If Hillary is pro-Israel, Bill is pro-abstinence

· March 22, 2016  
    Font Size A A A
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during the presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

chutz·pah

 

noun: chutzpah; noun: chutzpa; plural noun: chutzpas; noun: hutzpah; plural noun: hutzpahs; noun: hutzpa; plural noun: hutzpas

  1. shameless audacity; impudence.

Synonyms: audacity, cheek, guts, nerve, boldness, temerity

Example: Hillary Clinton had the chutzpah to attack Donald Trump during her AIPAC speech for his desire to remain neutral between Israel and their Muslim-terror supporting neighbors.

As we’re witnessing from today’s tragic terror attacks in Brussels, what goes on in Israel is important for the rest of the world because what starts with Israel never ends with Israel.  Suicide bombings were originally used by the Palestinians against the Israelis but have now become a universal tool of all Islamic terrorists against their victims.

I am no fan of Trump’s position on Israel.  His willingness to subscribe to the entire notion of negotiating to create an Arab Palestinian state countermands his messaging about being tough on Islamic terror and is the very embodiment of the establishment mentality he claims to oppose.  But for Hillary Clinton to attack Trump’s position on Israel as too weak is the equivalent of her husband delivering a lecture on abstinence.  If Trump plans to remain neutral, Hillary will downright side with the Palestinian terrorists.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton delivered the following remarks to those assembled at the annual AIPAC convention:

America can’t ever be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival. We can’t be neutral when rockets rain down on residential neighborhoods, when civilians are stabbed in the street, when suicide bombers target the innocent. Some things aren’t negotiable. And anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president.

Clinton then had the nerve to say the following, much like an arsonist coming to the scene of the fire to lament the threat of Iran and global anti-Semitism, all products of her policies as Secretary of State:

As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.

To begin with, it says something about AIPAC that her speech could be warmly received after she served as the most Anti-Israel Secretary of State in history.  As I’ve noted before, AIPAC has become nothing but a protection racket for the Democrat Party.

However, the notion that Clinton is pro-Israel is scandalous. As early as 1998, when she was First Lady, Hillary praised “the leadership of Chairman [Yasser] Arafat,” one of the biggest terrorists of the 20th century.   Consider the following:

  • Pre-’67 Borders: Not only does Hillary support the same sort of negotiations Trump is calling for, she was regarded, even by anti-Israel Obama officials, as one of the most fervent opponents of Jews building homes in their homeland beyond the mythical and indefensible “’67 borders.”  Here is a quote from the New York Times in 2014: “Mrs. Clinton’s marching orders from the White House were to demand that Israel cease the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as a way to lure the Palestinians into talks, and she did so with a fervor that surprised Mr. Obama’s advisers.”  She continuously and mercilessly pressured Israel into concessions and the removal of security check points and referred to Israel’s “settlements” as “illegitimate.”
  • Anti-Israel emails: One of the recent email dumps from Hillary’s server reveals a torrent of anti-Israel sentiments expressed by her and her top aid, Sidney Blumenthal.  In some of those emails, Hillary praised the writings of Sidney’s son, Max, who is involved in anti-Israel activism and the BDS movement.  In other emails, Clinton’s top advisors pitched her on ideas to stir up Palestinian violence as a means of twisting Netanyahu’s arm and bringing him to the negations table.  Watching the events that have unfolded this past year, it’s easy to see how this plan might have been implemented in actuality.
  • During a 2012 speech at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Clinton called out the Israelis for their “lack of generosity” and “lack of empathy” for the Palestinians, despite the fact that Israel has made more gratuitous and painful concessions than any other country.
  • Hillary supported and facilitated the lead up to the Iran deal from day one.

Thus, as bad as Trump is on Israel, it’s hard for Clinton to throw stones without destroying her glass house.  Then again, Trump himself praised Hillary as a good negotiator with Iran.  I guess it’s no different from Trump taking both sides of the Iran deal during his own AIPAC speech yesterday – both criticizing the Iran deal and saying that he’ll keep most of it in place.

Don’t the voters deserve a real choice, not a phony fight between two individuals who largely agree on these critically important foreign policy issues?

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.