Hysterical: As Obama rushes to leave Israel, Clinton wants to shmooze
This video is apparently all over the internet. President Obama gave former President Bill Clinton a ride back from Shimon Peres' funeral on Friday night. Maybe Obama was afraid that they would close the airport for the Sabbath and not let him out. Or maybe he just wanted to leave. But Clinton clearly wanted to stay.
Let's go to the videotape.
I can tell you this much: There are very few commercial flights leaving here at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon. Heh.
Above is the infamous tweet that has been branded (with some justification, although I have my doubts that Trump is sharp enough to have noticed) anti-Semitic. The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton has blasted Donald Trump for his anti-Semitic tweet.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign said on Monday that an image posted by Donald J. Trump
on Twitter over the weekend that showed a photo of Mrs. Clinton against
a backdrop of $100 bills and a Star of David was “blatantly
anti-Semitic.”
The
post accused Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee, of being the “most corrupt candidate ever.” But critics seized
on the episode as the latest example of a longtime pattern of racially charged remarks by Mr. Trump, saying the post was meant to exploit stereotypes against Jewish people.
No, I'm not excusing Trump, and yes, I think he needs to get the neo-Nazis out of his campaign. But Hillary Clinton accusing anyone else of being an anti-Semite is rich with irony (via American Thinker).
In his book American Evita, Christopher Anderson writes.
At
a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian
cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was
"sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant
leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the
UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform
and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else,"
said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince
Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from
their Israeli "oppressors." (1)
Of course Hillary's
feelings about the PLO and Israel are only one aspect of her character,
often a person's true nature is more closely revealed in a more intimate
setting. In an early showcase of Hillary's diplomatic skills
Christopher Anderson relates an experience that she and her future
husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was
during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a
politically well connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill
and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew
candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler
mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.
"My daddy was
half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit ,
my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud
that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused
to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot
and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the
friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's
really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of
hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah." (2)
The pot (Hillary Clinton) is calling the kettle (Donald Trump) black....
'Our friends, the Saudis' funding Hillary's war on women and Israel
Greetings from Boston where the Sabbath doesn't start for quite a while. I was not on the ground very much yesterday, and when I was, I was trying to deal with a lost suitcase....
Nasser al-Rashid, an adviser to the Saudi royal family and one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, has emerged as one of the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation, and his family members have emerged as large donors to the Democratic party.
Nasser al-Rashid, one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest figures and an adviser to the country’s royal family, has donated somewhere between $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, putting him in an elite category of prominent donors.
Al-Rashid’s children—including one who pled guilty to assaulting his
estranged wife—have poured almost $600,000 into Democratic coffers
during the past several years, raising questions about influence
peddling by prominent foreign families.
The controversy has already rippled through Florida’s contentious
race for a Democratic Senate seat and threatens to further entangle
presidential contender Hillary Clinton, who has already faced questions
about her close ties to foreign governments.
“This raises a very simple question in my mind—why is this family of
one of Saudi Arabia’s richest billionaires and a key adviser to the
royal family pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into our political
system to elect and influence these Democrats?” asked Ian Prior, a
longtime Republican political operative and current spokesman for the
Senate Leadership Fund, which advocates the election of Republican
candidates.
Nasser Ibrahim al-Rashid, the family’s patriarch, is the founder and
chairman of the Riyadh-based Rashid Engineering, making him one of the
country’s top five wealthiest men.
His high-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundationput him in league with other prominent donors such as financial giant Barclays Capital and beer magnate Anheuser-Busch.
Al-Rashid's son Ibrahim might be even worse.
Al-Rashid’s three sons have followed in their father’s political
footsteps, contributing large sums to top Democrats, including Rep.
Patrick Murphy (D., Fla.), whose Senate race could help decide which
party controls the Senate in 2017.
Murphy has already returned a portion of al-Rashid’s donations due to his involvement in a domestic assault incident.
Ibrahim al-Rashid allegedly forced his way into his estranged wife’s
Pennsylvania home, where al-Rashid allegedly “grabbed her by the wrist,
struck her about the head and face with a closed fist then threw her to
the ground,” according to a copy of the police report viewed by the Free Beacon.
Following the 2014 incident, al-Rashid allegedly sent his wife a text
message stating, “I am not sorry this time I hope you die in hell,”
according to the police report.
Murphy, a longtime friend of al-Rashid, was recently forced to donate
around $16,000 in campaign funds to domestic violence groups after the
assault charge became a public liability for the campaign. Murphy also
returned all of the donations made by al-Rashid during the last three
political cycles.
However, that did not account for all of the money al-Rashid donated
in 2012 to a pro-Murphy Super PAC, prompting calls for Murphy to return
that money as well.
Al-Rashid has donatedat least$490,000mainly to Democratic campaigns,
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Super
PACs, according to funding data, raising further questions about whether
these candidates and organizations also will return the controversial
cash.
Al-Rashid's other sons have also donated significant amounts to Democrats.
Ibrahim’s brother, Salman al-Rashid, also has sunk at least$57,600 into Democratic campaigns, including the DCCC.
This includes contributions to the campaigns of Murphy and Sen. Cory
Booker (D., N.J.), as well as Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Fla.), Rep. Keith
Ellison (D., Minn.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), among
others, according to Federal Election Commission data.
A third son of Nasser, Mohammed al-Rashid, appears to have donated around $40,000 mainly
to Democrats, according to FEC data. This includes donations to the
DCCC, Murphy, Ellison, Booker, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.,
Fla.), among others, according to the FEC.
One veteran political operative who has been tracking the 2016 election cycle told the Free Beacon that these donations raise questions about foreign influence in U.S. politics.
“Saudi Arabia is anti-Israel, anti-woman, and anti-human rights, yet
Hillary Clinton’s Foundation takes millions from the Saudi government
and well-connected billionaires like this al-Rashid,” the source said.
“Now we have down ballot Democrats looking the other way and taking
money from al-Rashid’s sons, one of whom committed domestic violence.
This from the party that uses divisive ‘war on women’ rhetoric at every
turn.”
Booker and Deutsch both have reputations for being pro-Israel. You have to wonder how true that is if they're taking money from the al-Rashid's.
This video came from Arutz Sheva (Hat Tip: Gershon D).
Let's go to the videotape.
Which party is pro-Israel? Which party is conducting a war on women? And why is Debbie "I wear my support for Israel to work on my sleeve every day" Wasserman Schultz taking money from the al-Rashid's?
'I killed myself to give the 'Palestinians' a state'
For once I agree with Bill Clinton. Yes, he really did nearly kill himself to give the 'Palestinians' a state. And yes, he's telling the truth about the 'Palestinians.'
Let's go to the videotape.
Since I know you can't make out what the spectator is saying, there's a full transcript here.
But here's the problem. I don't like Bill Clinton, but I have serious doubts he would ever purposely destroy Israel. I don't have those doubts about Hillary. Here's why. Hillary has a long history of being anti-Israel.
It seems that in the Obama White House, the boss may not be the biggest
Israel hater. That title may well belong to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
In his book American Evita, Christopher Anderson writes.
At
a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian
cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was
"sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant
leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the
UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform
and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else,"
said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince
Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from
their Israeli "oppressors." (1)
Of course Hillary's
feelings about the PLO and Israel are only one aspect of her character,
often a person's true nature is more closely revealed in a more intimate
setting. In an early showcase of Hillary's diplomatic skills
Christopher Anderson relates an experience that she and her future
husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was
during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a
politically well connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill
and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew
candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler
mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.
"My daddy was
half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit ,
my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud
that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused
to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot
and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the
friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's
really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of
hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah." (2)
Read the whole thing. After that second story, anyone want to try to convince me that she 'only' hates Israel and not Jews?
The only time in her adult life that Hillary Clinton was pro-Israel was
when it was necessary to be elected as US Senator from the heavily
Jewish state of New York. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is worthy
of Jewish support at all, but if American Jews are going to donate to
her campaign they should at least condition their support on a clear and
irreparable break with President Hussein Obama's policies on both the
Iranian nuclear file and the so-called 'peace process.'
In a column published by the London-based Arabic news website Elaph, Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, a former intelligence chief and Ambassador to the United States, has blasted President Hussein Obama's sellout to Iran, claiming it will 'wreak havoc' in the Middle East.
“Serious pundits in the media and in politics say that President
Obama’s Iran deal is ‘déjà vu’ in relation to President Clinton’s North
Korean nuclear deal.”
President Clinton’s decision was based on
strategic foreign policy analysts, top secret national intelligence, and
the desire “to save the people of North Korea from starvation,” wrote
Prince Bandar, in reference to the 1994 “Agreed Framework” between North
Korea and the United States that aimed to freeze the country’s nuclear
power program.
The agreement finally broke down in 2003 when
North Korea announced its withdrawal from the international Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and later declared it had manufactured
nuclear weapons. The country now has as many as 20 nuclear warheads,
according to Chinese intelligence.
President
Clinton “would not have made that decision” had he known it was based
on “a major intelligence failure” and “wrong foreign policy analysis,”
wrote Prince Bandar, nephew of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz.
But
“President Obama made his decision to go ahead with the Iran nuclear
deal fully aware that the strategic foreign policy analysis, the
national intelligence information, and America’s allies in the region’s
intelligence all predict not only the same outcome of the North Korean
nuclear deal but worse - with the billions of dollars that Iran will
have access to,” Prince Bandar stated.
“It will wreak havoc in
the Middle East which is already living in a disastrous environment, in
which Iran is a major player in the destabilization of the region,” he
continued.
Why would Obama go ahead with such an agreement,
“knowing what President Clinton didn’t know when he made his deal with
North Korea?” questioned the former diplomat.
It’s because Obama “ideologically believes what he is doing is right,” said Prince Bandar.
Yes, that's precisely right. Things sure have changed since Obama bowed to the Saudis in 2009.
In a Wall Street Journal blog, former peace processor Aaron David Miller argues that Hillary Clinton will 're-set' US-Israel relations.
She’s too smart for anti-Israeli tantrums: As
secretary of state Hillary Clinton had tough moments with Mr. Netanyahu.
In her memoir “Hard Choices,” she describes their relationship as
partners and friends and opines that it was best not to corner Bibi or
he would fight. She writes that she worried that President Obama’s
decision to have it out with Israel on settlements would trigger a
confrontation that would lock Jerusalem and Washington into an
unproductive battle. Nor did she relish having to be the bad cop to Joe Biden’s
good cop and delivering anti-settlement messages to the prime minister.
It seems clear in light of the administration’s anti-Netanyahu
messaging after Israel’s elections last month that Mrs. Clinton
perceives that kind of rhetoric as bad for her and the U.S.-Israel
relationship. Last month, in a heavily publicized phone call to Malcom
Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major
Jewish-American organizations, she called for a return to a constructive bilateral relationship.
Should Hillary Clinton win in 2016 her pragmatic pro-Israeli streak
would no doubt set a different tone in U.S.-Israeli relations. That may
well be true for a Republican president, too. Frustrations with Prime
Minister Netanyahu will remain high. Mrs. Clinton will look for
opportunities to revive prospects for a two-state solution, something
she cares about. But as the Middle East implodes, she will also try to
find a way to reset relations with Mr. Netanyahu. She knows to avoid
unproductive fights with the Israelis, particularly ones you can’t win.
That will disappoint those who believe that more vinegar than honey is
needed to get Israel to move. But that’s not Hillary Clinton’s style.
She’d fight with the Israelis on peace if she thought she could win and
in the process do something that was good for the U.S., Israel and the
Palestinians too.
To date, Hillary, who was herself a full partner in Obama’s moves to
marginalize Israel supporters during her stint as secretary of state,
has said as little as possible about his foreign policy. As a result,
she has given no reason for Democratic senators to consider parting ways
with the president on Iran.
So far, Clinton’s only move to put distance between herself and her
anti-Israel former boss was to allow Malcolm Hoenlein from the
Conference of Presidents to issue a statement late last month in his
name claiming that Clinton told him that she thinks the US and Israel
should bury the hatchet. Clinton, for her part, neither confirmed nor
denied Hoenlein’s statement.
Almost simultaneous with Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she is
running for president, came a statement from her campaign that she seeks
to raise the whopping sum of $2.5 billion in order to secure her
election.
There is no way that Clinton can hope to raise that sum without securing
the support of major Jewish donors. While some major Jewish donors do
not care about whether or not the US supports Israel, as an unnamed
Jewish Clinton supporter told JTA this week, Clinton will also need to
win the support of donors who do support Israel.
In the source’s words, “Some of the most prominent Jewish Democratic
donors are very concerned about the relationship the president has had
with Netanyahu and the Iran deal.”
If these Jewish donors band together and condition their support for
Clinton on her issuing a clear statement opposing Obama’s deal with Iran
and opposing any plan to abandon US support for Israel at the UN
Security Council, they will accomplish three vital things.
First, they will loosen Obama’s control over otherwise pro-Israel
Democratic senators and other pro-Israel groups in the Democratic Party,
including the NJDC. In so doing they will reopen the possibility that
Congress will scuttle Obama’s deal with the mullahs.
Second, they will take a major step toward rebuilding Democratic support for Israel that Obama has worked so hard to diminish.
Finally, they will reestablish their political significance in
American politics. By supporting Obama, even as he has abandoned the US
alliance with Israel, Jewish Democrats have lost their political
leverage and power. That power is contingent upon their refusal to
abandon Israel.
During the next two months, Obama will be focused on closing his deal
with Iran, and Clinton will be avidly seeking to lock up the Democratic
nomination for president by building an impregnable fortress of
campaign funds. If the American Jewish community uses this critical
period to leverage Clinton’s financial requirements to convince her to
oppose Obama’s deal that paves the way for a nuclear armed Iran, then
they will reassert their relevance in American politics and they will
restore support for Israel to its pre-Obama position as a bipartisan
position.
If they fail to do so, then Obama’s bid to transform Israel into a
partisan issue will succeed. If a Republican wins the White House in
2016, he will face an anti-Israel Democratic opposition. And if Clinton
wins the White House, she will have no reason to support Israel.
I'm with Caroline. I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but Bill's affection for Israel is genuine albeit misguided with respect to his views of what's in our interest. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long history of being anti-Israel.
It seems that in the Obama White House, the boss may not be the biggest
Israel hater. That title may well belong to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
In his book American Evita, Christopher Anderson writes.
At
a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian
cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was
"sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant
leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the
UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform
and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else,"
said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince
Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from
their Israeli "oppressors." (1)
Of course Hillary's
feelings about the PLO and Israel are only one aspect of her character,
often a person's true nature is more closely revealed in a more intimate
setting. In an early showcase of Hillary's diplomatic skills
Christopher Anderson relates an experience that she and her future
husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was
during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a
politically well connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill
and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew
candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler
mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.
"My daddy was
half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit ,
my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud
that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused
to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot
and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the
friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's
really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of
hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah." (2)
Read the whole thing. After that second story, anyone want to try to convince me that she 'only' hates Israel and not Jews?
The only time in her adult life that Hillary Clinton was pro-Israel was when it was necessary to be elected as US Senator from the heavily Jewish state of New York. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is worthy of Jewish support at all, but if American Jews are going to donate to her campaign they should at least condition their support on a clear and irreparable break with President Hussein Obama's policies on both the Iranian nuclear file and the so-called 'peace process.'
Bret Stephens reports that Barack Hussein Obama learned how to lie from the Clintons, and that if Hillary Clinton is - God Forbid - elected President, she will continue the lying tradition.
Sometime in the 1990s I began to understand the
Clinton way of lying, and why it was so successful. To you and me, the Clinton
lies were statements demonstrably at variance with the truth, and therefore
wrong and shameful. But to the initiated they were an invitation to an
intoxicating secret knowledge.
What was this knowledge? That the lying was for
the greater good, usually to fend off some form of Republican malevolence. What
was so intoxicating? That the initiated were smart enough to see through it all.
Why be scandalized when they could be amused? Why moralize when they could
collude?
It always works.
...
Consider this column’s favorite subject: the
Iran deal. An honest president might sell the current deal roughly as
follows.
“My fellow Americans, the deal we have
negotiated will not, I am afraid, prevent Iran from getting a bomb, should its
leaders decide to build one. And eventually they will. Fatwa or no fatwa,
everything we know about their nuclear program tells us it is geared toward
building a bomb. And frankly, if you lived in a neighborhood like theirs—70
million Shiites surrounded by hundreds of millions of Sunnis—you’d want a bomb,
too.
“Yes, we could, in theory, stop Iran from
getting the bomb. Sanctions won’t do it. Extreme privation didn’t stop Maoist
China or Bhutto’s Pakistan or Kim’s North Korea from building a bomb. It won’t
stop Iran, either.
“Airstrikes? They would set Iran back by a few
years. But even in a best-case scenario, the Iranians would be back at it before
long, and they’d keep trying until they got a bomb or we got regime
change.
“Fellow Americans, how many of you want to raise
your hands for more Mideast regime change?
“So here’s the deal with my deal: It never was
about cutting off Iran’s pathways to a bomb. Let’s just say that was an
aspiration. It’s about managing, and maybe slowing, the process by which they
get one.
“I know that’s not what you thought I’ve been
saying these past few years—all that stuff about all options being on the table
and me not bluffing and no deal being better than a bad deal. I said this for
political expedience, or as a way of palliating restive Saudis and Israelis. You
feed the dogs their bone.
“But if you’d been listening attentively, you
would have heard the qualifier ‘on my watch’ added to my promises that Iran
would not get the bomb. And what happens after I leave office?
Hopefully, the
Supreme Leader will be replaced by a new leader cut from better cloth.
Hopefully, too, this marathon diplomacy will open new patterns of U.S.-Iranian
cooperation. But if neither thing happens we’d be no worse off than we are
today.
“That’s why getting a deal, any deal, is more
important than the deal’s particulars when it comes to sanctions relief,
inspections protocols and so on. The details only matter insofar as they make
the political medicine go down. What counts is that we’re sitting at the table
together, speaking.”
...
Question for Mrs. Clinton: Does she think the
U.S. should gently midwife Iran’s nuclear birth or violently abort it? If she
wants to be president, our former top diplomat could honor us with a detailed
answer.
In the meantime, let’s simply note what the
liberal way of lying has achieved. We are on the cusp of reaching the most
consequential foreign-policy decision of our generation. We have a deal whose
basic terms neither side can agree on. We have a president whose goals aren’t
what he said they were, and whose motives he has kept veiled from the
public.
Maybe the ayatollah will give him his deal, and
those with the secret knowledge will cheer. As for the rest of us: Haven’t we
learned that we’re too stupid to know what’s for our own good?
President Hussein Obama and his State Department have made a big deal out of Prime Minister Netanyahu's election campaign statement - since walked back - that there would be no 'Palestinian state' on his watch. The Obami have claimed that 'words matter' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his
prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other
options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation
in the region," the president said in an interview with The Huffington
Post on Friday.
Citing a similar statement by White House spokesman Josh Earnest, Rabbi Shmuely Boteach points out that the Obama administration doesn't treat all words equally.
So let’s get this straight. When foreign
leaders speak, it matters. What they say is consequential. Bibi’s going
to have to pay for his remarks.
But I have one question. Why doesn’t any of this apply to Iran? Why, on Saturday Ayatollah Ali Khameini uttered the words “Death to America” even as John Kerry was expressing optimism the very same day that the United States would come to a nuclear accord with Iran!
Suddenly, Iran’s words don’t matter?
Boteach goes on to speculate why Netanyahu's words matter while Khameni's words can be swept aside.
My own belief is this. President Obama is
desperate for some foreign policy victories. There’s a year-and-a-half
left to his Presidency and the world is on fire. From Iran to Boko Haram
to ISIS to Putin to Hezbollah to Al Qaida and Hamas, bad guys are
running amok under this president. American Foreign policy is a
shambles.
The only ally President Obama can truly expert
pressure on for a deal that would give him the lasting foreign policy
legacy he needs and craves is Israel. And in the past Israeli Prime
Ministers have proven so utterly malleable. American Presidents have
squeezed them like lemons.
But Bibi refuses to be squeezed. He won’t play
ball. He won’t withdraw from Judea and Samaria and allow “Hamastan” on
his eastern border the way it is in Gaza. He won’t shut up about
America’s capitulation to the Iranian mullahs that would leave them with
a military-grade nuclear program. He won’t go quietly into the nuclear
night while America appeases one of the most violent and vile regimes on
earth.
This darned Bibi guy just won’t bend.
And our President finds the intransigence so utterly frustrating.
I don't believe things would be any better if (God Forbid) the Left had won the election. At the end of the day, even Herzog and Livni could not have concluded a deal that gave the 'Palestinians' everything they want, both because the 'Palestinians' would never agree to any deal and because the Left would never succeed in getting such a deal through the Knesset. Look what happened to Ehud Olmert in 2008.
And the Clinton's hatred for Netanyahu also might have something to do with Obama's attitude. After all, Hillary was Secretary of State.
But in the meantime, the hypocrisy is flaming. Will anyone in the media call Obama on it? Calling @APDiplowriter....
I really feel like slamming some of the chickens**t American Jews who regularly comment - both on this blog and on Twitter and Facebook - that Jonathan Pollard should rot in jail because what he did was so terriblethey're afraid of being accused of having 'dual loyalties' if they actually question Pollard's life sentence. Much of the infamous Cap Weinberger memo (that Pollard's lawyers were never allowed to see) has been declassified, and it shows that much of the US government argument for keeping Pollard imprisoned is based on lies and mischaracterizes what Weinberger (an anti-Semite in his own right) wrote (Hat Tip: NY Nana).
Key portions of a critical classified document on which the US
government has cited as justification for keeping Jonathan Pollard in
jail have been declassified – and his lawyers say the government has
been "dishonest" in "hiding behind the mask of 'classified information'
to materially mischaracterize the nature and extent of the harm caused
by Mr. Pollard."
Lawyers Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, who have represented
Pollard for 15 years pro-bono, say the newly disclosed material shows
that any harm possibly caused by Pollard was only "in the form of
short-term disruption in foreign relations between the United States and
certain Arab countries."
"That is not at all the same thing as harm to U.S. national security," they write in a World Net Daily op-ed, "and it was dishonest for the government to pretend that it is."
The government position for 30 years has been that Pollard must
remain in prison because a secret note from then-Secretary of State
Caspar Weinberger stated that Pollard caused greater harm to U.S.
national security than had ever occurred previously.
"The government has been able to present this harsh characterization
of the Weinberger declaration without fear of contradiction," Semmelman
and Lauer write, because "no one representing Mr. Pollard [was ever]
allowed to see the Weinberger declaration since the day Mr. Pollard was
sentenced" – until now.
...
The lawyers state that the U.S. government's "deception had its most
blatant and prejudicial impact at Mr. Pollard's parole hearing held in
July 2014, during which the government invoked the Weinberger
declaration and - without showing it to the parole commission - urged
the commission to accept its representation that the document
substantiated more harm to the national security of the United States
than had ever occurred previously."
"In its decision denying parole, the commission took the government
at its word and essentially parroted the government's characterization
of the Weinberger declaration when it wrote that Mr. Pollard had caused
'the greatest compromise of U.S. security to that date,'" noted the
lawyers.
"That is an outright falsehood," the lawyers write, "and the recent
revelations prove it... [It] is now revealed that Mr. Pollard provided
Israel with information concerning the 'political-economic affairs of
Middle Eastern nations,' various 'Middle Eastern orders of battle,' and
the 'technology of Soviet weapons and radar systems' used by various
Arab governments."
"The potential consequence [thereof] is described by Mr. Weinberger
as 'a high probability of harm to the foreign relations of the U.S.
with friendly Arab nations'" – and nothing more than that.
The op-ed details the type of information Pollard gave Israel, and the modest and temporary damage it caused to U.S. relations with some countries – but not to U.S. security.
Hang your heads in shame chickens**t American Jews. Maybe you should worry more about why your government has been holding an American Jew imprisoned for 30 years for a crime that normally carries a 2-4-year sentence than you worry about accusations that you hold dual loyalties (as if any of you holds any loyalty to the Jewish state).
So why did then-CIA director George Tenet threaten to resign if Bill Clinton released Pollard (as he promised to do) in exchange for Israel signing the Why Why Wye agreement? Probably because Tenet knew that if what was really in the Weinberger document was made public (and there would have been no more reason to keep it classified 17 years ago had Pollard been released), he and other government officials who had lied about its contents would have found their butts in a sling. Now, they're all dead or retired.
Krauthammer: 'Obama has less personal sympathy for Israel than any other President'
A reminder that I am in Boston where the Sabbath has not started yet.
Over the past week, I've heard a lot of talk comparing President Obama's relations with Israel with those of American Presidents who seemed more friendly, but with whom we also had disagreements: Reagan, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and so on.
But with Obama... it's different. Here's Charles Krauthammer. Let's go to the videotape.
Yes, Obama's different. Even George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had less antipathy toward Israel than he does.
In Washington, whether it’s an R or D administration, in fact, we
want Israeli leaders like Rabin, Peres, and Barak who see the world more
or less the way we do when it comes to the two-state peace process. We
have a much harder time with those Israeli leaders—Begin, Shamir,
Netanyahu—whose views on what to do about the Palestinians don’t
naturally accord with ours. (Sharon was a special case. He and George W.
Bush got along reasonably well because neither really cared about the
peace process and both were governing in an age of terror.)
But sometimes those initial judgments about who’s naughty or nice end up confounding.
Because U.S. administrations tend to divide the Israeli political
spectrum into two parts—the good Israelis who share our views and the
not so good ones who don’t—they’re not entirely sure what to do with the
fact that Israeli prime ministers of all political stripes have
continued Israeli settlement building on the West Bank and construction
in parts of east Jerusalem that we’d like to see become the capital of a
Palestinian state.
It’s an inconvenient but important reality to acknowledge that of the
three U.S.-orchestrated breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process,
two of them—the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and the Madrid peace
conference—came from hardline Likud prime ministers. The third—the three
disengagement agreements following the 1973 war —came courtesy of a
very tough Labor prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.
But secretly rooting for the good Israelis and wishing them success
is one thing. What about actually doing things that help the good ones
succeed or alternatively weakening the Israelis we don’t want to see in
power?
I can recall at least three occasions when Republican and
Democratic administrations willfully picked Israeli favorites and tried
to shape election outcomes.
...
Now, as the clock ticks down on Israeli elections scheduled for March
2015, will the Obama administration play internal Israeli politics to
try to tip the election against Netanyahu?
Obama’s relationship with Bibi is perhaps the most dysfunctional of
any president-prime minister pair in the history of the U.S.-Israeli
relationship. Doubtless John Kerry, too, would like to see another
Israeli leader with whom he could dance a real peace process.
Yet constraints against U.S. meddling abound. First, there’s the
Republican-controlled Congress, which will be watching hawk-like for any
such funny business. Second, there’s the absence of a clear and
credible alternative to Bibi with whom the administration is close; and
then there’s the matter of the lack of a big issue for such lobbying.
The peace process is in a coma; and ISIS, Hamas, Assad, Hezbollah, and
the Iranian mullahs make Israel look like the good guys. Finally,
there’s Obama himself. He’s not Clinton. Does he really care? Do most
Israelis trust him? Could he get away with a campaign that makes clear
Bibi isn’t the right guy and candidate, but X is? I am betting on “no”
to all three questions. Don’t even think about it, Mr. President.
The last constraint is the most important one. Many Israelis saw Bush I as neutral at best and hostile at worst. But that didn't compare with what Israelis think of Obama. While we may differ on why, most Israelis agree that Obama is viscerally hostile to Israel. There is little that can be done to convince us otherwise (and with good reason).
If Obama tries to interfere (and with his arrogance I would say that there's a fair chance of that happening). it would likely backfire. That's what Miller is trying to prevent.
Keep writing Aaron. But don't expect Obama to listen.
Aaron David Miller: 'We always tried to influence the Israeli elections, but we never succeeded; Obama shouldn't even try'
Aaron David Miller, who was Dennis Ross' top assistant, has told YNet that the United States 'always' tried to interfere in Israeli elections, but never succeeded (Hat Tip: Red Tulips) (link in Hebrew).
According to Miller, the US gathered a lot of information about Prime Minister Netanyahu - including his activities while a student in the United States - but no one would listen.
Miller admits that the George HW Bush administration influenced the outcome of the 1992 election to bring Yitzchak Rabin to power over Yitzchak Shamir, but he claims that's because the US set up the environment for that election through the Bush-Baker controversies with Shamir. He admits that the Clinton administration also tried - unsuccessfully - to ensure Shimon Peres' election as Prime Minister in 1996. But Peres lost to Netanyahu.
Miller says that the Clinton administration gathered information on Netanyahu and leaked it to the Israeli media. The information included Netanyahu's activities as a student in Boston and Philadelphia, his name change to Nitai, his forfeiting of his American passport, and the failure of Netanyahu's first marriage. Miller claims that it caused a scandal but had no influence.
Miller advises President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry not to even try to influence March's elections. Clinton was a President who was beloved in Israel, says Miller, while Obama is extremely unpopular (you don't say...) and any attempt to influence the March elections would backfire.
Obama and Kerry are declining to comment on the upcoming elections, although Kerry has said that he hopes that a new government will be able to conduct a 'peace process.'
Funny how he doesn't mention the Americans' greatest success - the 1999 replacement of Netanyahu with Ehud Barak courtesy of Clinton.
Bill Clinton bashes Netanyahu on camera, says he has to be forced to make peace
Good morning from Boston.
Something tells me that Bill Clinton isn't too crazy about the idea of his wife Hillary becoming President. On Sunday, he based Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on camera, straying from his wife's false pro-Israel line.
It came at the end of a three-hour fifteen-minute C-Span coverage of Clinton's attendance at Sunday's Iowa steak fry with Senator Tom Harkin (D).
If we don’t force him to have peace, we won’t have peace … Netanyahu is not the guy,” a pro-'Palestinian' activist told the ex-president. I agree with that,” Clinton clearly replied, apparently unaware his remarks were being recorded. Then he bragged about getting Ehud Barak to give Arafat everything he wanted, including Jerusalem.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).
Much more from Yid with Lid (including a transcript if you, like me could not get the sound to work) here.
Sometimes civilian casualties are the lesser evil - ask Bill Clinton
This tape was played on Sky Australia last night. I was going to post it this morning, but I couldn't find a way to embed the video. Now it's been uploaded to YouTube.
The Clinton tape was made on September 10, 2001.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Truth Revolt).
For the next week, at least, 'everyone knows' that it's Abu Mazen who doesn't want peace
Israel's Channel 10 reports that two hours before the announcement of the Hamas-Fatah unity pact, Prime Minister Netanyahu had agreed to hold 'talks' on borders and a 'settlement freeze.'
Aides to the prime minister are denying the Channel 10 report.
According to Channel 10, while Netanyahu refused Palestinian demands to explicitly present his position on borders,
he did give consent to his government's chief representatives in the
negotiations - Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and attorney Yitzhak Molcho -
to present maps on which both sides would then proceed to sketch the
contours of the political boundary that would separate Israel and a
yet-to-be-created Palestine.
The prime minister also agreed to a
freeze of all new construction in the Jewish settlements of Judea and
Samaria, though he insisted that Israel would complete all construction
that has already been initiated, according to Channel 10.
The
Palestinians, for their part, responded that on the ground the public
would not be able to differentiate between a freeze of new construction
and the continuation of old project, rendering the offer moot. Aides to
Netanyahu denied that the premier agreed to any freeze, according to
Channel 10.
...
Just two hours after Israel suspended diplomatic talks with the
Palestinians over Wednesday's Hamas-Fatah reconciliation pact, Netanyahu
said he will "be there in the future if we have a partner that is
committed to peace."
Netanyahu's comment came in an interview with
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, after the seven-member security cabinet
decided unanimously Thursday afternoon following a six hour meeting in
Tel Aviv to suspend current talks with the Palestinians.
World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder says that the American government now 'gets it': Abu Mazen doesn't want peace.
“This is one of the times when people realize what’s really
happening and there is no question about it,” Lauder said. “How can
Israel negotiate with an organization that wants its destruction?”
Lauder, who is well connected with many world leaders, said the
overwhelming sentiment among his contacts was support for Israel.
“Last
night I was calling around from country to country, group to group,
also within the US, to see what’s happening. There was no one I came
across that said, ‘You know, it’s a good thing.’ Even the most left[-
wing] groups.”
...
Everybody, he asserted, “believes that the Israeli people want peace
and that the Palestinian people want peace, and more and more they
realize what the real problem is. I don’t think President Abbas could
have made a stronger signal that he didn’t want peace.”
...
Israel’s reaction should be firm, but the Netanyahu administration
should also handle the issue of the end of the current round of
negotiations “delicately,” Lauder added.
“It is also important how
Israel handles it,” he said. Israel should “reiterate what Hamas
stands for and then say something to the effect that Israel is very
disappointed.”
“It shows very much, I think to everybody, that at
the end of the day the Palestinians really didn’t want peace, and what
they really want is the UN to give it to them. They don’t want to
negotiate, and I think the key thing is the politicians get it.”
They supposedly 'got it' in 2000-01 too when Bill Clinton told Arafat that he had made Clinton's peace efforts a 'failure.' That 'getting it' lasted about a week. Don't expect this one to last longer.
The sources, who spoke as U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry prepared to meet Israeli and Palestinian
leaders, said under the proposed arrangement that Jonathan Pollard, a
former U.S. Navy analyst caught spying for Israel in the 1980s, could be
released by mid-April.
In
addition, Israel would go ahead with a promised release of a fourth
group of Palestinians, among the 104 it pledged to free in a deal that
led to the renewal of peace talks last July. Another group of jailed
Palestinians would also go free - and the peace talks would be extended
beyond an April 29 deadline, the sources said.
As you read what I'm about to say, please keep in mind that I think Jonathan Pollard should have been released a long time ago.
First, there is NO WAY I would agree to a deal where Obama says 'release the terrorists now and I'll release Pollard in two weeks.' Why would Netanyahu agree to such a deal? He was already screwed by Clinton 15 years ago when Clinton promised him that Pollard would be released if Netanyahu signed the Why Why Wye deal. After Netanyahu signed, Clinton reneged. Many American Jews considered Clinton a great friend of Israel. Does anyone consider Obama a great friend of Israel?
Second. what is the 'another group of 'Palestinians''? Whom does that include? How many? Will Netanyahu's cabinet (which would have to approve any release of more than the 104 terrorists to which Netanyahu agreed in July and which would have to approve any release of 'Israeli Arabs') approve that 'other group'? Will it approve the release of 'Israeli Arabs'?
Third, will Pollard himself agree to such a deal? Pollard has said time and time again that he will not agree to be released in exchange for terrorists. Has anyone asked him whether he changed his mind?
Finally, as much as this deal smells rotten, it's very typical Obama. Every President since Bill Clinton has held onto Jonathan Pollard as a bargaining chip to make Israel give up something big (like land) in exchange for Pollard. Leave it to Obama (and I say this as someone who would love to see Pollard released) to release Pollard in exchange for six more months of meaningless negotiations.
Bottom line: No, I don't believe this is going to happen.
Oh my: Shlomo Avineri admits Abu Mazen will never sign
Long-time 'peace' advocate Shlomo Avineri has written a piece in Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily acknowledging that 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen will never sign a 'peace' deal (with thanks to Steve O).
But
what came out of all that? When Olmert proposed in dozens of meetings
that Abbas sign a document containing the Israeli concessions, he
refused. Olmert explains this by saying that Abbas did not say either
yes or no. This is patently ridiculous: By refusing to sign, Abbas
clearly said no.
Evidently,
Abbas was not ready to commit to anything, but he was able to get
Olmert to consent to far-reaching concessions, and then halted the
negotiations. The upshot is that when the negotiations resume, the
Palestinian side will insist that they must begin “where they left off” –
with the starting point being the Israeli positions as set forward in
Olmert’s generous proposal, with no concession having been made by the
other side.
Am
I misinterpreting things? This is exactly what happened in 1995 in
Yossi Beilin’s talks with Abbas. Then, too, the talks led to extensive
Israeli concessions; then, too, the Israeli side sought to put things
down on paper and fashion a final accord – and then, too, Mahmoud Abbas
refused to sign. There was never any Beilin-Abbas Agreement. There was
only a paper laying out Israeli concessions.
At
Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this
method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he
had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own,
Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever
placed on the table.
The
Palestinians have never outlined their overall vision of an agreement,
except, of course, in regard to the territorial issue. But on matters of
crucial importance to Israel – forgoing the right of return, some form
of recognition of Israel as the Jewish nation-state – the Palestinian
leadership has clearly rejected the Israeli position. Though Abbas has
stated that he personally has no desire to return to Safed, he has also
declared that the Palestinians cannot give up the right of return,
saying it is an “individual right.” And both Abbas and Saeb Erekat, his
chief negotiator, have outright rejected all calls to accept Israel as
the Jewish nation-state, citing the basic Palestinian position that the
Jews are a religious community, not a nation.
Abbas’
refusal to sign a document with Olmert or Beilin has a clear
implication: not that he is no partner for talks, but that he is an
excellent partner for talks — as long as they are talks designed to lead
Israel to make more and more concessions, and to put them in writing.
Then, on one pretext or another, he is unwilling to sign and brings the
negotiations to a halt, so they can be restarted in the future “where
they left off”: with all the previous Israeli concessions included, and
no concessions having been put forward by the Palestinian side.
In
certain circles in Israel nowadays, having anything positive to say
about Ehud Barak is considered heresy. But he did reach the correct
conclusion from all this. His statement that he went to Camp David in
2000 to expose Arafat’s true face may be regarded with some skepticism.
He went to that summit in the honest belief that his readiness to make
major concessions, which endangered his political standing, would bear
fruit. But when he saw that the Palestinians were prepared to do nothing
but engage in negotiations that would squeeze more and more concessions
from Israel, without committing to anything in return, he drew the
proper conclusion.
The only downside to this article is the last paragraph, in which Avineri reaches the wrong conclusion.
If
a similar thing happens in the current negotiations as well, Israel
will have to prepare an alternative to the ever-elusive comprehensive
agreement: a serious proposal for interim or partial agreements,
unilateral moves, a halt to more construction in the territories, and a
willingness to acknowledge that even in the absence of a final agreement
that officially ends the conflict, there are things that can be done to
reduce the friction and bring about significant change – not only in
Israel but also among the mainstream of the Palestinian national
movement.
No. All those things do is ensure that the 'Palestinian' recalcitrance will continue. The thing to do if there is no agreement (and it should have been done a long time ago) is to get up, walk away and build everywhere, because it's our land. The only way that the 'Palestinians' might consider making a real peace (and I don't believe they ever will) is if they think they have something to lose by continuing to say no.
I don't recall seeing this reported elsewhere. If it's true - and I have no reason to believe it's not - it places an entirely different light on President Obama's treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu between 2009 and 2011. Additionally, if the claim below is true, it makes a farce of the complaint that Netanyahu favored Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 elections. If this is why Obama is spying on Israel, why shouldn't Netanyahu - even openly - favor Romney. Heck, if I'd known about this, I would have called on Netanyahu to endorse Romney publicly and damn the consequences (Hat Tip: IMRA).
Second, there is a matter of American interference in Israel’s
internal affairs. The eavesdropping wasn’t just about trying to
ascertain what Israeli leaders really think about the peace process and
how much they’re willing to give up to advance it. It wasn’t just about
getting an inside track on how Israel’s relations with China or Russia
are advancing, or about arms deals that involve U.S. technology.
It was, according to reports, an attempt to gather information on
politicians whose views aren’t in sync with those of the U.S.
administration. This information was to be leaked to the local media in
order to embarrass these figures and ruin their political careers.
It isn’t too hard to guess which politicians were being targeted. It
stands to reason that it was those pesky “radical” right-wingers who
oppose territorial compromise.
It's well known here that George H.W. Bush did all he could to help Yitzchak Rabin defeat Yitzchak Shamir in 1992, and that Bill Clinton did all he could to help Ehud Barak defeat Binyamin Netanyahu in 1999. But at least those actions were out in the open. Only Obama has hidden behind wiretaps and spying and intercepted phone calls and emails.
America ought to be ashamed. Your government has no integrity - and even releasing Jonathan Pollard (as the editorial above joins so many others in advocating) won't restore it.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
