AIPAC’s Embrace of Hillary Clinton: Civility or Stupidity
By Matthew M. Hausman
When Hillary Clinton addressed AIPAC’s 2010 annual convention, she had the perfect opportunity to show that the United States still stands with Israel despite the manufactured crisis over Ramat Shlomo. She could have done so by conceding that Jerusalem neighborhoods are not “settlements” and were always excluded from the temporary building freeze. She also could have recognized Israel’s many concessions for peace and declared that the U.S. would no longer tolerate the Palestinian Authority’s antisemitic incitement and support for terrorism.
After his inauguration, Obama was swift to show his true colors, beginning with his solicitation of the Arab-Muslim world, his adoption of the revisionist Palestinian narrative, and his enabling of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He never missed an opportunity to blame Israel for sabotaging the peace process, but never faulted the PA or even Hamas for continuing to call for Israel’s destruction or engaging in terrorism. Whenever his disdain for Israel became too obvious to ignore he would trot out Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, or proxies from J Street, to savage his critics and paint them as reactionaries. Not once did he recognize that only Israel had complied with its obligations under the moribund Oslo Process or the Roadmap.
This dynamic is sadly reminiscent of the Second World War, when Roosevelt used Jewish political allies, such as Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish Committee, to discredit Jews who publicized the Holocaust as it unfolded and criticized the administration for failing to act. Among their targets were the Bergson Group, the Aggudat Ha-Rabbonim, and all those who refused to be silenced by secular Jewish political elites who were more interested in being good New Dealers than in helping their own people in Europe. Although history has not judged Roosevelt’s political lackeys very kindly, their dubious acts in the name of progressive politics are being replayed today as Mr. Obama seeks to throw Israel to the wolves.
It was maddening to watch as convention delegates applauded, exuded warm emotion, and then rose to their feet as Clinton spouted nonsense. Without a trace of embarrassment, Clinton condemned Hamas, not Fatah, for dedicating a town square in Ramallah to a Fatah terrorist who killed dozens of Israeli civilians. Clinton knows, of course, that Ramallah is located in the Fatah-controlled “West Bank” – not Gaza – and that Fatah was honoring one of its own for an act of terror it had sponsored. But Clinton’s deception was consistent with Obama’s policy of portraying the PA as a moderate entity worthy of a state. With a nod and a wink, Obama and his foreign policy stooges ignore that Fatah remains a terrorist organization that continues to engage in anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement and whose charter still calls for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of her people.
In addition to whitewashing the Palestinian Authority, Clinton misrepresented the Administration’s supposed commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran. However, in light of Obama’s record of appeasement and his abject failure to impose any meaningful sanctions, Clinton’s statements were simply preposterous. On her watch as Secretary of State, Iran has increased to at least 8,000 the number of working nuclear centrifuges and has expanded its satellite and missile delivery capabilities. AIPAC’s members are not rubes – they are truly committed advocates for Israel. So how could they applaud such babble?
Only after the fact did AIPAC offer any criticism of Clinton’s revisionist utterances. But the time for meaningful rebuke passed the moment she left the room. Her public excoriation of Netanyahu over Jerusalem construction was rewarded with photos of an enthusiastic reception by Jews who are supposed to know better, but who instead politely listened to her absurd statements. What AIPAC should have done was have a representative stand up immediately and address Clinton’s remarks point-by-point, and then have her reactions recorded on videotape. The organization’s strategists should have anticipated Clinton’s disingenuous performance in light of her disgraceful comments during the Ramat Shlomo “crisis” the week before. Clearly, the delegates should neither have applauded her misrepresentations nor risen to their feet.
Clinton’s remarks insulted the intelligence of anybody with a historical sense of the Mideast conflict. And as an organization committed to Jewish political self-awareness, AIPAC should have immediately challenged Mrs. Clinton. Instead, the response of its delegates gave the appearance of organizational tolerance, even if all they intended was civility and tact. Politeness, however, did not require an enthusiastic response or warm embrace. That J Street may have endorsed Clinton’s remarks is not surprising because it deals in deception and revisionism; but AIPAC should be counted on to behave more responsibly. By not challenging Clinton’s remarks at the time she made them, AIPAC missed a critical opportunity to articulate the growing discomfort of the Jewish mainstream regarding Obama’s treatment of Israel.
Posts
