Here's an interesting conundrum. The United Methodist Church has for the last couple of months been debating a resolution calling for divestment from any company that does business with Israel, such as Caterpillar, the tractor manufacturer, "because the company supplies Israel with bulldozers used in building the separation barrier and in demolishing Palestinian homes. The divestment resolution comes only months after the publication of a church-sponsored report referring to the creation of the State of Israel as the 'original sin.'"
As of today, the United Methodist Church rejected five proposed resolutions urging divestment from companies doing business with Israel. This seems to be largely due to many Jewish groups who worked feverishly with the Methodist Church to convince them to defeat the resolutions.
In this "guilt by association" atmosphere, shouldn't Hillary Clinton have been questioned about her supposed support for Israel? She is a lifelong Methodist, yet I don't remember hearing her speak out against the church resolution. Obama was literally raked across the coals for his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, yet Hillary is being given a free pass. Surely, one could/should argue that if she has been associated with the church for most of her life, it suggests that she supports the church doctrine.
It's not that I believe that Hillary is at all anti-Israel, but NEITHER IS OBAMA. It's a simple matter of double standards. Either you judge the candidates on their associates or you judge them on their own merit, actions, and words. But you judge them both EQUALLY.
Besides, if we're talking about guilt by association, we can have a field day with McCain and John Hagee.
No comments:
Post a Comment