Shrillary: still lying about the “settlements”

Our secretary of, ahem,  state compares the Palestinian “culture of hate” with Israeli settlements in Samaria and Judea, as though the two were comparable. She also continues to call  the East Jerusalem apartment buildings in a Jewish neighborhood near the Knesset “settlements.”

Which she knows they are not. All, apparently, to back up her obfuscating, prevaricating boss who is still trying to get the anti-Jewish Iranian mullahs to talk to him. Give it a rest, Shrillary. You make Biden look smart.

0 responses to “Shrillary: still lying about the “settlements”

  1. Part of the problem is moral obtuseness on the part of the Obama team-they can’t seem to understand that the Palestinians and Israelis are pursuing their objectives in radically different ways, from a moral perspective. (This is aside from the ultimate justice of each position-I’m just speaking about terrorism vs. the defense of civilians.) There’s an old saying about being willing to negotiate with terrorists, if necessary, but never about terrorism itself.

    I also maintain that the double standard comes from the idea that we know we can successfully pressure the Israelis, so we do, while we know the Palestinians are perpetually intransigent, so we don’t bother with them.

    Also, of course, these people (Hillary, etc.) are just as dumb as you’re arguing. Jerusalem is non-negotiable for Israelis of all political stripes.

    And even as a far as settlements elsewhere go, as you know, there are more than a million Arab Israelis who have full rights, including representation in the Knesset, where they act just as obnoxiously as you’d expect. How can it be that no Jews could possibly live in a Palestinian state, were one established? Yes, practically speaking it might be impossible, but why yet another double standard? Why isn’t this negotiable? We’re back to Palestinian intransigence.

  2. Dick Stanley

    I can’t believe most American politicians don’t see that the Pals have never been and likely will never be honest partners in anything.

    Obamalot’s predecessors seemed enamored of the phony “peace process” primarily as a way to keep the Saudi oil flowing. Their successor seems to be interested in proving that he can make peace with the Iranians and other Muslims. Well, that’s my most charitable view of what he’s doing. I have others, including that he doesn’t like Israel very much.

  3. Well, this way or another, the things will come to a head in coming months. Then we’ll see.

  4. Dick Stanley

    Obamalot’s reported snubbing of Bibi at the WH suggests there’ll be no backtracking on this by the State Department any time soon.

    Saw a piece in Foreign Policy mag saying this anti-settlement policy, including Jerusalem, was tried in ’91 by the elder Bush and succeeded in breaking Shamir’s government. Remains to be seen if the greater understanding of terrorism since 9/11, and Pals’ takeover by Hamas and Hizbollah, will allow that to happen to Bibi.

  5. The Palestinians have one goal and it’s the same one they’ve wanted for all of my life: From the river to the sea.

    They proved that when Arafat declined Ehud Barak’s offer and went off and started his Intifada and put little kids in position to be shot so CNN could hammer Israel when the Pali’s shot that little al Dura kid.

    Where were the vaunted Arab negotiating skills? Why did he just say no to almost everything he wanted? If had asked for everything he claimed to want, he would have achieved a Palestinian State alongside Israel. Clinton would have pushed Barak in the direction he wanted to go, and thrown in a few billion more to make everybody happy.

    But that’s not what they want. They want the area Judenrein.
    And that’s all the followers of that death cult want. Why else are they teaching their kids Jew-hate on their morning shows?

  6. Dick Stanley

    Indeed, and we refuse to drill for our own oil and so have to depend on the Muslims for it and thereby must continue the phony peace process with the Pals.