WHY HILLARY WAS NOT HECKLED AND LAURA WAS?
I'm reminded of what Vaclav Havel, the former President of the Czech Republic, once told me. Vaclav Havel -- playwright, intellectual, freedom fighter, political prisoner, then President of the Czech Republic -- said to me,"Laura, you know, democracy is hard because it requires the participation of all the people."
So she knew what to expect:"I think the protests were very expected. If you didn’t expect them, you didn’t know what it would be like when you got here," she said."Everyone knows how the tensions are and, believe me, I was very, very welcomed by most people."
The small crowd of about two dozen people at the Dome of the Rock who cried out at her:"You are not welcome here. Why are you hassling our Muslims? How dare you come in here?" or the old woman inside the mosque who shouted"Koran, Koran" at her were not representative. Nor were the few dozens of nationalist Jews demanding Washington free convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard.
Bravo! Big mouths are NOT representive. They are extremists.
These big mouths had no need to heckle Hillary. She was their best friend. She did not trouble them with talk about elections or human rights. It's worth remembering the 1999 Hilary Clinton visit to Petra.It was far from edifying though the media put the best face on it:
Mrs. Arafat greeted her with a speech prepared by Yasser Arafat's office. It contained vicious, baseless and irrational charges against Israel that amounted to a blood libel. Suha Arafat said Israel used poison gas against the Palestinian population, which caused the death of women and children from cancer and other horrible diseases, and that Israel poisoned 80% of the water used by Palestinians. Clinton had her earphones on, listening to the simultaneous translation. As Arafat began reciting Israel's genocidal crimes, Clinton nodded in approval. Then her face froze into a polite smile. When Arafat finished, she hugged and kissed her, uttering not one word of criticism. Only after the White House alerted her to the unfavorable reaction to her conduct did she issue a statement. It did not refer to Suha Arafat but commended President Clinton's plea to all sides (including the US!) to refrain from provocative statements.
Clinton later explained the delay by stating that the simultaneous translation was"unclear" and"incomplete." But most of the journalists present listened to the same translation, and they all heard Arafat's charges. Reuters correspondent Deborah Camiel was particularly accurate in her report, but most other reporters, too, seemed to have no trouble with the translation. Correspondents for CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Post, Knight Ridder and others got it right. TO BE SURE, some reporters tried to help Arafat by explaining that she probably meant tear gas, and others tried to help Clinton by reporting that she sharply rebuked Arafat when in fact she never referred to her by name.
There is much more and its worth reading the entire article to realize the role the mainstream media played in enabling the rise of radical Islam. Cal Thomas wrote at the time:
Clergy appointed by Arafat at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem regularly preach sermons calling for the"liberation'' of all the land, pre-1967 Israel included, in a Jihad that is"the responsibility of all Muslims.'' Various media controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) accuse Israel and the West of employing Nazi tactics against them, which is ironic given the Nazi-like rhetoric of many PLO leaders and Arab states against Jews and the West.
Terrorists responsible for the deaths of innocent Israelis and visiting Jewish civilians are praised on PLO TV as saints and heroes. This year's Palestine Prize for Culture will go to Abu Daoud, mastermind of the 1972 Olympic bombing in Munich that killed 11 Israeli athletes.
This is not the behavior or language of people who want to make peace with their neighbors. This is the behavior and language of war, the objective of which is the complete annihilation of the Jews and eradication of the state of Israel. The only way"peace'' negotiators can continue with this sham is by ignoring the words and actions of those negotiating in bad faith. The PLO negotiators think they are carrying out Allah's will and that it is legitimate to lie about their intentions to the pagan and secular infidels on the Israeli and American side.
Islamic extremists are taking advantage of secularists in the Israeli and American governments and pragmatists like Bill Clinton who wants a"legacy'' in foreign affairs that he hopes will cover up his notorious domestic affairs. If the Jews have to die, who cares? They've died before. We'll just build them another museum.
We see Israeli soldiers yanking fellow Jews from"settlements'' and hear Barak speaking of a ghetto-type fence to keep Israel's enemies out. But neither evictions of Jews from land nor fences will protect Israel. Fences, in fact, have been used in the past to contain Jews in order to kill them more efficiently.
As for kissing the target for destruction, Judas wasn't the only one to employ the tactic. The Mafia has long done the same, kissing the one selected for death. With Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Arafat smooching each other, we have a new scenario. The one who is about to die is not present.
Her name is Israel
Some things seem the same. But, then, no one talked about democratic states or an American commitment to Israel's existence as a Jewish State. So, no heckling.
comments powered by Disqus
Diana Moon - 5/23/2005
Laura Bush was heckled by radical right-wing Jewish demonstrators who want a convicted spy against the US to be freed.
- A New Target for Old Spies: Congress
- Antigua and Barbuda Asks Harvard University for Slavery Reparations
- Historian: Nixon DID contest the 1960 election
- Killer took selfie after stabbing historian over rare ‘Wind in the Willows’ book
- VW fires corporate historian who drew attention to wartime ties to Nazis
- Historian Jeremy Kuzmarov calls on Obama to pardon Ethel Rosenberg
- Garry Wills says there’s one human test we can use to decide who’s the better candidate: Trump or Clinton
- Get to Know the Semifinalists for the National Book Award
- Steven Runciman — historian, tease and professional enigma — is the subject of a biography
- Historian Eric Foner: Trump is Logical Conclusion of What the GOP Has Been Doing for Decades