We know President Obama’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is strained to say the least. It was Obama campaign operatives who went to Israel to work against Netanyahu in the elections last year. And it was the Obama administration that somehow gave the wink-wink-nod to the NSA to spy on Netanyahu and members of the U.S. Congress — all over the Iranian nuclear deal.Obama also once spoke out against returning to pre-1967 borders, only to later support it and threatened to cut off Hellfire missile support to Israel in its last conflagration with Hamas. One must conclude he’s not chummy with the Jewish State at all. Funny, ya don’t hear too many complaints from the likes of Wasserman-Schultz, Schumer and others.
But apparently it’s not only the current Democrat occupant of the White House, but also the wannabe who harbors a little animus towards Israel.As reported by the astute Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon, “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.”
Ok, the first thing I must contradict is the false premise that Palestinian women are less likely to resort to violence. Ask the Israeli security guard who was stabbed by a Palestinian women during the recent spate of “fomented unrest.” And Tashfeen Malik and the female accomplice from the Paris Islamic terror attack both debunk Pickering’s assertion.And why would anyone consider stoking unrest in order to pressure our “best ally” – difficult to believe the Obama administration shares that sentiment — into acquiescence? Look, there’s only one side committed to violence in the Middle East — Islamic terrorists — and Fatah is just a slicker group, like the Muslim Brotherhood. So why would the Obama administration think stoking the flames of violence, and believe it could be contained, was a winning policy?
As well, “Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.
“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”
“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”As relations with Israel remained tense, another Clinton confidant, Anne Marie Slaughter, sent a staff-wide email to Clinton staffers recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign aimed at convincing U.S. millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the Palestinian cause.”
Now I can just hear all the Hillary Clinton sycophants, tuned into the “Black and Brown” Democrat forum in Iowa last night, who are now fuming and the liberal progressive leftists saying so what? And that’s my point; the left is fine with a “pledge for Palestine” campaign, as well as $150 billion for Iran. And if the former secretary of state Ms. Clinton were to become president, do any of you believe these same folks won’t be a part of her administration? That folks is the point. The question is of course, “what difference at this point does it make?”
If you have no issue with America continuing to aid and abet the enemy and provide material support and comfort to Islamic jihadism and fascism, then you indeed have the ideal candidate.
However, I presume we’ll never hear anything about this at any Democrat debate or forum. I suppose Hillary thought it was being a good champion of women’s rights that Pickering would promote using Palestinian women — you know, combatting jihad to protest inequality. Funny thing, Hillary Clinton says little to nothing about women’s rights under Sharia law, but she certainly wouldn’t mind them being used a pawns in her political schemes. Down south we call that a hypocrite.
Boy howdy, this is just gonna be a doozy of a year.