If You’re Voting for Israel, the Choice Is Clear
Shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in the United States with both presidential candidates, President Barak Obama flew to Tel Aviv for the funeral of former Israel president, Shimon Peres.
Immediately after releasing a statement to the press, White House watchdogs revised the release
After all, one must not insult the Arab nations that surround Israel. Better, by far, that the Israelis be slighted.
In the earlier meetings between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the respective contenders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, conclusions were certain to be drawn regarding which one would receive an endorsement from the prime minister. Clinton followers seem quite sure the short meeting meant they had little to discuss and, therefore, agreed on all points.
In the press release from Clinton officials, the prime minister and heiress-apparent had an “in-depth conversation” which lasted only 30 minutes and “reaffirmed unwavering commitment” to the relationship. This begs the question: What relationship?
The answer lies in past Israeli elections. From the start of the 1999 election campaign in Israel, Bill Clinton sent a very clear message as to what he wanted. He again dispatched the team that had run both of his successful election campaigns to lead Ehud Barak’s campaign.
“They structured the research, they came with the insights, and we adapted it to Israel.” Top donors to Clinton and the Democratic Party were mobilized for Barak’s campaign as though this were another election the Democrats must win. These same tactics were employed in 1996 when Netanyahu ran against Yitzhak Rabin.
Will Hillary Clinton deviate from her husband’s blatant disregard for the safety and security of the Israeli people, or would it simply be business as usual in another Clinton White House? In a press release from the prime minister’s office, it was revealed that “Netanyahu discussed with Secretary Clinton a broad range of issues relating to advancing peace and stability in the Middle East as well as the potential for economic growth through technological innovation.”
On the topic of Iran and the Obama-sanctioned nuclear deal, Clinton pledged simply to work with Israel. Clinton’s statement was a bit more expansive, saying she committed herself to working closely with Israel to impose details within the Iran nuclear agreement, and to contest Iran’s unashamed worldwide sponsorship of terrorism. The words “Islamic terrorism” apparently did not pass her lips.
Ms. Clinton did, however, mention a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. She reiterated that negotiations for a peace settlement needed to be undertaken by the two parties. A solution that would assure Israel of a resolution that guaranteed security and democracy. The Palestinians, she agreed, should have a state that provided “independence, sovereignty and dignity.”
Candidate Clinton, says her campaign representative assured the prime minister that she was in agreement with the $38 billion military aid package to be spread over a 10-year period that was inked in early September. She also relayed that she opposed the BDS movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel.
Then it was time for Mr. Trump’s visit with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The two long-time acquaintances met for 90 minutes at the Trump Tower.
According to representatives for the Republican candidate, the two men considered vital issues such as Iran’s nuclear deal and its implications, ISIS and the mayhem it has visited on countries in the Middle East. It was indicated that Mr. Trump had no difficulty in labeling the cause for the upheaval as Islamic terrorism. He had no problem crediting Israel with being the firewall between the West and the terrorist-induced instability that has gripped the globe. He also believes, as do many in the U.S. Congress, that the Iran deal brokered by Mr. Obama harms Israel by revoking sanctions without providing sufficient precautions to ensure Iran’s compliance.
In a statement issued by the Trump campaign, the spokesperson said, “Mr. Trump recognized that Israel and its citizens have suffered far too long on the front lines of Islamic terrorism. He agreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Israeli people want a just and lasting peace with their neighbors, but that peace will only come when the Palestinians renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State.”
In the same release, Mr. Trump reiterated that Jerusalem was the undisputed capital of Israel and of the Jewish people. He vowed as president to enforce the mandate approved by Congress recognized a reunited Jerusalem as the nation’s capital.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr. Trump were said to have also discussed the security wall erected by Israel as a deterrent to terrorism. The Republican candidate has stated unequivocally that a similar wall is needed to prevent illegal immigration across the southern border of the United States. This issue was not addressed by the Clinton camp.
While both parties touched on many of the same issues, it is apparent that Mr. Trump is the stronger supporter of Israel, and the most intense foe of Islamic terrorism. He is unafraid to call the threat by name, and stands firmly behind the Israeli people when it comes to their safety and security as a nation. With a past history of having worked in opposition to Mr. Netanyahu, can we really trust that the Clinton team will staunchly support Israel as long as the prime minister is in office? It would grieve those who stand with Israel to have to watch as the Jewish State is rendered defenseless by those who secretly oppose her right to exist.
