Bill Clinton has upset many people in Israel by stating that Russian immigrants are the biggest obstacle to peace since they tend to oppose any division of the land with Palestinians.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3958611,00.html
Just by chance in the past few days I happened to attend a presentation at UC Irvine by the Israeli Minister for Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora, Yuli Edelstein, himself a Russian immigrant. The event was hosted by the Olive Tree Initiative. During the Q and A, he was asked for his reaction to Clinton's remarks. His answer, which I am paraphrasing, was that he would suppress his emotions and say simply that if you go back through the last several elections, the Russian community has always voted with the mainstream. He chose to leave it at that.
Had I been asked that question, I would have reminded the audience that Bill Clinton is a proven, bona-fide, certified liar-who has even lied under oath...
and left it at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Gary, you could/should mention that the lecture by Yuli Edelstein (Israeli Minister for Public Affairs and the Diaspora) was sponsored by the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI) at UCI, a program you have criticized in the past. It would be honest to tell your readers that OTI is also featuring these voices. Thanks!
Anonymous,
You have just done that, thanks.
The right to have an opinion doesn't inherently make it a good opinion or even one that should be listened too. Just because OTI brings an Israeli doesn't mean its association with anti-Israel activists is right or that OTI is a good program.
Pro-Israel arguments and anti-Israel arguments are not equally valid just because they are opposing arguments. Their validity lies in the content of the argument.
Actually, I noticed when I first read the article that GARY identified that the lecture was sponsored by the Olive Tree Initiative. I am sometimes guilty of missing a key word in my eagerness to make a point (as is Gary on occasion), so I don't mean to trash Anonymous for the error, but Gary deserves a bit of credit.
As to Clinton, that was clumsy, but it is worth examining the effects that substantial immigrant populations have on the politics of their host country. If we had never intervened in Vietnam, or if we had withdrawn sooner and in a more orderly fashion, today's Vietnamese Americans would all be citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and wouldn't even have thought of themselves as potential Americans. Some states and districts would have a different political complexion. Ditto for all the Cubans in Florida. Good? Bad? Just different?
Oh, and the southern Texas growers who first invited Mexican laborers to come work in their orchards, the Michigan beet growers who first asked "can we get in on this?", etc. surely did not intend for the USA to acquire such a large permanent population of Hispanics, but it sort of goes with the territory.
Israel certainly became a different country when
a) more conservative Jews who had not supported the Zionist dream fled to Israel after WW II,
b) Arabic Jews, who had not seriously considered moving to Israel, had to do so when they suddenly found that the existence of Israel made them "public enemy" in their native lands,
c) Russian immigrants arrived in larger numbers once free to do so.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it, in spades.
Siarlys,
In all honesty I added the reference to OTI in the text after anonymous suggested it to me.
Oh well, you both deserve credit then.
Post a Comment