A Middle Eastern native running for a state House seat faces a challenge from a blogger who called her "a terror apologist and an avowed enemy of Israel with no credible conservative credentials."
Republican Rima Barakat Sinclair said she has been unfairly labeled because she is a Muslim of Palestinian descent.
"I absolutely deny that," she said, of claims she supports terrorism. "What is behind that? Where is the proof? This is nothing but mudslinging."
Her campaign finance manager, who is Jewish, also dismissed the criticism, but some Republicans are leery.
I've commented on this race a couple of times now - specifically here and here. It seems to me that Sharf is making some pretty serious charges and providing little evidence. Colorado Pols describes some of the charges from Sharf as "a little shaky."
Sharf responds to the Rocky article defiantly,
You want proof? This is Barakat's record. The original post that started it all, link-filled with references to her activities is here.
Go look at the original post, there are links with references but out of the 3 enumerated charges there is only "evidence" presented for one. What is presented is thin, with the first link taking you to a calendar on a website for an organization called "United for Peace and Justice" that shows Ms. Barakat Sinclair is speaking at an "inter-faith Rally Against Hate Crimes" in May. The other link shows us that she spoke in 2005 at a conference on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on the topic of "Palestinian Right of Return." Sharf is asking us to condemn Barkat Sinclair not on the basis of the content of her speech, as he provides no content, but merely on her appearance at these functions. That is quite a leap.
Sharf provides no evidence whatsoever for his allegation that Barakat Sinclair "1) works to discredit Israel and for its destruction." That is a bold and provocative statement to say the least. For someone who is supposed to be an open and notorious anti-Israeli activist the evidence of this seems incredibly scant.
Sharf also provides no evidence for his allegation that Barakat Sinclair "2) has a stated goal of getting Muslims involved in the political process." If it is indeed "a stated goal" one would think Sharf could support his allegation with evidence but he does not. Beyond that, as I noted before, what is he really accusing her of? Is it Sharf's opinion that Muslim American citizens should not be involved in the political process?
Sharf should provide the evidence or tone down the rhetoric. He should also clarify his position on the role of Muslim Americans in the political process of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment