Really? Even after her blistering rebuke of Israel recently? She blasted out Netenyahu for about 40 minutes giving him her say so after Obama became livid over the whole East Jerusalem building project.
I am sure she believes in what she says.
I know that anti-Semitism is so deeply entrenched in parts of the populations, particularly liberals, that they don't spot it even when they call for segregation as long as it affects Jews. I am sure she means well.
There is no point in listening to a willful anti-Semite, but with Clinton I know that she is merely a product of her environment and she has managed to distance herself more from it than most.
For you this is difficult to understand because you are a Christian and despite what some people say anti-Semitism is simply not a feature of your environment. So when you think of Israelis building houses, you are not wondering if those are Jewish Israelis or whether some terrorist group would take such construction as an excuse to fight or continue a war. You are only wondering whether what Israel does affects anybody's ability to worship in Jerusalem, and it clearly doesn't (whereas Arab rule clearly would).
But Clinton comes from an environment where it is considered racism to extend to Jews the same rights and privileges as to non-Jews. Considering that she is a very good person and competent foreign minister indeed.
My question is why does the U.S. care? What business is it of ours if Israel builds homes in East Jerusalem or not? I think the U.S. needs to butt out of Israel's business.
Yes. But for some reason many people (excluding Clinton!) a military alliance and having a say in internal matters are not distinct things. Of course every American would be angry if Israel demanded that you stop building apartment blocks in Hawaii, and rightly so. It would be none of Israel's business.
The excuse that Israel's annexation of all Jerusalem is "illegal" is a sham, of course. If there were some sort of international law that forbids annexation of land, the country of Vietnam would not exist and neither would most other states. Obviously in that case East-Jerusalem could also not be "Arab" because making it officially Arab would also be one of those "illegal" annexations.
So what's left is that Israel's annexation of all Jerusalem was _considered_ illegal by the UN because of a popular vote (among governments many of whom are dictatorships). But that doesn't prove illegality, it just proves that popular opinion is anti-Israel. There was no vote in the UN about whether the Soviet-Union could annex Lithuania or whether North-Vietnam could annex South-Vietnam.
This UN vote against Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is just a symptom of anti-Semitism. But it's not a basis for judging the country.