobs.

        Yes, the Palestinians are not perfect and they shoot themselves in the foot a lot but if anyone could overdose on victimhood and self-pity I think it would be the Israelis. All we hear over and over is that everything is justified because “everyone wants to destroy us.” Ok, who has nuclear weapons in the region? Oh yeah, Israel. Who has the quantitative military edge? Oh, Israel. How many times has Iran invaded Israel or attacked Israel? Oh yeah, never.

  6. Pan permalink
    November 17, 2010 8:54 am

    The power of the lobby. That’s why Hillary had to bend over, grab her ankles and say “uncle” to Bibi. Well that and she just loooooooves the Lobby so it probably made her happy to give Israel yet another gift basket:

    The FBI had enough evidence against Rosen/AIPAC but all charges were mysteriously dropped last year. Gee, I wonder why!?!

    Interesting that the American media is avoiding this story like the plague. Probably because most of them are AIPAC lackeys. Wolf Blitzer was an AIPAC official- so CNN certainly isn’t going to do any real reporting on this. And well, the NYT you know, they’ll never say a negative word about AIPAC because that would be blood libel! You don’t turn on your own Tribe!

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      November 17, 2010 10:25 pm

      Pan, I’m a little troubled by the implication that the “American media” is avoiding any negative stories about Israel because they’re all “AIPAC lackeys.” for example, Murdoch is nobody’s lackey and he’s not Jewish, (though certainly a friend to Israel). I think we have to be careful not to make sweeping generalizations.

  7. Thain permalink
    November 18, 2010 12:25 am

    Murdoch is nobody’s lackey? I guess the GOP doesn’t count? I don’t totally agree with Pan and the generalization but to defend Murdoch of all the people in the media.

    And please describe what “friend of Israel” is? Never questioning it, ever? Bashing Muslims 24/7 like Fox News does ALL the time? Or is it b/c Abe Foxman has declared Murdoch a Friend of Israel (according to him so is hatemonger Glenn Beck).

    Unbelievable. Figures you’d defend Fox

    • Thain permalink
      November 18, 2010 12:43 am

      BTW that phrase “friend of Israel” has become such a Lobby propaganda talking point- as if the whole country can politically be divided up into 2 groups 1) friends of Israel (as defined by right-leaning people/ groups to dismiss the views of anyone who might DARE to question the Israeli govt and 2) the Israel delegitimizers who are “anti-Israel” as defined by people like Abe Foxman, AIPAC and Bibi Netanyahu.

      I have a feeling that the reason why the media continues it’s overly-simplistic, unobjective coverage of Israel is b/c of people like you who don’t question anything, ever. Thank goodness for all the liberal Jewish bloggers and human rights activists who are challenging the “friend of Israel” hasbara line and challenging people to think about the issue differently. Joseph Dana comes to mind- he’s a true friend of Israel, not that propaganda master Rupert Murdoch.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        November 18, 2010 5:12 am

        “Figures you’d defend Fox”?
        “People like you who don’t question anything ever”?

        Who are you ranting at, Thain?

        I was objecting to Pan’s statement because it sounded like one of those sweeping generalizations I read now and then to the effect that “[Fill in the blank] have clearly been brain-washed by the Zionist-controlled
        media.” Yes, the majority of Republicans, FOX News viewers, and Murdoch himself are supporters of Bibi, the current (hawkish) Israeli government, and it’s current
        (hawkish) . Does this mean Murdoch and all Repulican neocons have been “brainwashed by the Zionist-led media”? Or that Repulican congressional leaders are being “paid for and controlled by AIPAC”?
        Doesn’t it make more sense that — for the time being, anyway — they regard themselves as sharing a common enemy (“terrorists bent on destroying our countries”) and a common (hawkish) understanding about how
        best to neutralize that “enemy”?
        If the “Zionist American media” is so good at brainwashing people, how come their tactics have not been particularly effective with a majority of Democratic voters or, increasingly, with American Jews?

  8. Thain permalink
    November 18, 2010 9:41 am

    I’m not alleging some Zionist conspiracy in the media. Rather, I am challenging the notion that the media isn’t completely biased when it comes to reporting on anything having to do with Israel. The reasons for this in my opinion are complex. Are some journalists/media CEOs and commentators really biased and does that come through in their reporting? Yes, but it’s hardly just journalists etc. that happen to be Jewish. Pretty much the MO of the media is to present the Israel-centric view and anyone or anything that doesn’t do that, is somehow anti-Israel.

    I’m also trying to point out how people, including you, tend to throw around phrased like “Friend of Israel” without seeming to question what that means? Because I can tell you what it means according to Abe Foxman and to politicians and to the Israel lobby- it means NEVER challenging the Israeli govt narrative, lest one be accused of NOT being a friend of Israel or worse, anti-Semitic.

    The last bit of your comment about democratic voters or American Jews makes no sense to me because I don’t really see any big movement in the US to start challenging the propaganda or demanding more objective reporting. Groups like AIPAC are hardly republican- they have huge influence in both parties although they tend to prefer the GOP on issues like Iran. Why do you think you didn’t hear any Democrats in Congress standing up and supporting Obama and Clinton’s efforts to get Israel to do the right thing (w/o having to be paid off by the US taxpayer?). I don’t recall and Jewish American organizations coming out in a loud and proud defense of Obama/Clinton’s efforts. AIPAC and the ADL would lose their minds. Sure, a few commentators started to opine that Bibi’s stance was self-defeating, but that’s the exception not the rule, and after one commentator questioned Israel’s stonewalling he then felt it was necessary to go on Israeli TV IMMEDIATELY afterward to reassure Israel that he in fact supports Israel on all things despite his muted criticism of Bibi. So I don’t see the big shift in thought regarding Israel in the Jewish American community or in the larger American community in general- it really doesn’t have all that much to do with being a democrat or a republican- both refuse to question anything Israel does.

    I also think you aren’t being realistic about having a common enemy as a rationale for AIPAC’s influence- sure, some see it that way but I can’t help but wonder if you ever read anything about the inner workings of AIPAC (no, not conspiracy theories but stuff written by people who worked there or works about how they operate) because you seem to want to pretend they don’t have the influence that they do. Hell, even AIPAC brags about influencing our foreign policy on behalf of Israel and using money to do it! It’s ok for AIPAC to brag about that but if anyone else does, it’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. AIPAC shovels tons of money at so-called “pro-Israel” candidates (are there any members of Congress that ARENT pro-Israel?) and almost every year they take freshman on a “tour” of Israel and start to give them their marching orders for how not to run afoul of the Lobby.

    I can’t help but wonder if most of your information about Israel and AIPAC comes from the MSM itself. With all due respect if so, you should expand your information sources to include blogs written by Jewish activists who have the guts to take on the lobby and the media narrative. Or maybe a few written by Palestinians or Palestinian Americans. Try MJ Rosenberg or Richard Silverstein, Phillip Weiss or Joseph Dana for starters.

    Joseph Dana wrote about how the ADL (Abe Foxman) has put his group on a hit-list of anti-Israel groups and how he can’t get to speak to his own community or the MSM about his experience as a Jewish human rights activist (he is American and Israeli) against the Occupation.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      November 18, 2010 10:03 am

      Actuallu, I read Twain, closely. And I do read MJ Rosenberg. Like this from HuffPo a week ago:
      I misjudged Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. But not AIPAC and the AJC.

      I did not expect him to condemn Glenn Beck’s three part series on George Soros and Jews which resembles something out of the Third Reich. I thought Foxman avoided criticism of the right, especially given his friendship with Rupert Murdoch. I was wrong.

      Beck hates Soros because the Hungarian Jewish immigrant bankrolls liberal organizations and the Democratic party.

      And he decided that the best way to destroy him is to depict him literally as the “spooky puppetmaster” who controls our politicians, banks, and the economy in general.

      I watched the first show but it was so anti-Semitic (like Soros, my wife’s parents survived the Holocaust) , that I couldn’t watch the second. For the first time in my life, I felt that “it could happen here.”

      I am not saying Beck is anti-Semitic. I think he is so utterly ignorant of Jewish history and the history of Germany 1933-1945 that he is unaware of what he is doing.

      Here are the statements from Foxman and other Holocaust survivors condemning Beck. And, if you can take it, here is Media Matters’ analysis of the anti-Semitic tropes employed by Beck. (In a lovely touch, the first show was on Kristallnacht).

      Thanks to the ADL, the Glenn Beck era will likely end sooner than expected….”

      • Thain permalink
        November 18, 2010 10:24 am

        Yeah, I read that. This is a rare instance where I disagree with Rosenberg.

        Apparently while Foxman and the ADL lashed out at Beck- rightly so for his horrendous comments- he then needs to make sure everyone knows that at the end of the day, Beck is still a “Friend of Israel.”

        In other words, despite Beck’s grossly anti-Semitic comments, what has started to matter more to the ADL under Foxman is whether any given person or group is willing to NEVER criticize Israel and Beck meets that criteria. It’s quite sad really. He’s turned a much-needed organization, the ADL, which has always done great things, into a tool of the lobby. He will lash out at anti-Semitic comments but he also defines anti-Semitism very broadly and accuses anyone who criticizes Israel of delegitimizing Israel and in many cases, being an outright anti-Semite.

  9. Thain permalink
    November 18, 2010 10:36 am

    Forgot to add- ask yourself if Foxman would bend over backwards to let us all know Beck is pro-Israel if in addition to making stupid, anti-semitic statements Beck was also a critique of Israel? I don’t think so. What seems to matter more to the ADL these days is that people unquestioningly defend Israel in all things- if so, their outrageous comments are downgraded to being a lack of understanding or insensitivity.

    This is about the ADL targeting groups it believes are anti-Israel (even if those groups are Jewish)

    Here’s Rosenberg calling out the Lobby for making a hypocritical mess of our foreign policy:

    MJ Rosenberg has been good on calling out the ADL for this nonsense too.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      November 18, 2010 11:25 am

      Twain, I never suggested that YOU think there is a Zionist conspiracy in the media.
      I was replying to PAN’s post, trying as delicately as I could to say that some of HIS statements — that the “American media” are “AIPAC lackeys” filtering out all criticism of Bibi and his government’s (hawkish) policies — could be misconstrued as a gross generalization at best, at worst disturbingly similar in tone to Beck’s drivel about Soros, i.e. anti-Semitic. My point was that if people/organizations like Murdoch/Beck/FOX News/extremist right-wing media and Foxman/ADL/AIPAC appear to be bedfellows FOR THE TIME BEING, it is not because there is some vast coordinated Zionist conspiracybetween them, but because FOR THE TIME BEING they share a certain world view about the threat of terrorism ad how best to address it. They are uneasy bedfellows and, as Beck’s piece on Soros suggested, you don’t have to scratch very deep to find the latent anti-Semitism.

      It’s one thing when right-wing extremists spew anti-semitic rhetoric — I’ve grown to expect it, even if I condemn it — but I get alarmed when I hear similar Jews-are-taking-over-media-banking-Congress rhetoric coming from the left.

  10. November 18, 2010 12:07 pm

    Can I jump in here?

    The sad thing about the whole Abe Foxman/ADL thing – sort of going back on his criticism of Beck and that preposterous “enemies of Israel” list issued by the ADL- is that he’s hurting the ADL as an organization and that is truly tragic. Honestly, the guy needs to retire. He’s taken a great organization with a long history of much-needed advocacy against all kinds of defamation and turned it into little more than a right-wing Israeli advocacy organization. He has made so many embarrassing blunders of late I really can’t believe someone on the ADL board hasn’t tried to reign him in. Also, by defining criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism he’s diminishing the problem of REAL antisemitism and crying wolf.

    I think opinions are slowly shifting with respect to having a more honest discussion about US-Israel relations but it’s coming mostly from the younger generation. Also, it’s got a LOOOOONG way to go. You still don’t see a lot of differing viewpoints in the MSM- for that you have to go to Israeli media, other international media or blogs. The Lobby would do well to try to start to incorporate more diverse viewpoints into their messaging and their membership or else they are going to run the risk of eventually being ignored and even ridiculed by younger people and in particular, younger Jewish people.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      November 18, 2010 3:46 pm

      “You still don’t see a lot of differing viewpoints in the MSM- for that you have to go to Israeli media, other international media or blogs…”

      Well, off the top of my head, what about Ben Wedeman at CNN?
      Or Christiane Amanpour, for decades at CNN, now host of ABC’s “This Week”?
      Thomas Friedman of the NY Times? Roger Cohen?
      El-Khodary reported for the NY Times — until last year when she resigned over the Bronner flap.
      James Rainey at the LA Times – who, by the way, defended Bronner’s coverage as balanced, despite the fact that his son was serving in the Israeli army.
      There’s a columnist for Newsweek or Time whose name I’m blocking on who always offers balanced, fair reporting about the Middle East.

      • November 18, 2010 4:10 pm

        Sure, there are instances where certain journalists/commentators will level some criticism at Israel but it seems to be the exception more than the rule. Lately there seems to be a wee bit more discussion, which to me shows just how out of control Israel is right now. Friedman will sometimes get disgusted and pen a commentary like he did the other week that was critical of Israel, but I find his usual stance to be quite deferential towards them. I don’t find Bronner to be all that objective and I’ve had conversations with him about this. I’ve talked about that before here.

        Christiane Amanpour is someone I respect a lot and I agree that she is much more balanced, which is why some pro-Israel folks were outraged that she was offered the gig at ABC and they tried to get ABC to drop her b/c they saw her objectivity as anti-Israel bias.

        I don’t know Ben Wedemen to be honest.

        I guess my overall opinion is what I said above- things are slowly changing but I don’t find the type of in-depth reporting on what is going on in Israel and the Palestinian territories that I find in Israeli media or certainly in Arab media. That’s not to say I want pro-Palestinian bias in my news- I dont. I prefer no bias. But it’s not very often that I see or hear Palestinian Americans interviewed nor do Palestinian leaders get the same media attention that Israeli leaders do. In my opinion much of the news coverage is very Israel-centric- the concerns of Israel are usually considered paramount and the Palestinians are represented more as spoilers. Rarely are the security concerns of Palestinians discussed. Every week Palestinians are killed, many nonviolent protesters are arrested and people are thrown out of their homes with shocking regularity- much goes without so much of a mention in the US media. However, such is not the case with Israel. A while back I read an article in the NYT about the Mideast Peace conflict and the word “Palestinian” was only mentioned twice- once when citing the name of the PLO and once before the name Arafat. I remembered thinking “can you imagine if the situation were reversed and Israel was rendered virtually nonexistent like this?”

        I think social media is changing the scene though. It’s much easier to find a diversity of viewpoints that one otherwise might not have access to. That link Thain put in his comment above, from the blog of Joseph Dana, is good example of how people like him are not really given a voice in the media (or anywhere else) and are literally shunned.

        I guess at the end of the day we may just have to disagree about what exactly objectivity looks like with respect to Israel-US relations and Mideast Peace. Perhaps I am unrealistic- I follow a lot of Palestinian bloggers, twitter accounts and international media and my view of the conflict is much different than that portrayed by the American MSM. Are there some journalists who appear to try to be somewhat objective? Yes, as you noted above.

        But honestly Carolyn, I think we are so used one-sided coverage that I wonder if we even notice the lack of real objectivity at times.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        November 19, 2010 1:01 am

        As always, stacy, your observations are compellling. Maybe I do have to start reading more of the Palestinian bloggers and international press.

        Ben Wedeman is one of the good guys, in my opinion. Among other things, he was the first Western journalist to interview prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib, and as a correspondent for the Jerusalem bureau of CNN, he has focused attention on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

        • November 19, 2010 12:33 pm

          Saw this today- it’s quite relevant to what we are talking too but I couldn’t help but laugh when they brought up the American diaspora and of course, who else…Abe Foxman! I wonder if American Jews realize that Abe Foxman speaks for all of them at all times? I asked my partner Micah that sarcastic question last night after she read all the comments in this thread and she responded “please, that dinosaur doesn’t speak for me- he needs to think about retiring to spend more time with his family” OUCH!

          I might put up a post about this later tonight or tomorrow. Not sure.

      • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
        November 19, 2010 7:35 pm

        (snip) “Mick Davis, chairman of both the UJIA and the executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, also warned that unless there were a two-state solution with the Palestinians, Israel risked becoming an apartheid state.”

        Succinct and apt.

  11. Steve permalink
    November 18, 2010 1:40 pm

    You gotta admit, given what is at stake in the AIPAC lawsuit (whether there will be evidence that the group works as an agent of a foreign country- which it so obviously does) it IS strange that most in the American MSM are totally ignoring oy and you have to ask why that is. I don’t think it’s some conspiracy but I do think that it’s because AIPAC has an aggressive media strategy that really tries to squash criticism of AIPAC and any stories about how it operates or with whom. Just look back at that Jane Harman/AIPAC wiretap scandal about 2 years ago- that disappeared from the headlines almost immediately. I’m not sure why Harmon got away with that btw. Or AIPAC.

    Also, why was the suit against Rosen dropped? It sounds like there was more than enough evidence to prosecute him (and Franklin)- you have to wonder if it was political pressure. I tend to believe it was.

  12. Thain permalink
    November 18, 2010 7:46 pm

    I think some in the media dont want to have to deal with any backlash from groups like AIPAC, AJC or the ADL if they determine the coverage or commentary isn’t pro-Israel enough which is of course why Abe Foxman is so aggressive in going after people/groups/media that don’t conform to his views. He ripped into Time Magazine for being antiSemitic a few months ago b/c he didn’t like how Israel was portrayed- it was preposterous of course and a lot of blogs finally called bullshit in Foxman b/c the stuff in the article was actually based on Israeli polls, Israeli commentary etc.

    With the MSM the lack of objectivity at times is subtle – it can include the language used or not used (like never calling the settlements illegal, never calling it an occupation, never referring to UN resolutions or international laws being violated etc) a lack of representation of Palestinian views except as interpreted by Israelis or non-Palestinian Americans, etc.

    • Carolyn-Rodham permalink
      November 18, 2010 8:41 pm

      That’s a fair observation, because before I started reading discussions about it here, I never thought of the settlements or the blockade as illegal, so yes, that point of view must not have been exactly highlighted by the MSM. “Balanced” coverage to me meant we were given some exposure to the terrible suffering of ordinary Palestinians — footage of parents grieving over dead children, or Israeli bulldozers demolishing houses — not just the wreckage caused by Hamas rockets and suicide bombers.

  13. June 22, 2013 10:53 am

    Busy lady

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: