web analytics
May 3, 2016 / 25 Nisan, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Sanders Condemns ‘Disproportionate’ Israeli Gaza Attacks, Clinton Blames Hamas, Iran ‘Constant Incitement’ [video]

Friday, April 15th, 2016

Hillary and Bernie locked horns, clashed, yelled and smashed into each other almost literally last night in Brooklyn, NY. There were cheap shots and there were deep cuts. It can be safely said that the behavioral gap between the Democratic and Republican debates have narrowed significantly, so neither side can claim the high ground any longer. As to the portion of the debate in which we were most interested, US-Israeli relations, we must agree Hillary made us feel a little safer. Sanders started off from the point of view of B’Tselem and J Street, while Hillary at this point is a little to the right of J Street. After last night’s debate, if you’re a Democrat who cares about Israel, we advise you to buy an industrial size laundry clip, put it on your nose and vote for Bill’s wife. Not because we endorse her, we really really don’t, but she scares us a little less than Bernie does.

And now, to what they actually said last night about how they’d like to finally bring peace to the region…

Blitzer: Senator, let’s talk about the U.S. relationship with Israel. Senator Sanders, you maintained that Israel’s response in Gaza in 2014 was, quote, “disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life.”

(APPLAUSE)

What do you say to those who believe that Israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit?

Sanders: Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel, who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack. That is not a debate.

(APPLAUSE)

But — but what you just read, yeah, I do believe that. Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. But we had in the Gaza area — not a very large area — some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1,500 who were killed.

Heckler: Free Palestine!

Sanders: Now, if you’re asking not just me, but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is that I believe it was, and let me say something else.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

Sanders: And, let me say something else. As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run — and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

Sanders: So what is not to say — to say that right now in Gaza, right now in Gaza unemployment is s somewhere around 40%. You got a log of that area continues, it hasn’t been built, decimated, houses decimated health care decimated, schools decimated. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people.

That does not make me anti-Israel. That paves the way, I think…

Blitzer: … Thank you, Senator…

Sanders: …to an approach that works in the Middle East.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

Blitzer: Thank you. Secretary Clinton, do you agree with Senator Sanders that Israel overreacts to Palestinians attacks, and that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel must, quote, end its disproportionate responses?

An interactive delegate calculator that lets you simulate how the 2016 Republican nomination process could unfold.

Clinton: I negotiated the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in November of 2012. I did it in concert with…

(APPLAUSE)

Clinton: President Abbas of the Palestinian authority based in Ramallah, I did it with the then Muslim Brotherhood President, Morsi, based in Cairo, working closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet. I can tell you right now I have been there with Israeli officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. They do not invite the rockets raining down on their towns and villages.

(APPLAUSE)

They do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted by Iran against Israel. And, so when it came time after they had taken the incoming rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, I was in Cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade Gaza again because they couldn’t find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, I flew all night, I got there, I negotiated that.

So, I don’t know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. You have a right to defend yourself.

(APPLAUSE)

That does not mean — that does not mean that you don’t take appropriate precautions. And, I understand that there’s always second guessing anytime there is a war. It also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the Palestinians the rights and…

Blitzer: … Thank you…

Clinton: … just let me finish. The rights and the autonomy that they deserve. And, let me say this, if Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the Late 1990s to the offer then Prime Minister Barat put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years.

(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

Blitzer: Thank you, Senator, go ahead — go ahead, Senator.

Sanders: I don’t think that anybody would suggest that Israel invites and welcomes missiles flying into their country. That is not the issue.

And, you evaded the answer. You evaded the question. The question is not does Israel have a right to respond, nor does Israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. That’s not the debate. Was their response disproportionate?

I believe that it was, you have not answered that.

(CHEERING)

Clinton: I will certainly be willing to answer it. I think I did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even the most independent analyst will say the way that Hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible.

(AUDIENCE REACTION)

I’m not saying it’s anything other than terrible. It would be great — remember, Israel left Gaza. They took out all the Israelis. They turned the keys over to the Palestinian people.

Clinton: And what happened? Hamas took over Gaza.

So instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the Palestinians deserve, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from Iran and elsewhere.

Blitzer: Thank you, Secretary.

Senator.

Sanders: I read Secretary Clinton’s statement speech before AIPAC. I heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the Palestinian people. Almost none in that speech.

(APPLAUSE)

Sanders: So here is the issue: of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but long-term there will never be peace in that region unless the United States plays a role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the Palestinian people.

That is what I believe the world wants to us do and that’s the kind of leadership that we have got to exercise.

Clinton: Well, if I — I want to add, you know, again describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it. And I have been involved, both as first lady with my husband’s efforts, as a senator supporting the efforts that even the Bush administration was undertaking, and as secretary of state for President Obama, I’m the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the Palestinian Authority and the prime minister of Israel.

There were only four of us in the room, Netanyahu, Abbas, George Mitchell, and me. Three long meetings. And I was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the Palestinians.

I was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the Palestinian people had the right to self-government. And I believe that as president I will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the Israelis and the Palestinians without ever, ever undermining Israel’s security.

(APPLAUSE)

Blitzer: A final word, Senator, go ahead.

Sanders: There comes a time — there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.

(APPLAUSE)

Clinton: Well…

Blitzer: Secretary.

Clinton: … you know, I have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations I’ve had with him and other Israeli leaders. Nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position.

If you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in Gaza that does not want to see you exist, that is a very difficult challenge.

Blitzer: Senator, go ahead.

Sanders: You gave a major speech to AIPAC, which obviously deals with the Middle East crisis, and you barely mentioned the Palestinians. And I think, again, it is a complicated issue and God knows for decades presidents, including President Clinton and others, Jimmy Carter and others have tried to do the right thing.

All that I am saying is we cannot continue to be one-sided. There are two sides to the issue.

Blitzer: Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Secretary.

David Israel

Kerry Committed to Return to ‘Save’ Israel from Violence

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will return “soon” to speak with Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and pointed to “settlements” as a major cause of Arab “frustration” that presumably justifies the latest spree of murders and attempted murders of Jews.

Speaking at Harvard University, Kerry said he will “try to work to re-engage and see if we can’t move that away from this precipice.”

His comments were made almost at the same time his spokesman John Kirby issued a statement, reported here, that indicated a change in tone from the usual “balanced blame” and instead was weighted to highlight Palestinian Authority and Israeli Arab terrorist attacks.

It appeared that the State Dept. finally has given up on its magic act that tries to equate Arab violence with Israel’s self-defense, but Kerry once again showed that he looks at the world through a blindfold.

Kerry and his boss President Barack Obama have spent years boosting the hopes of the Arab world that they can annihilate Israel by assuming that forcing Israel to concede to its tactical demands would change their grand strategy to annihilate Zionism.

President Obama made his mark in history with his “reaching out to Muslims” speech in Cairo in 2009, which not coincidentally was followed two years later by Arab Spring rebellions that have left the Middle East in flames.

Kerry led the “peace process” that supposedly “solved” every problem until he came up against the status of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Arab demand for millions of foreign Arabs to flood Israel under the lie of “returning to their homeland.”

But Kerry did not tell Harvard students about any of these issues on Tuesday.

The only subject he mentioned was the “settlements,” which he directly stated are “the” problem.” He asserted:

There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.

So I look at that and I say if that did explode – and I pray and hope it won’t and I think there are options to prevent that – but we would inevitably be – at some point we’re going to have to be engaged in working through those kinds of difficulties. So better to try to find the ways to deal with it before that happens than later.

The Israeli government has found ways to deal the violence. Terrorists’ homes will be destroyed as a deterrent to others who need to know that their acts of “martyrdom” will leave their families with a house in ruins.

The police will be able to place a curfew on violent Arab neighborhoods, an act that hit the good and decent Arabs – and there are plenty of them – in the wallet, where it hurts most.

Kerry apparently still lives somewhere in outer space, where his telescope sees only the “settlements,” Jewish communities whose erasure from the map supposedly would end Arab “frustration” and not inject the Palestinian Authority with adrenalin to return Tel Aviv and Haifa to “Palestine,” as drawn on official Palestinian Authority maps.

Kerry thinks he can do more by “re-engaging” two sides that don’t trust him, for good reason.

The Obama, and to be fair, also the Bush and Clinton administrations, have not changed their destructive tactics to continue the century-old philosophy of “making the world safe democracy.”

Every time the administration’s recipe fails, it cooks up the same poison stew time and time again even after admitting it didn’t cure anyone.

Kerry said at Harvard:

We need to understand here, and we’re trying to do that in a way that doesn’t embroil us in a larger war and once again go through a routine of young Americans being on the ground in a Middle Eastern or other country in the region with a predominant Muslim population and fighting yet again. So we’ve been very careful and tried to do this in ways that we hoped would marshal the people who themselves oppose these activities in order to do it.

Now, it hasn’t panned out as well as some people had thought. [emphasis added].

So we are rethinking and retooling a bunch of different options. The President has already made additional choices. And if Russia were to legitimately commit that it wants to do ISIL and not preserve the Assad regime, but is rather committed to the political settlement that was embraced in the Geneva communiqué of two years ago, then there’s a chance we really could take on ISIL and save Syria and provide the political solution, which is the only legitimate outcome for Syria.

After his speech, the best question that was posed by Harvard students was from an undergraduate, named Gabe Gladstein, who asked if the world really is interested in American ideas. He asked Kerry:

You mentioned nation building earlier and you justified it in general as a concept that is like – by our values and in our interests. I’m wondering how you respond to critics who say that while it’s fine and good for the United States to attempt to sort of import its values and its forms of government into struggling nations, the end product is sort of unnatural, forced, maybe even imperialist.

Kerry hinted he had no answer direct answer by immediately responding, “It’s a very good question.”

All he had to say was:

We don’t run around shoving our idea on other countries anymore. We work very intimately with other nations.

If that is the case, why he is returning to Israel?

Who invited him? Who wants him?

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Hillary’s Foundation Gave $100K to NYT Fund in ’08, Paper Endorsed Her

Monday, June 8th, 2015

Would you be surprised to learn that one of Hillary Clinton’s private foundations donated a huge sum of money – more than it gave to any other charity – to a New York Times charity in 2008?

That was the year Hillary was seeking the Democratic nomination to run for president. It was also the same year that the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

Maybe that doesn’t surprise you, but would it change how you thought about that donation if you were to learn that since that one big donation in 2008, Hillary’s foundation never again donated to the NYT’s Neediest Cases fund?

The paper’s Neediest Cases fund was started in 1911 by then-owner of the New York Times, Adolph S. Ochs, in order to provide financial assistance to needy New Yorkers by publicizing their plights. The fund has distributed more than $275 million since it was established.

Alana Goodman did some investigative work in the Clinton Family Foundation’s tax records and wrote in the Washington Free Beacon about the oddly sized and timed 2008 donation to the New York Times charitable fund.

From Goodman we learn that the Times’ Neediest Cases Fund is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives. We also learn that early in 2008 there were reports that “the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.”

All of this may be simply coincidence, of course.

Two other facts, however, push the incredulity factor.

First, the Clinton Family Foundation’s $100,000 donation to the NYT charity was much larger than the size it gave to other charities, which ranged between $2,000 and $25,000 that same year. The CFF does make much larger donations, but they go to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to Goodman.

And the second factor is that since the 2008 donation, the CFF has not made another donation to the NYT charity fund.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Hillary Clinton Leases Brooklyn Heights Office for Campaign HQ

Sunday, April 5th, 2015

The Democratic campaign machine is starting to crank itself up at last, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to join the race for the White House.

Clinton has just signed a lease in downtown Brooklyn to open a campaign headquarters at 1 Pierrepont Plaza in Brooklyn Heights.

It’s a fancy location but not too fancy; hip but not snobby and also very accessible, located near 12 subway lines and as many bus lines.

A central spot,reachable by the 90 different ethnic groups that comprise the borough, New York City’s largest.

The campaign leased two floors of the building, which is located across the street from the offices of the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of NY, Politico reported this weekend.

The move also signifies that the Democratic contender for the presidential race is ready to announce: the Federal Election Commission allows 15 days between the start of a candidate’s official campaign activities and filing of paperwork for the 2016 run.

Hana Levi Julian

Ex Powell Aide: US Can Attack without UN Mandate

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013

The 15-nation UN security council is not, traditionally, a place where decision are made based on morality and ethics. The august body has been split on the civil war in Syria since ir began, in 2011, with Russia, President Bashar al-Assad’s ally and chief arms dealer, and China, eager for the Syrian oil, vetoing three resolutions condemning Assad and urging punitive measures to make him stop.

It is virtually certain that the same UN council will reject a call for moving troops against Assad’s army, even if the Syrian president is caught splashing anti-American graffiti with a spray can of sarin on the walls of Damascus.

“The experts in Syria have the mandate to determine if chemical weapons were used, and if so, which ones, but not who unleashed this attack” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated that point for reporters in Moscow on Monday.

But the U.S. has intervened in at least one conflict in the recent past without security council support—when President Clinton threw the Airforce into the Kosovo War in 1999, some suggesting in order to divert attention from his troubles with a pesky special prosecutor.

U.S. and European officials have been referring to the Kosovo bombing campaign, which pressured Serb President Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his troops from Kosovo. The beleaguered Clinton ignored the security council to avoid letting the Russians cast a veto, and got his backing from NATO, or, in other words, from himself.

It’s been done, and it can be done again, is the message in Washington this week.

Richard Haas

Richard Haas

Richard Haas, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations who served in the GW Bush administration, rejected the Russian argument that a Western attack on Syria would require UN approval, Reuters reported.

“The UN Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate, and, as many have pointed out, it was bypassed at the time of Kosovo,” Haas told reporters in a conference call, possibly while loading bullets into his personal firearm.

“To say only the UN Security Council can make something legitimate seems to me to be a position that cannot be supported because it would allow in this case a country like Russia to be the arbiter of international law and, more broadly, international relations,” said Haas, who probably recalls the time, in 2003, when he was a close advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell under President GW Bush, and his boss offered a shamefully deceitful presentation to the security council regarding the grounds for launching another war.

Will President Barack Obama want to associate himself with the unilateral strategies of both his predecessors? Barack the multilateralist, champion of the Arab Spring – resorting to hiring the services of an adviser straight out of the GW war room? Incidentally, Haas has had second thoughts on the invasion of Iraq, and in an interview with the Huff Post he said it was a wrong war and a war of choice.

Nevertheless, it looks like you can take the foreign policy expert out of the GW White House, but you can’t extract the GW White House out of expert:

Legitimacy for a strike on Syria, Haas said, could come from a “coalition of the willing” (when have we heard that one before?) of individual countries supporting retaliation against Assad, to demonstrate that the use of weapons of mass destruction (wait, that one is familiar, too!) will not be tolerated.

A furious Russia could launch the general assembly in an attempt to humiliate the U.S. and force it to abandon its attack on Syria, should Obama opt to strike.

Israel could only benefit from an American attack: for one thing, it is sure to wipe out the Syrian WMD reserves (which, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, the Syrians do possess, and then some); and then, once the U.S. is mired in international condemnations – it might go easy on the Netanyahu government when it issues a permit—as comedian Jacky mason put it so aptly—to add a toilet to some settlement.

Stay tuned…

Yori Yanover

You Can’t Outleft the Left

Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

Originally published at Sultan Knish.

The dominant struggle of the 20th Century was the attempt to reconcile the growth of industrial economies with the social welfare demands of the left. The various attempts to “Steal the Thunder” of the left by adopting its social programs led to horrors such as Nazism on the one hand and the growth of the welfare state on the other.

Communism was finally defeated by adopting its program. The national battle against a Russian Communist empire was won while the domestic struggle against the left was lost.The welfare state created a fifth column of bureaucrats and recipients to act as the left’s electorate. Instead of stealing the left’s thunder, they subsidized the triumphant long march of the left.

The liberal Republican prescription is still to Outleft the left, adopting some of its more popular ideas and social policies in a more sensible fashion. And they have never understood that the strategy, even when it succeeds in the short term, is doomed. You don’t win by making your enemy stronger. The left understands that. That is why it’s strategies once in power involve deepening and expanding its institutional power while destroying those of the right.

The temptation to Outleft the left is always there and always doomed because adopting the ideas and positions of the left means that you have already lost.

Mastering the craft of political expediency only gets you through an election. But if you adopt enough expediencies, moving left to win battles, the day will come when there are no more elections because the war has been lost.

Allying with the far left against the left on national security can be as tempting for some libertarians as bending on social welfare and amnesty is for some liberal Republicans. But it’s equally a dead end.

The media has begun conniving in the downfall of Obama because the election is over and the next election will require a Democrat who will run against Obama in the same way that Gore ran against Clinton and McCain ran against Bush.

In 2008, Obama ran to the left of Clinton on national security. There are signs that this time around Hillary Clinton will try to run to the left of Obama on national security taking advantage of the national dissatisfaction with multiple wars to push a return to a 9/10 Clinton Administration era of ignorance and inaction.

The ultimate beneficiary of the NSA outrage will be Hillary Clinton. And even if that we’re not the case, trying to Outleft the left still fails even when it appears to work. Mainstreaming the ideas of a Glenn Greenwald because at a given time he makes a useful club to beat Obama with will only ensure a future version of Obama who is even further to the left.

Outlefting the left only radicalizes it and then the left radicalizes the country. Defeating Obama by empowering the left would be as pyrrhic a victory as winning the Cold War while empowering the welfare state.

What distinguishes conservatives within a party whose political operatives all too often sacrifice principles to political expediency are those principles. It is often said that those who hold to their principles lose sight of the bigger picture. But principles are the bigger picture.

Either we fight for principles or for power and it’s easy to tell the difference. Principles are consistent regardless of who is in power. Everything else is political expediency.There can be a conservative case made against NSA data mining, but the case had to be consistent. Treating drones as an ingenious weapon under Bush but an evil death machine under Obama is not a principled position. If the NSA is bad, it was bad under Bush. If drones are bad, they were bad under Bush.

There is a fundamental difference between opposing a political targeting program in the IRS under Obama and jumping on the left’s side of any national security issue because it allows us to hit Obama even when the issue did not originate under Obama.

Not all scandals are created equal. Some scandals are an outrage because they violate our principles and because they are a declaration of war against us. Others are a scandal because a bunch of international left wing activists who oppose every conceivable American military action say that they are.

A conservative case on any issue does not rely on the likes of Glenn Greenwald for support. If what we truly fear is the tyranny of the left, then what possible good can come from empowering the far left?

That’s not allying with Stalin against Hitler, it’s allying with Stalin against Socialists.

If you go into a struggle of ideas, you should know what your principles are and derive solutions from them. Greenwald and the rest of the far left does. Their principles lead them to reject terrorism as anything other than a response to American foreign policy. Their solution would be total surrender and appeasement. Imagine a policy that makes Obama look like a militarist and exceptionalist and you’re there.

Many believe that there can be nothing worse than Obama. History suggests otherwise. There can always be worse and the seeds of that are here today.

The Democrats embraced the anti-war movement to bring down Bush and the end result of that alliance was Barack Obama. If Republicans embrace the anti-war movement to bring down Obama, forcing the Democrats to go even further to the left, what political monsters will be spawned from that mating?

In a long struggle it is easy to lose sight of your principles. The question is have we lost sight of our principles in fighting terrorists, as the left insists, or after fighting a long bitter war against Obama for so long are we losing sight of the fact that our larger struggle is not against Obama, but the ideas and institutions of the left that he is a part of?The enemy isn’t just Obama or his flunkies. It’s also Glenn Greenwald and Michael Moore. It’s the entire transnational idea that denies the right of nations to defend themselves and indicts them endlessly for imaginary crimes against the Third World.

The only way to make a conservative case against tactics like the NSA wiretapping is to reject that premise and the likes of Greenwald. Unless that is done, the case belongs to the far left and adopting it is not an act of principle but expediency. Trying to beat Obama with the ideas of the left by undermining America will only give the left an even bigger victory.

Daniel Greenfield

PA Strikes Out again; Boulder Nixes Making Nablus ‘Sister City’

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

The Boulder City Council Monday night decided to leave the “peace process” for those with less common sense and overwhelmingly nixed a controversial proposal to adopt Nablus, the Arab version of the Biblical city of Shechem, as a sister city.

The council voted 7-2 against the proposal, according to the local ABC outlet Denver Channel, while the Boulder Daily Camera reported that the vote was 6-3.

Twinning cities is an international project, and even Israel cities have “sisters’ in the Palestinian Authority.

The problem with American and European cities twinning with those in the Palestinian Authority  is the political overtone.

Boulder has seven sister cites, in non-sensitive places – Kenya, Tajikistan, Nicaragua, Tibet, Mexico, Japan and Cuba.

The Palestinian Authority, of course, is not even a country, and that would not be an obstacle to its being twinned by an American city if it were not for the fact that twinning gives PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas the very ground support he has been trying to drum for more than eight years with a single minded aim.

He wants to create a new independent Arab country within Israel’s borders, which the international community insists do not exist.

Any city that has the lofty aim of generating peace with Arabs in Judea and Samaria cannot escape the fact it is involving itself with foreign affairs, even if unintentionally.

Being against twinning with Nablus does not mean taking a stand against the Palestinian Authority. It simply means that understanding culture and creating friendships in Tibet, Kenya and Japan is not the same as doing so in Palestinian Authority cities.

The Boulder-Nablus Sister City Project has been around for two years. Its stated mission sounds ideal.

“Both Arabs and Muslims are misrepresented and maligned by negative stereotyping in the US and we hope, through meaningful exchanges, to offer citizens of Boulder the opportunity to form friendships and to put a human face to the people of Palestine,” according to its website.

Isn’t that nice?

Of course, it is true. Arabs and Muslims are misrepresented. So are Jews. So are blacks, whites, Israeli settlers, Puerto Ricans, homosexuals, terrorists, clowns, Samantha Power and The Good Humor Man.

It is very nice that some well-meaning Americans in Colorado want to discover the truth about Arabs in the Palestinian Authority, but twinning with Nablus is not the way.

Americans, from Condoleezza Rice, to Hillary Clinton, her hubby Bill, John Kerry, President Obama and just about every other American citizen who “knows about the Middle East – the whole bunch of them really don’t have a clue.

If they did, they would not embark on peace processes and twining projects. You will never get to know Israel culture or Arab culture by eating a felafel with a Sabra or smoking a water pipe with an Arab.

In the political atmosphere that has suffocated the Arab-Jewish atmosphere ever since the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the truth sounds like a lie and the lie sounds like the truth.

In this context, the “human face” that the good citizens of Boulder want to find in the Palestinian Authority would come at the expense of Jews and Israel. No matter what happens in the Palestinian Authority, it is Israel’s fault.

If the Palestinian Authority  economy sags, it is because of Israel checkpoints. If the economy improves, it is despite Israel checkpoints.

If Arabs are not happy, it is because of the occupation. If they are happy, it proves their endurance in the face of the Occupation.

The Intermountain Jewish News wrote, “At best the supporters are idealistic and naive, enamored with the Palestinian underdog status. But the leaders of the underdogs are haters, and stand in opposition to everything Boulder stands for.”

“I’m not sure I want to attach Boulder’s name to it,” Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum,  told the Boulder  Daily Camera.

“This is not going to be a decision that resolves the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a bleeding wound,” said Boulder City Councilman Macon Cowles.

The city council heard four hours of testimony from 70 speakers before voting against the idea.

“It is dividing our Boulder community, rather than uniting us to work for peace,” said Beth Ornstein, a member of Bonai Shalom.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/pa-strikes-out-again-boulder-nixes-making-nablus-sister-city/2013/06/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: