Did Hillary Clinton consider fomenting unrest against Israel in 2011?

January 11, 2016
Above the rules.

You can trust me.

That is, did our then-Secretary of State and current Democratic front-runner for the presidency contemplate inciting Palestinian unrest as a club against our closest ally in the region?

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the answer is yes:

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her then-advisers to foment unrest among Palestinian citizens and spark protests in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table, according to emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.

In a Dec, 18, 2011, email, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by kickstarting Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest. Clinton requested that his email be printed.

“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he continued. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. Many men and others will denigrate the idea. I don’t and I don’t think that was your message.”

Palestinian women, he noted, are less likely than men to resort to violence.

“It must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote, comparing the effort to the protests in Egypt that deposed former leader Hosni Mubarak. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.

Gee. Oh, gosh. I do so wonder why the might think the Israelis might object, just because we had a hand in inciting demonstrations against them with utterly unpredictable consequences and with a huge potential to blow up in everyone’s face?

This is one of those revelations that shows how dangerously incompetent Clinton and her team of clowns is, and why she should come nowhere near the presidency.

Just what in Heaven’s name were they thinking? This was near the start of the so-called “Arab Spring,” with demonstrations against secular dictatorships launched in the name (ostensibly) of liberal reform. Instead, what we got was a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, the most important Arab state and a key US ally, which had to be removed in a military coup. Other countries fell into turmoil and even civil war. It has, so far, been an almost-unmitigated disaster for the region, with consequences spreading globally.

And yet Clinton and her advisers thought they could safely harness this to “shame’ the Israelis into making peace? (Newsflash: It’s not Israel that’s been the big obstacle to peace, here.) Did they seriously think for one moment that such demonstrations wouldn’t be hijacked by radical organizations? Did it not occur to them that an “honor and shame” culture such as the Arabs’ could never let their women take the lead for long? That violence would be almost inevitable and that implementing this cockamamie plan risked a new intifada — or worse? Did they think they could control all the forces they would be stirring up?

Against an ally??

How well did the Clinton-Obama war in Libya go, again?

Who’d they get this plan from? The Underpants Gnomes?

PS: Homework question for the House and Senate foreign relations committees — Was any part of this plan ever implemented?

Advertisements

(Video) Such lovely people. Let’s give them their own state, shall we?

October 25, 2015

muhammad jyllandsposten_censor2

If you ever wonder why the Palestinians aren’t fit to join the community of nations, just watch what their elites say on their television channels.

The first video is from the invaluable MEMRI. In it, a Dean of Quranic Studies at Gaza University, in other words, an expert on just what is and is not permissible in Islam, declares openly that is is halal (permitted) to kill Jewish women and children:

And yet some people have been surprised by the spate of knife attacks against Israelis.

Next is Sheikh Khaled Al-Mughrabi, who teaches Islam twice a week at the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites in Islam. In other words, his words carry some weight with believers. Per PalWatch, the Sheikh has a message for us: That the end of days cannot come until the Jews build a temple to the Devil inside the mosque, at which point the Muslims will kill all the Jews.

Are we all clear on that, now?

The only difference between the Palestinian elites and the ISIS leadership in one of degree, not of kind.


Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity

September 10, 2014
"Peace? Don't make me laugh."

“Peace? Don’t make me laugh.”

That’s actually a misquote of what the late, great Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said, but it’s accurate enough in this case. Writing in the International Business Times, Jack Moore reports that Egypt offered Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas a portion of the Sinai peninsula from which to form a Palestinian state… and Abbas refused:

Egyptian President General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi has offered Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas the chance to create a Palestinian state in the Sinai Peninsula, according to local Israeli media.

The offer to the Palestinian President which, reports say Abbas has denied, would have seen 1,600 square kilometres of the Sinai Peninsula given to the Palestinian Authority, creating a Palestinian state five times the size of Gaza.

According to IDF Radio, the offer would see Abbas relinquish demands that Israel return to the 1967 borders.

In the new and enlarged Gaza, the territory would be demilitarised and Palestinian refugees, many who were unable to return to their towns after the creation of Israel, would have been able to settle there.

As part of the proposal, Palestinian cities in the occupied West Bank would have been autonomous and continued to be under Palestinian Authority control.

Sisi allegedly said to Abbas in the meeting: “You are now 80 years old, if you don’t accept this proposal, your successor will.”

The Palestinian Authority is yet to publicly comment on the initiative but unnamed sources said that Abbas rejected the deal in a meeting with Sisi.

Seems like a good deal to me: Israel will never go back to the 1967 borders, and rightfully so — they’re indefensible. The Palestinians would have their own homeland and, in return for demilitarization, they’d be free to make a prosperous country. You know, like those Jewish guys next door.

But, no. It seems there is no deal too good for the PLO, Hamas, or any other Palestinian group to turn down. But why? Why so obdurate? Why so bloody-minded? I think Robert Spencer nails it:

Of course he turned it down. The point is not to have a “Palestinian” state. The point is to destroy Israel. No one was crying about “occupation” between 1948 and 1967 when Egypt had Gaza and Jordan had Judea and Samaria. The “Palestinians” didn’t consider Egyptian and Jordanian rule to be “occupation.” Only Israeli rule is “occupation.” The hypocrisy of the entire “Palestinian” cause is as palpable as its dishonesty, but the world takes no notice.

Yep.


How to lose an ally in 6 years: Obama’s latest betrayal

June 8, 2014

Good article by my friend agconservative about how Team Smart Power has royally fouled up our relations with Israel.

agconservative

Many commentators have noted that it has become hard to keep track of all of the scandals related to this administration, and that reality has actually benefited President Obama. The number of scandals ensures that each individual scandal has about the same staying power as Lindsay Lohan’s sobriety. This phenomenon was on full display this last week as the VA scandal was overshadowed by the Bergdahl swap, which also allowed the media and public to completely block out another story that would otherwise concern many Americans. This story includes President Obama breaking promises, ignoring laws, and betraying allies, all of which have unfortunately become as common as MSNBC show cancellations during this Presidency.

Following the news that the Palestinians have formed a unity government that includes the terrorist group Hamas, Buzzfeed reported that the Obama administration has been holding secret talks with Hamas for six months. It’s hard to keep…

View original post 582 more words


Dear Senator McCain: you’re dead wrong, it *is* the culture

July 31, 2012

And I write that with all due and genuine respect for a man who suffered much for his country and was a true leader to the men who were prisoners of war with him.

But, this is just utterly wrong:

It’s government, “not cultures” that define the difference between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s according to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who appeared to differ with presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney as he tried to defend him.

“I am sure that Gov. Romney was not talking about difference in cultures, or difference in anybody superior or inferior,” said McCain, a chief Romney foreign policy surrogate, today during a news conference after an event here with Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “What I’m sure Gov. Romney was talking was that the Israeli economy has grown and prospered in a dramatic fashion. And unfortunately, the Palestinians have not had that same economic development.

“And that goes to the leadership of the Palestinians. Everybody knows that Yasser Arafat was corrupt. And we also know that the Palestinian people have not been blessed with the kind of government that has lower regulations, less taxes, entrepreneurship, which have caused the Israeli economy to be one of the world’s most successful. It has nothing to do with cultures. It has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. But facts of the booming Israeli economy has to do with the kind of government that the Israeli people have freely and democratically elected which has given them a very prosperous country.”

McCain noted he had not seen or heard Romney’s remarks, but that didn’t stop him from defending what Romney meant.

He has it exactly backwards: culture determines the type of society a nation has and shapes its form of government. Both are a reflection of the values of that society. Western civilization, which includes Israel, echoes the Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman and, yes, for parts, Anglo-Saxon values that shaped it. It is a culture that values the individual and individual liberty, fosters initiative and wealth-creation, and that recognizes life is precious and not something to be taken carelessly. (1)

Arab Islamic culture on the other hand… What has it given the world lately? Dictatorship? Kleptocracy? Contempt for democracy? The near-enslavement of women? Honor killings? Suicide bombings? “We are going to win, because they love life and we love death“?

You want an example of the difference in cultures, Senator? Here’s just one from among hundreds. Israelis fight to save the life of a mother and child, even though they come from their sworn enemies. Palestinians murder Israeli children in their sleep, and the culture celebrates the killers as heroes.

Those values ripple throughout the respective cultures, and you can bet your bottom dollar they make a difference.

Natan Sharansky wrote a brilliant book called “The Case for Democracy.” In it he discusses the difference between what he calls “free societies” and “fear societies.” The Israelis are an example of the former, the Palestinians the latter, and the differences explain why, as Mitt Romney pointed out, Israel is successful, while “Palestine” is a failure.

You should read it, Senator. You might for once know what you’re talking about.

But I guess that’s a bit much to expect from a man who doesn’t even bother to check what his party’s nominee said before bloviating on it.

via Slublog

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, far from perfect, but also far better than the alternatives.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bill Whittle: Debunking the Palestinian lie

September 20, 2011

One of the currents in the news lately has been the unilateral Palestinian push for a UN declaration of a Palestinian state, a move largely brought about by dangerously incompetent Obama administration diplomacy (1). This declaration is founded on two Big Lies: the first is that Palestinians are an ethically and historically distinct people, deserving of their own state — not true. (via Legal Insurrection)

The second is that Jews have been the unreasonable aggressors and Palestinians the long-suffering victims (2) who’ve never had a chance at a home of their own.

Again, as Bill Whittle demonstrates in this video essay on a whiteboard, this is a lie.

The fact is, the Arabs of Palestine have been offered their own state several times over the past century and, each time, they’ve slapped away the proffered hand of peace and responded with violence. Wallowing in the Jew-hatred that’s hard-wired into Islam, their leaders sought out allies from, among all people, the Nazis. Even after the Nazi defeat and repeated failures to destroy Israel since world War II, the Palestinians have rejected generous offers, one after the other.

The US will likely veto the statehood declaration in the Security Council, but it is sure to pass the General Assembly. Though it will be legally meaningless, it will be a moral defeat for Israel and Western values. As any objective analysis of the historical record shows, the “Palestinians” in no way deserve their own state — not until they grow up and can act like civilized adults.

via Hot Air.

RELATED: The book shown at the beginning of the video, Sol Stern’s “A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism and Jew Hatred,” which served as the basis for Bill’s essay, is the latest in the Broadsides series from Encounter Books. Each is a short pamphlet laying out a conservative argument on a particular issue, written by an expert in the field. They’re inexpensive and quick-reading; I find them invaluable. Regarding the forthcoming vote on declaring a Palestinian state, the editors at National Review urge us to “just say no.”

Footnotes:
(1) You know, that “Smart Power(tm)” that’s made the world such a nice place.
(2) Unless one means, of course, “suffering at the hands of their fellow Arabs, who’ve used the Palestinians like a cheap date,” which would be accurate.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Good news! 27% of Palestinians don’t want to kill all the Jews!

July 15, 2011

Of course, that means roughly two-thirds three-fourths would be happy with another Holocaust

Respondents were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.”

Just 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it.

Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city.

Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees.

Here’s the hadith in question:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

“Allah’s Messenger” is Muhammad, and the collection of sayings from which this is drawn, the Sahih Muslim, is considered one of the most reliable and authoritative collections of hadiths in Islam. And as Muhammad himself is, by Allah’s word, a “beautiful pattern of conduct” to be emulated by all Muslims, well…

Can you say “divine license for genocide?”

The article tries to find some bright spots: “only” 22% support firing rockets at Israeli cities and “only” 20% prefer violence to talks. But, not only does this mean one-fifth to one-fourth of Palestinians prefer violence, it leaves open the question of what “negotiations” and “diplomacy” mean to the Palestinians, rather than to us readers. Do they mean negotiations leading to a two-state solution and peaceful coexistence, or negotiations and diplomacy that ends with Israel having indefensible borders and on the road to destruction? Questions like these need to be answered before any serious negotiations can begin.

At a deeper level, these survey results show the deep spiritual sickness of Palestinian society, where the government, the mosques, and the educational system daily teach hatred against Israel and Jews. A society this full of bile and venom for the neighbor it would have to coexist with isn’t yet ready for statehood, and won’t be until the poison of Jew-hatred is purged.

UPDATE: Fixed my sloppy math in the subject…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)