Note also the article below Schlussel’s which holds
In reality, AIPAC’s leadership includes both supporters and opponents of Israel’s West Bank policies. What the organization embraces is a pro-Israel model that leaves to Israelis themselves decisions of existential consequence, reached through the consensus of the country’s body politic. AIPAC thus emphatically favors a two-state solution; insists on direct talks between Arabs and Israelis; holds the Palestinians to be the recalcitrant party; and robustly rejects any outside imposition of a “solution.”
Did Hillary Clinton Endorse Removing Muslims From Israel?;
By Debbie Schlussel
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to the annual convention of AIPAC–the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. And, as you may have heard, she attacked Israel and told it that it must give up more land and further amputate itself into oblivion–that Israel’s refusal to do this (after it’s already done so several times with no positive results) is the “obstacle” to peace.
But, in her speech, she unwittingly gave Israel approval for something else that her logic must dictate: removing Muslims from Israel’s land within the green zone. After all, that is the only way, demographically, that Israel can survive as both a democracy and a Jewish State–both of which she admitted Israel should remain. And that is the turnabout that’s fair play, since Clinton implicitly advocated no Jews in the so-called “territory” of the “Israeli occupation,” a term she used in her speech and the lingua franca of Al-Jazeera and the Muslim world. More on that below. But first a little bit about the forum in which Mrs. Clinton spoke, yesterday.
AIPAC is billed as “the pro-Israel lobby,” but here’s what it really is: the American-Liberals-Shove-it-Down-Israel’s-Throat Committee. Yes, AIPAC really stands for the Appeasement forced on Israel (by liberal American naifs) Public Affairs Committee. Decades ago, when the organization was founded by the great Morris J. Amitay, it was actually a pro-Israel organization. I was an activist in AIPAC in high school. But I saw how it quickly became a wing of the Democrats and an organization obsessed with telling off Israeli Prime Ministers and pushing them to give up land . . . the same concept Hillary pimped yesterday.
AIPAC is single-handedly responsible for shoving the disastrous Oslo Accords down Israel’s throat, for getting the U.S. to remove the P.L.O./Fatah from any U.S. terrorist designations, and for pimping America on the false notion that Fatah is the “moderate” terrorist group and a “partner for peace.” AIPAC even held joint lobbying sessions for the Palestinians all over Capitol Hill, loaning its lobbyists to anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Edward Abington, the PLO’s lobbyist. AIPAC’s friend, Abington, is now working for HAMAS. And AIPAC will probably help Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton force-feed the wholesale further amputation of Israel down the country’s throat.
When my former boss, then-Congressman Phil Crane, got his bill defunding the State Department until they moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, AIPAC worked the phones to get the bill defeated, just as fake “anti-Iran” AIPAC worked to defeat tough legislation offered in several states to prohibit sales to Iran.
As an attorney for pro-Israel students on the University of Michigan campus, we were forced to fight intimidation and open threats from the AIPAC group on campus, as we prepared an alternate programming session against the Divestment (from Israel) Conference and filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Islamic terrorist Sami Al-Arian from speaking on campus (he’d been banned as a safety threat from his own campus, on which he was the faculty). The AIPAC students on campus authored a petition against our efforts and asked the Muslims to co-sign it with them. But the Muslims refused because they wouldn’t sign a document along with Jews. I’ve written more about the fraud known as AIPAC and how they’ve intimidated truly pro-Israel students on campus in a way even the Muslims don’t have the gall to do. And I urge you to read it.
Now back to Hillary’s comments, yesterday. Here’s what she said:
- The conflict with the Palestinians . . . threatens Israel’s long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state.
The status quo is unsustainable for all sides. . . . The dynamics of demography, ideology, and technology make this impossible.
First, we cannot ignore the long-term population trends that result from the Israeli occupation. As Defense Minister Barak and others have observed, the inexorable mathematics of democracy – of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland. Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state.
Well, that’s only the case if each so-called democracy in the two-state non-solution can get rid of the ethnicities that cause demographic problems. Is Hillary saying she’ll allow all Arabs and Muslims inside Israel’s green line to be expelled, the way that will certainly happen to the Jews in any Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank, the same way it happened in Gaza?
Surely, Hillary must believe that Israel must also be allowed to remove the Muslims from its entire remaining country. After all, even if Israel gives up the entire so-called “West Bank” to Palestinians, there is still a ticking demographic time bomb among the Arabs remaining inside Israel. And with their birthrate, they will take over democratically, even if Israel gives up the so-called territories. So, going along with Hillary’s reasoning, the country must be allowed to do with their Muslims what all Muslim countries did with their Jews to zero international outrage: expel them.
CONTINUE
AIPAC
Against a background of sharp disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem, the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee winds down today.
On Monday, the 7,500 delegates—Jews, Christians, African Americans, as well as European and Canadian activists—heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declare that the United States would tell Israel the “truth” when “difficult but necessary choices” had to be made. Today, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is scheduled to meet President Barack Obama. Delegates from all 50 states planned to spend Tuesday on Capitol Hill speaking with their respective Senators and Members of Congress.
But what is AIPAC, and what does it mean to be pro-Israel at a time when many American Jews are said to be discomfited by actions of the Israeli government and tensions with Washington?
Its name notwithstanding, AIPAC is not a political-action committee created to give money to friendly politicians. Nor is it a foreign lobby. Founded in the 1950’s, AIPAC aimed at becoming America’s premier, bipartisan, homegrown pro-Israel pressure group. The group’s incumbent president is usually a communal leader, Republican or Democrat, with strong ties to the administration then in power. Its current head, Lee Rosenberg from Illinois, was among Obama’s staunchest Jewish supporters during the 2008 campaign.
But AIPAC has also become a lightning rod for the animus of those who essentially oppose all Israeli security policies while insisting they favor the country’s “right to exist.” In The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy (1987), the journalist Edward Tivnan charged AIPAC with unprecedented influence over Congress. In The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), the “realist” academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt updated and amplified Tivnan’s critique, positing that an all-powerful lobby was “silencing any debate at all” on the Middle East, rendering impossible the proper pursuit of American interests, and, through its blind support of Israel’s West Bank policies, helping to foment anti-American terrorism.
In reality, AIPAC’s leadership includes both supporters and opponents of Israel’s West Bank policies. What the organization embraces is a pro-Israel model that leaves to Israelis themselves decisions of existential consequence, reached through the consensus of the country’s body politic. AIPAC thus emphatically favors a two-state solution; insists on direct talks between Arabs and Israelis; holds the Palestinians to be the recalcitrant party; and robustly rejects any outside imposition of a “solution.”
Is this any different from the model embraced by the overwhelming majority of the American people, and confirmed in survey after survey of national opinion?
