(no nuance to HillaryClinton's views) she made it clear in her recent book

Labels: » » » »

IN THE MIDDLE EAST CHAPTER OF HER BOOK MS CLINTON MAKES STATEMENTS THAT AT BEST COULD BE CONSIDERED INSENSITIVE TO ISRAEL, OR AT WORST THAT ARE CLEARLY ANTI-ISRAEL


Supporters of the Jewish State of Israel may be concerned about a section of Hillary Clinton's new book "Hard Choices." In the Middle East chapter of her book Clinton makes statements that at best could be considered insensitive to Israel, or at worst, clearly anti-Israel. That chapter features the former Secretary of State calling the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria "occupied territories," ignoring the negotiations which occurred during her husband's administration, drawing a false moral equivalence terrorism and Israel's defense of terror, echoing John Kerry's gaffe describing Israel as a potential apartheid state, and ignoring any Israeli claim to East Jerusalem.
On page 302, Clinton writes:
When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted
Clinton fails to recognize a truism of peace negotiations, "It takes two to tango." During her husband’s presidency, Israel offered Yasser Arafat a deal that would have given him about 98% of what he wanted. Bill Clinton said after Arafat broke off talks, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." PA President Abbas turned down a similar deal offered by Ehud Olmert during the Bush presidency.
It is important to note that when Chris Christie called Judea and Samaria “occupied,” supporters of Israel forced him to apologize.  But when Hillary Clinton writes it in a book, her liberal supporters are at a loss for words.
Clinton says on page 308:
There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.
Like many whose political leanings are anti-Israel, Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel's attempts at self-defense. The second intifada was a bloody and violent period of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians: busloads of children blown up on the way to school, pizza places bombed, even families peacefully celebrating the Passover Seder in a hotel massacred. There is no moral equivalency between an act of terror and a nation's attempts at self-defense.

By writing that more Palestinians were hurt than Israelis, Clinton is alluding to the anti-Israel meme of the IDF's unequal response to Palestinian terror. If one were to follow Clinton's logic, the US should be chastised because Americans in the War on Terror killed more Al Qaeda terrorists than the number of Americans killed during the 9/11/01 attacks.
On page 312, the former Secretary of State writes:
Because of higher birth rates among Palestinians and lower birth rates among Israelis, we were approaching the day when Palestinians would make up a majority of the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and most of those Palestinians would be relegated to second-class citizenship and unable to vote.
In addition to being factually inaccurate, her comment is essentially a rewording of what current Secretary of State John Kerry said two months ago, that Israel was on the road to becoming an apartheid state. Israel's deputy defense minister Danny Danon gave the best answer to Kerry's remark, a response which is apropos to the Clinton passage as well:
To suggest that the Jewish people would ever establish an apartheid regime was particularly hurtful. Equally hurtful was the implied double standard. Although the administration has from time to time chided the Palestinians for “unhelpful” steps, those comments have not come close to the pointed criticism that has been leveled at our government. This policy of sharing the blame for the collapse of the peace talks, which from the outset was deemed by most independent experts as a long-shot attempt at best, has created the illusion of parity between the two sides. The secretary’s comments make it seem that Israel’s decisions to issue housing tenders, or to exhaustively debate whether to release convicted murders who would have very likely received the death penalty in U.S. courts, were just as damaging to the peace process as the “unity” pact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has now signed with Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization.
 All citizens of Israel, including the more than 20 percent of the population who are non-Jews, enjoy the same democratic freedoms as well as full human and civil rights. Minorities in Israel participate in our vigorous democracy, are elected to parliament, have served as ministers and preside at all levels of our judicial system, including the Supreme Court. Even the Palestinians of Judea and Samira enjoy full autonomy via the Palestinian Authority. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Middle East, where Christian minorities are persecuted and women and homosexuals routinely oppressed. This includes, of course, Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The final entry in Hillary's anti-Israel screed appears on page 317, where Clinton writes:
The sticking point would be Jerusalem. East Jerusalem had been captured along with the West Bank in 1967, and Palestinians dreamed of one day establishing the capital of their future state there.
Clinton ignores the possibility of any validity to Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Israel didn't capture Jerusalem; Jordan did in 1948. Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population from the first records in 1844 through the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 when Jordan kicked out all the Jews.  In fact, Muslims were the third largest religion in the city until roughly 1890.
The Palestinians didn’t want East Jerusalem as their capital until after 1967. Their reason for desiring it is based on the fact that they refuse to recognize any Jewish claim of a historical heritage to Jerusalem or any other part of the Holy land. This despite the fact that there is even a Koranic passage (Koran, Sura 2:145, "The Cow") indicating that Jerusalem is not quite so holy to Muslims, and is passed on to the Jews. The 13th-century Arab biographer and geographer Yakut noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims, and Jerusalem to the Jews."
In all probability, Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. As TruthRevolt reportedlast week, as Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton was the architect of the policy for the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy that reflected views Hillary Clinton has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State and relied on Jewish voters. Her lifetime of views about Israel is repeated in her book "Hard Choices." 

CARTER BANNED IRANIANS FROM COMING TO US DURING HOSTAGE CRISIS

Labels: » » » » » »
(Source) Trump is a monster, a madman
and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Meanwhile here's how the Iranian students in the US were treated.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.

Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo secondary screening.

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States.

“If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished,” Senator McCarran said of the law. He was a Democrat.

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today.

One of the neater subsets of the 1952 Act barred the entry of, "(11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy."

I wonder which creed this might apply to.

Maybe the professional conservatives running around shrieking their heads off can calm down now long enough to have a rational conversation on the subject.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield#.VmeHQKyKAKO.twitter

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Translate