Clinton Opts For Apartheid:If Obama Offers MidEast Peace Plan, ‘I Will Support It’

Coming from the father of Oslo, who pushed the Israelis into bringing Yasir Arafat and his thugs in from Tunis to take over because he had the bright idea that the murderous Arafat was a good bet for peace, this wouldn't inspire confidence if I were the Israelis. From the ObamaBot site Think Progress:

Discussing the Middle East peace process on ABC’s This Week, host Jake Tapper asked former President Bill Clinton whether he thought it was “time for President Obama to put a peace plan on the table,” as has been reported the administration is considering. Clinton responded that, while he was “reluctant to give him public advice,” if President Obama “decides to do it I will support it”:

CLINTON: Let me answer you this way, because I don’t want to do anything to foreclose their options. The argument against doing that is that the current Israeli government, with its current coalition, would almost certainly reject it. And the argument is that this makes us look weak. But I think they [the Israelis] may decide it’s more important to have clarity. And to do something that may be an action-forcing event that would bring them back to the table, if he [President Obama] decides to do it I will support it. And I think that if he decides to do it he should acknowledge that they may come up with a deal that’s slightly different from the one he proposes. But we need to do something to deprive both sides of any excuse not to engage in serious negotiations.

What negotiations? Obama's war on Israel has not only convinced the Israelis that he isn't to be trusted with any agreements he makes, it has made the Palestinians and the Arabs utterly intransigent on the idea of making any compromises.

And based on Obama's previous track record, it's obvious he's not going to 'offer' Israel a peace plan. He going to try to impose on them according to the Arab's terms.

And,while we're on the subject, as Mark Steyn puts it, why is the US advocating for Arab positions that amount to apartheid?

This is a question that should be asked more often:

Moshe Ya’alon, a former Israel Defense Forces general who now serves as Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic affairs minister, posed the following query in an interview published in the Jerusalem Post: “If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why do those areas have to be Judenrein? Don’t Arabs live here, in the Negev and the Galilee? Why isn’t that part of our public discussion? Why doesn’t that scream to the heavens?”

As Jonathan Tobin points out, the official goal of the Middle East "peace process" is a "two-state solution", in one of which Muslims live alongside Jews and have voting rights and representation in the legislature, while in the other there are no Jews at all and, as in "moderate" Jordan, to sell your house to a Jew is a crime punishable by death. There goes the neighborhood, right? When the western campus left holds its annual "Israeli Apartheid Week", presumably it's in philosophical support of the notion that you don't need to run an "apartheid" system if you just get rid of everyone who's not like you.

If Muslims are so revolted by Jews that they cannot tolerate any living among them, well, they're free to believe what they want. What is less understandable is the present position of the United States government. The President and his Secretary of State have made it very clear that they regard a few dozen housing units in Jerusalem as a far greater threat to Middle East peace.

Quite an irony that both the man labeled as our 'first black president' and a man who is supposedly our post-racial president would be such advocates of racial segregation - provided it's Jews we;re talking about.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!