Dan Calic, Author at Israel Rising

February 19, 2017

Why the So-Called ‘Palestinians’ Don’t Deserve a State

For decades the two-state solution has been repeatedly floated as the preferred goal of peace between Israel and the Arabs (‘Palestinians’). Yet it has never been realized. Accusations have been tossed around by various voices laying blame on both sides for the failure of the two-state solution to be implemented.

In light of the recent summit between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, it would appear the long standing position of the US promoting the two-state solution is fizzling out. In my opinion this is long overdue.

Simply put the so-called ‘Palestinians’ don’t deserve a state.

Allow me to make the case.

Perspective

In order to have an appreciation for today’s stalemate, it’s important to understand how it came about.

The concept of a two-state solution has already been attempted with the 1947 UN partition of two states, one Arab, one Jewish. (the original two-state solution) It failed. Why? The Arab nations rejected and ignored the resolution, attacking the fledgling Jewish state one day after it declared independence in 1948. Six decades and seven wars later (three with Hamas) what has changed?

A dramatic shift took place in 1967 when Yasser Arafat decided the Arabs who were displaced from the 1948 and 1967 wars deserved to have their own unique identity. He renamed them “Palestinians.” For the record before 1967 the term “Palestinians” referred to Jews. Walid Shoebat, an Arab who was living in Jericho during the ’67 war said “On June 4 I went to sleep as an Arab. The next day, without moving anywhere I am suddenly a “Palestinian.”

Arafat’s campaign included more than just an identity change for these newly renamed ‘Palestinians.’ He demanded an independent state, and laid claim to the entire area west of the Jordan River which Israel captured during the war. This is biblical Judea/Samaria, commonly referred to as the West Bank. As far as Arafat was concerned all this land was ‘Palestinian’ land, in spite of the fact International law affirms any land captured during a defensive war belongs to the victor, which was Israel.

His original goal when he founded the PLO in 1964 was to ‘liberate’ (destroy) all of Israel and replace it with a single ‘Palestinian’ state. Since Israel captured Judea/Samaria during the Six Day War he now added this to his goal.

The Age of Terror

After the 1967 war other terror groups sprung up including, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1967), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1969), Islamic Jihad (1979), Hezbollah (1985) Hamas (1987), and several others. For the past 15 years the Fatah Party has been the dominant party in Judea/Samaria. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is the party Chairman.

Each of these groups is dedicated to ‘liberating’ (destroying) the state of Israel.

So why don’t the ‘Palestinians’ deserve a state? First off their claim to the land has no basis in reality. It’s not as though Arabs have no history in the land. They do. However the greater and more historical association belongs to the Jews. The Bible tells us it is this very land which was given to the Jews as “an everlasting inheritance.” This land, including Jerusalem is the ancestral home of the Jewish people, superseding ‘Palestinian’ claims by thousands of years. This is a simple indisputable fact.

Present Day

However, let’s transition from the legitimate historical connection the Jews have to this land to present day.

Let’s examine today’s Israeli/Palestinian relations a little closer.

Israel has made several attempts to appease the ‘Palestinians,’ through agreements and offers. In 2000 for example, Prime Minister Ehud Barak made an unprecedented offer to Yasser Arafat. It included turning over roughly 99% of Judea/Samaria (aka: West Bank), dividing Jerusalem, and compensation for so-called “refugees.” Additionally, the Gaza Strip would be contiguously linked, effectively splitting Israel in two. By any definition this was a huge sacrifice on the part of Israel. President Clinton who was brokering the negotiations later said he “couldn’t believe how good the offer was.” Yet Arafat rejected it and the talks collapsed. Clinton laid blame squarely where it belonged, on Arafat.

Why was such an incredibly generous offer rejected? Simple, the Muslims refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state under any circumstances, no matter what the borders are. They are firmly convinced every square inch of the state of Israel is Muslim land. Thus, to accept the existence of a sovereign Jewish state on land which they consider theirs is viewed as blasphemy, which is punishable by death. Never mind that they have no legitimate claim to the land.

Not only do they refuse to accept the existence of Israel, or peacefully co-exist, they have mounted a decade’s long campaign to destroy the Jewish state.

Doctrines of Destruction

For example, look at some points in their founding charters:

Fatah Charter (party of Mahmoud Abbas)

Article 12- “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence”

Article 13- “Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city”- Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”

PLO Charter

Article 9- “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine”

Article 19- “The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal”

Hamas Charter

Preamble: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Article 6- “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, who’s allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

Article 13- “…There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

With the exception of Hezbollah in Lebanon, these three organizations are today’s main players in the conflict. Their charters represent the principles upon which each organization was founded. Based on the quotes from each of their charters it is unquestionable none of them seek a two state solution, or peaceful co-existence with a Jewish state of Israel. They all seek its destruction.

Ignoring the Truth

Yet, instead of calling out these organizations world leaders and the UN continue to blame Israel’s construction of homes as the main obstacle to a peace agreement. Recently the UN made this their official position with the passage of resolution 2334. Their action ignores the Palestinian’s indisputable requirement of the annihilation of Israel. Keep in mind-

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state.
He glorifies those who murder innocent Israeli civilians by naming parks and schools after them.
The PA pays large salaries to jailed murderers of Israelis.
When young Arabs stab Israeli’s or run them over with vehicles, Abbas refuses to condemn such terror.
He considers every drop of Muslim blood holy in its pursuit of Palestine’s liberation. In other words he is blessing murder in cold blood, while world leaders consider him a ‘moderate.’ Calling him a ‘moderate’ is redefining the very meaning of the word.
Curriculum in Palestinian schools teaches students the Jews stole their land, and they should strive to retake every inch of ‘Palestine,’ by jihad. Moreover, they are taught it is holy to murder Jews and be a martyr for Allah.

Some might suggest the terrorists don’t represent the Arab Palestinian population as a whole. If this is true why has there not been any outcry from the general Palestinian population against the terror? Why has there not been a single demonstration for peace with Israel on the Palestinian street? Where are the editorials condemning the terrorist in the Arab Palestinian press?

If the Palestinians are committed to peacefully co-exist with a Jewish state of Israel shouldn’t we see visible evidence of this? Instead, we see continued terror amid calls for Israel to cease construction. World leaders and the UN are ignoring the Palestinians true agenda. They need to realize the true obstacle to peace is not Israel’s construction. In 1948 or 1967 there were no “settlements,” nor were there any settlements in 1964 when the PLO was founded. Yet even though the land areas have changed, the goal was the same then as today- rejection of Israel’s right to exist. The ‘Palestinians’ must be held accountable for this. Saying construction is the obstacle to peace makes as much sense as blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

The reality is the Arab Palestinians need a civilized gut check. Until such time as they renounce all terror, recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital, drop all future land claims and amend their charters, they are undeserving of a state.

A civilized world should not reward murderers committed to destroy their presumed peace partner with nationhood. Moreover, Israel has every right to oppose sacrificing precious land to unreformed terrorists. Such action would be tantamount to handing bullets to your assassin.

February 5, 2017

In the Middle East “News” Has Become “Opinion”

When we watch, listen or read news are we entitled to get objective reporting? To such a question most might say yes news should be objective. In other words it should be unbiased, neutral, non-partisan. Yet is that what we are getting?

In far too many situations we are not.

A glaring example of lack of objectivity is coverage of the conflict between Israel and those identified as “Palestinians.”

Let’s take a closer look at this situation and drill down a bit on some popular terms used by media.

Palestinians

It may surprise some to know that prior to 1967 the term “Palestinians” referred to Jews who lived in their ancient biblical homeland, which the Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed “Philistia.” This term is Latin for “Philistine,” which became transformed to Palestinian. Contrary to rumor there is no connection between the ancient Philistines and today’s so-called “Palestinians.”

So who are todays “Palestinians?”

After Israel’s rebirth in 1948 many Arabs became displaced due to a variety of circumstances, not the least of which was their desire to destroy the fledgling Jewish state. After Israel defeated the surrounding Arab nations who conveniently ignored UN resolution 181 calling for one Arab and one Jewish, many Arabs ended up nationless in no-man’s land.

Subsequently, Israel successfully staved off another attempt to annihilate it in the Six Day War of 1967. As a result victorious Israel took control of additional land, and the plight of these Arabs became more visible, thanks in part to widespread media coverage and a campaign waged by the leader of the recently formed PLO- Yasser Arafat.

After the Six Day War the defeated Arab nations refused to repatriate their Arab brethren. In his effort to gain exposure and empathy Arafat renamed these displaced Arabs “Palestinians.” A revisionist cottage industry was born and took root, without regard to its accuracy.

In point of fact there has never been an indigenous people known as “Palestinians.” It’s “fake news.”

Occupation or Occupied Palestinian Territories

This typically refers to the land west of the Jordan River, up to the so-called “green line,” which includes the eastern portion of Jerusalem.

For anyone familiar with the Bible this land is known as Judea & Samaria. It is part of the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. The Bible also makes clear in several places the land was given to Abraham and his descendants- the Jews. In an attempt to delegitimize the Jews, some say both Arabs and Jews are children of Abraham. However, twice in the Bible (Genesis 17:20/21 and Romans 9:7) the promises of God are specifically confirmed through Isaac.

Yet, in spite of Scripture’s historical account, the so-called “Palestinians,” claim Israel is illegally occupying their land. In point of fact, Israel fought defensive wars in 1948 and 1967. During the 1967 war Israel captured the land west of the Jordan River, which had been illegally occupied by Jordan since 1948. Yet where were the cries of “occupation” during this 19 year period? International law states that any territory captured in a defensive war belongs to the victor. In this case that means Israel.

Thus it is factually incorrect (“fake news”) to define this land as “occupied Palestinian territories.” Using such terminology is not news, its opinion. Many refer to this same area as the West Bank. This also delegitimizes Israel’s’ right to the land. I understand why some may refer to it as such, however using terms such as “Occupied Palestinian territory,” can be seen as offensive to many, and renders any media outlet referring to it as such from being seen as objective.

East Jerusalem

First off, there is no such city as “East Jerusalem.” Jerusalem has a 4,000 year history. During this time it has always been known as Jerusalem. “East” Jerusalem is yet another example of a term used to delegitimize the rightful claim the Jewish people have to their ancient and eternal capital city. The Old City is located in the eastern part of Jerusalem, which the Arabs wish to steal from the Jews as capital of their presumed Palestinian state. In their revisionist narrative the Arabs (so-called Palestinians) have gone so far as to suggest there has never been any proof of a Jewish connection to Jerusalem. (again- “fake news”)

The UN has even gotten into revising history by passing resolutions stating Temple Mount and the Western Wall are Muslim holy sites, rather than Jewish. Shame on them.

It has been said “….a lie told often enough becomes truth.”

As an institution media has an obligation to distinguish between news and opinion. There is no question opinion pieces have a legitimate role to play within media. However, when media outlets report news by using terminology reflecting personal bias, (or opinion) they cease being a credible news source.

Terms such as “Palestinians,” “Occupied Palestinian Territories,” and “East Jerusalem,” belong in opinion pieces, not objective news.

January 10, 2017

Mr. Obama, your legacy is secure

The recent reluctance of the US to veto UN resolution 2234, which essentially singles out Israeli construction as the main obstacle to a two state solution has been seen by some as the final nail in the coffin in a combative relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu that has endured throughout both terms of the Obama presidency.

While this may be obvious, I doubt it will silence those who are still convinced Obama is a strong, reliable friend to Israel. Indeed, in his post UN resolution justification speech at the State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry said “no American administration has done more for the security of Israel than Barack Obama.”

Such self-promoting observations make convincing sound bites, regardless of their accuracy. However, since the door is about to close permanently on the Obama administration, it might be worthwhile to check Kerry’s comment against the facts.

A stroll down memory lane of the Obama tenure recalls the following:

Right out the starting gate his first phone call to a foreign leader in January, 2009 was to Mahmould Abbas, letting him know he was the first foreign leader he called as President of the United States.

In June 2009 his first foreign speech was delivered in Cairo where he signaled a new era in US-Muslim relations. He made the following comments during the speech:

“the United States does not accept the continued legitimacy of Israeli settlements.”

“they (Palestinians) endure daily humiliation, large and small, that come with occupation.”

He signaled a new approach toward Iran (the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism) by letting Israel know their flexibility toward the Palestinians would influence Obama’s approach to Iran. In effect he was invoking diplomatic blackmail against Israel.

He demanded Israel sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and threatened to expose a 40 year old confidential understanding between Israel and the US about its Dimona nuclear facility if Israel didn’t sign the NNPT. Israel did not. Obama retaliated by interrupting routine travel of Israeli nuclear scientists between the two countries.

In 2010 after seeing a clear pattern of hostility toward Israel, over 50 retired US Generals signed a letter to Obama demanding he stop treating Israel so poorly and treat them like ally they are.

Also in 2010, in an unprecedented move, both houses of Congress having seen the same hostile pattern, signed letters telling Obama to stop treating Israel so poorly.

Apparently Obama didn’t get the message. The same year he walked out on a White House meeting with Netanyahu, leaving him sitting alone. While Obama had dinner with his wife Michelle Netanyahu was let in and out of a side door to the White House with no diplomatic fanfare.

Subsequent to this Mahmoud Abbas was welcomed with full diplomatic protocol and fanfare.

In 2011 Egypt ousted Hosni Mubarak, a 30 year US ally, replacing him with Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim fundamentalist and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama openly supported Morsi. This brought a further chill in US-Israel relations. A little over a year later the Egyptians voted Morsi out. Obama voiced his opposition to Morsi’s purging. Today, Morsi remains in prison.

In May 2011 while Netanyahu was airborne in route to Washington, to address a joint session of Congress Obama spoke to Congress urging any two state solution should be based on ’67 lines, with mutual land swaps. The timing of Obama’s speech was seen as an effort to sabotage Netanyahu. Following Obama’s speech, in an unprecedented bi-partisan move, Republican and Democratic leaders condemned Obama’s speech and publically distanced themselves from the President. When Netanyahu delivered his speech to the joint session of Congress he received 30 standing ovations, which was largely seen as a rebuke of President Obama, who along with Vice President Biden and John Kerry, were noticeably absent during Netanyahu’s speech.

In March 2013 in Ramallah Mahmoud Abbas referred to Israel’s 1948 rebirth as “the Nakba,” (the catastrophe), while Obama stood next to him in silence.

During Operation Protective Edge, the 2014 war with Hamas (who has fired over 15,000 rockets into Israel against innocent civilians) Obama threatened to stop US arms supply to Israel.

In 2015 Israel was gearing up for new elections. Jeremy Bird, a democratic strategist who helped the 2012 Obama campaign, was dispatched to Israel in an effort to help defeat Netanyahu. This brought harsh criticism of Obama for what was seen as a direct effort to influence Israeli elections. In the end the effort failed as Netanyahu was re-elected. Today he has become the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel’s history.

Finally, in what was called by many as the single most damaging decision Obama made is the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. No other move has caused greater concern for Israel’s security than this agreement. While there remains robust disagreement on the deal’s justification, there is little doubt Israel has the most to lose.

To be fair to Obama, there has been an occasional bright spot. For example the US did award Israel a $38 billion 10 year defense package, which is the largest ever. Yet, it does part from previous such packages in that by year three 100% of the funds must be spent in the US. Prior agreements allowed Israel to award up to 24% of the funds to their own defense contractors. The absence of this option will have a severe impact on small – medium companies and put thousands of Israeli’s out of work.

There are numerous other examples of how the Obama administration has been a blight on relations with the strongest ally the US has in the Middle East, however I believe the short list contained herein constitutes more than enough facts to render Kerry’s words about the Obama Administration commitment to Israel’s security little more than what they are- mere words, with little or no facts to corroborate them. The reality shows the Obama administration has been one of, if not the most hostile ever toward Israel.

Meanwhile 4 more Israeli’s were just murdered in the ongoing wave of Palestinian terrorism which began in October, 2015. To date President Obama has not held Palestinian leadership accountable for a single Israeli death.

As the old saying goes, with “friends” like this…..

President Obama, your legacy has been secured. Time for an actual friend of Israel to take over…..

December 30, 2016

What Kerry Should Have Said

When Sec. of State John Kerry delivered his comprehensive statement on the Arab-Israel conflict in front of a safe audience at the State Department, he took over an hour to defend the decision of the United States to in essence allow passage of the recent UN anti-Israel resolution by abstaining from it, rather than adhering to the long standing policy of the US to veto such resolutions.

The general thrust of his message was to chastise Israel for building “settlements” on land defined as “occupied Palestinian territory,” as the main obstacle preventing a two-state solution.

In addition to focusing attention on criticizing Israel Kerry failed to mention some critically important points which are clearly more central to why a two state solution has failed to materialize.

For example, the most obvious is the fact that Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, who is also seen by most of the world as a moderate, has steadfastly said he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. As I see it, this alone is the single biggest non-starter for a two state solution. While Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s consistent commitment to accepting a Palestinian state, demonstrates his desire for mutual recognition, Mr. Kerry conveniently omitted Abbas’s destructive statements on refusing to accept Israel’s right to exist.

How realistic is a two state solution when one side won’t even recognize the other’s right to exist?

Mr. Kerry emphatically stated the US opposition to terror and incitement. However, empty statements like this have been made on numerous occasions by the American administration. What good are such statements if they are not backed up by tangible action?

The PA receives hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid from many countries, most of it from the US. The PA in turn uses a portion of international aid to line the pockets of terrorists who have murdered Israeli’s with huge salaries. This financial windfall allows their families a living standard which is 5 times greater than the average Palestinian. Did Mr. Kerry say or even hint that the US would suspend all financial aid to the PA to demonstrate how strongly they feel about the need to stop terrorism? He did not. Actions speak louder than words Mr. Kerry.

The constitution of Abbas’s Fatah party explicitly calls for the destruction of the “Zionist entity,” which in plain words means Israel. Did Mr. Kerry make any mention of this? Moreover, one can only imagine what he might say if Israel’s constitution called for the destruction of a Palestinian state. Heaven forbid!

The official emblem of the Fatah party shows one state, not two. The one state covers the entire area of Israel, and shows every square inch of land as one state of “Palestine.” Their emblem also includes weapons of war, suggesting their goal is to destroy Israel through violence. Again Kerry is silent.

If Mahmoud Abbas wants to be seen as a serious peace partner, would it be too much to suggest that he publically condemn the plethora of terror attacks the Palestinians have perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians? Not only has Abbas failed to condemn such attacks, he and his party have continuously glorified these murderers.

Kerry also downplayed the US role in the anti-Israel UN resolution, suggesting the US was not involved in composing, or sponsoring it. Yet, by abstaining the Obama administration knows full well, it was as if they voted for it, because they chose not to use their veto power, which allowed it to pass.

With its passing the Obama administration has intentionally left the door wide open for the UN to take further action against Israel.

With only days remaining in the current administration, the timing of Kerry’s speech was more about punctuating the anti-Israel tenor of the Obama administration with one last trumpet blast about land for peace. However, all one needs to do is look at what happened when Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip after 38 years. They were rewarded with 3 wars and 20,000 rockets.

If the Obama administration is truly as concerned about Israel’s security as Kerry states, their failure to hold the Palestinians accountable for their wanton terror renders any statements about understanding Israel’s need for security meaningless.

Since the UN resolution cannot be reversed, the Obama administration has knowingly done two things-
1. They have put the incoming Trump administration in a difficult position.
2. Obama has placed a nail in the coffin of his relationship with Israel. With the door now open for further punitive UN action against Israel, his administration will go down in history has the most anti-Israel administrations ever.

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to recognize the two sides of the conflict have entirely different agendas. Israel desires to have peace, while the Arab Palestinians goal remains p-i-e-c-e, every piece of the land of Israel to be theirs. For not recognizing this and blaming Israel for being the obstacle to peace, the Obama administration has reduced itself to being hypocrites by ignoring their own oft stated commitment to Israel’s security.

[huge_it_share]

September 18, 2016September 18, 2016

Why Hillary’s “Experience” Presents a Problem

Many people are understandably concerned about this year’s presidential election. Some are saying the two chief candidates are the worst choices in decades. I’ve often heard it said that elections are not so much about voting for who you favor, but more about voting against who you disfavor. In other words, voting for the lessor of two evils. In 2016 this represents my personal position as well.

Some have decided to boycott the election altogether. In my opinion this is a copout and negates said individual from participating in discussions, as they have opted out of the process. Not making a decision, is making a decision.

One of the justifications people have used to support Hillary Clinton, vs Donald Trump, is she has experience. I understand that, however just because someone has “experience,” does that mean they deserve to be the most powerful person in the world? Also, one has to evaluate their “experience,” to determine if what they have previously done merits greater responsibility, and reward.

One of the flashpoint issues of the day is terrorism. It is here where I would like to dig a little deeper. Since Trump has not served in public office, his “experience” cannot be evaluated. Yet, he has made his views regarding terror quite clear.

Hillary on the other hand has significant experience, which includes serving as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013. Let’s take a closer look, specifically with respect to terrorism.

One of the official duties in the job description of Secretary of State is “ensures the protection of the US Government to American citizens, property and interests in foreign countries.”

In March 2016 an American- Taylor Force was murdered by a terrorist while he was visiting Israel. His killer, Basar Masalha who was killed during the attack, was a member of Hamas. Masalha was praised as a “martyr” by the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al Jidada. PA President Mahmoud Abbas was asked to publically condemn the murder. He refused, which is tantamount to implicit support.

What’s the connection between Force’s murder and Hillary Clinton? Allow me to connect the dots.

It’s been documented, but worth repeating the Arab Palestinians reward terror. Starting in 2003, when a “soldier of Allah” commits murder, or another act of terror his crime provides him with a place of honor. It also entitles him to be paid a salary. The more heinous the crime, the greater the salary. If the murderer dies, or is killed while committing his crime, he becomes known as a “shahid,” or martyr. In this case his family is awarded the financial compensation. Palestinian murderers and/or their families in some cases collect as much as $3,500 (US) per month, which is 5 times greater than the average Palestinian family income.

Aside from Hamas, the terrorist can be from numerous groups, including Fatah, the political party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestinian Authority allocates roughly 6% of their budget to reward murderers. Since the government of the Palestinians is providing said compensation, it can easily be defined as state sponsored terrorism. Yet where are the demands to halt this despicable policy? Certainly none have come from Hillary.

While world leaders turn a blind eye to this ‘official’ sanctioning of murder, the same world leaders are often heard roundly criticizing Israel for construction in areas that have long been understood as being part of the Jewish State. Such criticizing voices have included Hillary Clinton. While there may be disagreement that said construction is in an acceptable area, how can any leader deserving of respect focus on construction, while ignoring outright murder?

Yet, there is more to this story. The Palestinian Authority receives over $1.3 billion aid money from around the world. (2014 figures) The single largest source is the United States which provides $400 million annually. The EU, Saudi Arabia and UK are 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively in annual support.

While Clinton was not Secretary of State when Taylor Force was murdered, she was from 2009 – 2013. As such she was part of an ongoing US policy of being the majority financial supporter for a government which promotes and rewards murderers of Israeli civilians, which subsequently included Americans. In addition to Taylor Force, one of the three teens murdered by Hamas in June 2014-Naftali Frenkel, was American. During Clinton’s tenure she did nothing to criticize, impede or prevent the PA policy of rewarding murder, which was in place while she served as Secretary of State, and remains in effect today.

What’s the take away from this?

Indeed it is true that Hillary Clinton has “experience.” The question begs is the knowledge of and financial support for ongoing murder of innocent lives (which includes Americans) the type of “experience” that justifies electing her President?

I think Donald Trump would say “no.”

The real question is what will Americans say?

For more of Dan Calic’s articles see his Facebook Page.