Forget for a moment that Rafah is a Palestinian city and that Palestine and Israel are embroiled in a perpetual religious and territorial war. Don't take into account that supporting one or the other comes with global implications of both political and religious nature.

Let the fact that expressing sympathy for the victims in Israel bathes you in a power and land hungry light and the fact that sympathizing with the settlers in Palestine gives you the title of Anti-Semitist simply pass you by.

The Sister City program was designed to give Madisonians a more global perspective and provide a means to help the less fortunate around the world in a more direct and targeted way. Education, enlightenment and charity are the underlying reasons for the program itself.

Why, then, would the committee and council as a whole consider choosing a city that, by the mere act of choosing it, could drive an ugly and insurmountable wedge between citizens? Why turn such a noble cause into a divisive political statement? What could possibly possess an Alder to consider something that would serve no purpose other than dividing his or her constituents?

For many years now I've had many laughs over the Common Council and Madison Alder-Nuts. From anti-war resolutions to minimum wage hikes and smoking bans to advertising revenue opportunity turn downs, I can always count on the Nuts to give me a chuckle.

This latest move, however, is no laughing matter. We already know that the Alder-Nuts think their position on the Common Council provides them with voices and power that are some sort of combination of those currently in use by the President, UN and God. They feel that they have the right and duty to spend their time debating and acting on issues that have absolutely no relevance, impact or business in the People's Republic of Madison . It must be something in the water at the City County Building (there are even a couple of judges in the building with the same delusions).

During my research of the issue I came upon a couple of paragraphs on the Madison-Rafah Sister City web site. The first states "Sister city relationships are intended to be of mutual benefit to partner communities here in the U.S. and in another country. They are long term relationships based on mutual understanding, common interests and a desire to learn from, teach and help one another. They allow citizens and officials on both sides to gain new ideas. They facilitate educational exchanges and often create new economic opportunities. Above all, sistering gives tangible expression to the belief that greater international understanding and cooperation will create a better world."

Just like I mentioned before, the purpose is education, enlightenment and charity. I'm with them so far. But then, on another page, they explain " Our work will center on understanding Palestinian culture, exposing the daily effects of Israel 's occupation of Rafah and Palestine , and opposing U.S. support for those Israeli policies that have created a growing humanitarian catastrophe for the Palestinians."

Exposing the effects of Israel 's occupation? Opposing US support for Israeli policies? These two purposes certainly don't fall under the whole 'education, enlightenment and charity' thing. The web site goes on to mention that "We endorse no particular negotiation formulas, parties, or leadership groups." Using semantics I suppose opposing Israel is not the same as endorsing Palestine , but in the real world I'd call this hypocritical and purely politically motivated.

What the committee and Common Council fails to realize is that the choice of a Palestinian city is not simply a political statement condemning the US and Israel but also a dangerous statement in world religion.

Being pro-Palestinian can be equated with being anti-Israel and thereby anti-Semitic. An executive board member of the Madison Jewish Community Council, having a similar opinion, stated that choosing Rafah was part of a "movement to delegitimize the state of Israel ."

At this point in time a reasonable person with the humanitarian and charitable interests of the Sister City project in mind would have spent great effort trying to understand why that statement was made and then try to explain that the choice was nothing more than humanitarian in nature if that was indeed the basis for the decision.

Instead, one of the committee members commented that "It is a terrible shame that an organization such as yours accepts at face value the unsubstantiated charges of a deeply racist, blindly pro-Israel organization here in Madison ." This statement alone makes me question the reasoning behind choosing Rafah.

The Common Council is once again trying to weigh in on global politics and members are trying to use their elected seats as a means to promote their own personal views. This secular organization is also attempting to delve into a religious issue heated by many millennia of war and bloodshed. Both actions are so far beyond the scope of the City of Madison Common Council operations that I seriously question the sanity of those involved.

The bottom line, though, is quite different. As I first stated, dismiss the social, political and religious ramifications of Rafah and only consider the wishes of the good people of the People's Republic of Madison . If choosing Rafah would create a rift within a society so concerned with creating equality, why do it? Why anger and alienate so many citizens? Why create trouble where there currently is none and why use such a noble cause to do it?

My advice to the Alder-Nuts is this: drop it. Choose another sister city, move on and let this issue fade away. My advice to the people of Madison is a bit different; the next time your Alder is up for reelection, remember the Rafah debacle and vote accordingly. It's time for the people of Madison to take back their great city.