Change: Trump demands Sbarro murderer's extradition, tells 'Palestinians' to end incitement
One of Haaretz's editorials today speculated that ultimately, the 'Palestinians' will have to save Israel from enacting a 'two-state solution.' Israel Radio's midnight news gave two signals that the 'Palestinians' are being put in a position where they will have to behave properly, or there will be no support from the United States for a 'Palestinian state.'
First, the United States has demanded that Jordan extradite Ahlam Tamimi, who planned the Sbarro suicide bombing 16 years ago and drove the bomber to the downtown Jerusalem restaurant.
Tamimi scouted for a target before leading the bomber, Izz al-Din
Shuheil al-Masri, to the Sbarro restaurant. They arrived just before
2:00 pm, when the restaurant was filled with customers, dozens of women,
children and babies, and pedestrian traffic outside was at its peak.
Tamimi
departed before Al-Masri, thought to be carrying a rigged guitar case
or wearing an an explosive vest weighing 5 to 10 kilograms of
explosives, nails, nuts and bolts, detonated his bomb.
She is
currently a television host in Jordan, has hosted Hamas arch-terrorist
Saleh Arouri (who ordered the kidnapping of three Jewish teenagers in
June 2014), bragged of her involvement in others murders of Israelis and
is considered as a symbol of the Palestinians fight.
Israel Radio reported that Tamimi was sentenced to 16 life sentences (15 Israelis were murdered in the bombing and a 16th - Chana Nachenberg - is in a vegetative state to this day), but was released as part of the 'terrorists for Gilad' trade in 2011. Israel Radio said that two of the terrorists' victims were US citizens (I think it was actually more than two - Malki Roth and Shoshana Heyman HY"D were also American citizens).
Jordan may have a tough call to make, honoring its strong alliance to
the US, with trying to avoid offending its majority Palestinian
population and an anti-extradition trend in its court system, according
to Shurat Hadin which is representing the family of the victim Chana
Nachenberg (Finers and Nachenbergs) who was grievously injured in the
bombing and remains in Israel in a coma even until now.
According
to Shurat HaDin President Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "We are glad that
the US Department of Justice has decided to move forward against this
notorious mass murderer. We have been requesting for a long time that
this unrepentant Palestinian terrorist be rearrested, extradited and
prosecuted by American law enforcement officials."
"It was
outrageous that Israel released this criminal with so much innocent
blood on her hands and who has publicly rejoiced that she killed 8
Jewish children. For too long Jordan has become a safe haven for
Palestinian terrorists and, hopefully, this is a change of policy for
the new Trump administration, to start to pursue the numerous
Palestinians who have killed US citizens in Israel," she said.
Chana
Nachenberg's father, Yitzhak Bennett Finer, has responded: "We applaud
the efforts of the Department of Justice in trying to bring Tamimi to
justice and we hope they'll be successful. Our daughter Chana Nachenberg
had the prime of her life taken from her because she has spent the past
15 and half years in a vegetative state on a respirator as a result of
this inhuman act of the heinous bombing of Sbarros. Her daughter Sarah
has grown up without a mother and her husband David without the love of
his wife."
Jordan is highly unlike to extradite Tamimi. If the royal family is about anything, it's about self-preservation. Extraditing Tamimi (whose clan includes prominent Jordanian lawyers) would bring about fighting that has been unseen since the Black September uprising in 1970. There is almost no chance that King Abdullah will take that risk to keep the United States happy.
In a second report this evening, Israel Radio reported that the United States' Jerusalem Consulate's readout of Trump envoy Jason Greenblatt's meeting with 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen today included a demand that the 'Palestinians' stop incitement to terrorism.
During a meeting at the Palestinian
Authority’s headquarters in Ramallah, Abbas committed to combat
Palestinian incitement, the statement said. The Palestinian leader and
Greenblatt also discussed building up the PA’s security forces,
advancing the peace process, and improving the Palestinian economy.
According to the readout, Abbas told
Greenblatt that “he believes that under President Trump’s leadership a
historic peace deal is possible, and that it will enhance security
throughout the region.”
“President Abbas committed to preventing inflammatory rhetoric and incitement,” the statement added.
The government of Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has been adamant that PA-sanctioned media and school
curriculum are responsible for inciting terrorism.
...
The Palestinian daily al-Quds cited sources in
the US Congress who said Greenblatt warned Abbas that US lawmakers are
working to condition US aid to the Palestinians — with the exception of
security assistance — on ending incitement, including payments to the
families of Palestinian terrorists.
The PA pays monthly stipends to families who
have a member who is considered to have been “martyred,” which usually
means being killed by an Israeli while carrying out a terror attack or
suspected attack, or who is spending time in Israeli prison for
perpetrating a terrorist act.
The US government has already taken measures
to ensure its aid isn’t funneled to the families of terrorists. That
includes paying the debts of the PA directly, rather than transferring
funds into the PA’s coffers.
In the 12th year of his four-year term, Abu Dodobird may have finally found an American President who is willing to stand up to him. The 'Palestinians' must be really disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost the election. Heh.
Will Donald Trump usher in the Messiah? (Jewish textual and numerical proofs and a little personal stuff)
I know I haven't posted in quite a while - I have been crazy busy with work, and that's what puts food on the table (and pays the debts).
And I know that it's already been the Sabbath in Israel for several hours, but I am in Seattle (yes, really) where there are still several more hours to go.
And today is Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States.
For those of you who are ambivalent or worse, here are some grounds for optimism - a video I received from my son who became a groom (yup, he's engaged) a bit less than two weeks ago (in fact, on the same day as I last posted).
As Israel seeks help from Trump, Netanyahu spox accuses Obama of orchestrating UN resolution
A spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu with what's described as 'ironclad intelligence' is accusing the Obama administration of orchestrating the introduction and passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Friday.
Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, David Keyes said Arab sources, among others, had informed Jerusalem of Obama’s alleged involvement in advancing the resolution.
“We have rather ironclad information from
sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a
deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the
resolution in the first place,” Keyes told the US media outlet.
The White House has adamantly denied “cooking up” the resolution, rejecting accusations by Netanyahu to that effect.
“We did not draft this resolution; we did not
introduce this resolution. we made this decision when it came up for a
vote,” said Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes on
Friday. But because of its opposition to settlement activity and concern
for what it could mean for the region, the US “could not in good
conscience veto,” he added.
I'd believe just about anyone before I'd believe BenRhodes.
Netanyahu is now reaching out to the incoming Trump administration,
which takes office on January 20, and to friends in Congress, in the
hope of “deterring” what he sees as further potential Obama
administration-led diplomatic action against Israel, the Channel 2
report said. His aim is for the Trump team to make plain that his
administration will “economically hurt” those countries that voted
against Israel in the UN and that do so in the future.
Netanyahu’s fear is that Secretary of State John Kerry will set out
principles or parameters for a Palestinian state in a speech that he has said he will deliver in
the next few days on his Middle East vision. The prime minister fears
that, in its final days, the Obama administration will seek to have a
resolution enshrining those parameters adopted by the UN Security
Council, the report said.
There are three questions here. First, can Trump deter other nations from cooperating with Obama by threatening them economically? Second, is he willing to use that power if he has it? And third, what price will Israel have to pay in order to get to Trump to act?
In the meantime, hundreds of Syrians are dying daily on Obama's watch, but hey, no Jews involved so what difference does it make?
Oh and by the way, as bad as this situation is, can you imagine how much worse it would be if the President elect were Hillary Clinton?
Astounding: US Embassy has left terror victim's body in Israeli morgue for six years
Sorry for the lack of posting - I am totally swamped with work and has been all week. This will be quick.
I am embedding a Facebook post by Kay Wilson, a terror victim, who describes the inaction of the US Embassy in Israel under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, with respect to the body of Kristine Luken. Luken was murdered in the same terror attack in which Wilson was injured.
This post is beyond shocking....
I have no words to describe my disgust with the United States government over this incident.
I held my nose last night and voted for Donald Trump. Then, I scanned my ballot into my computer and emailed it to the county election commission in New Jersey. They acknowledged it during the night.
Kurt Schlichter beautifully describes many of the reasons I voted for Trump and why I had to hold my nose to do so. He missed a couple that relate to Israel specifically: Hillary's support for the 'Palestinians,' Hillary's support for the sellout to a nuclear Iran, and Hillary's anti-Semitic gut.
Think about this before you vote Democrat: DNC didn't want to commemorate the Holocaust
For those of you who have not voted already, think about this before you even consider pulling the lever for a Democrat: The Democratic National Committee doesn't believe it's necessary or appropriate to commemorate the Holocaust. They believe there are too many Jewish holidays already.
By the way, please note the date on the email. This happened just a few months ago.
The next President of the United States... Huma Abedin?
I screen capped this from a Facebook page. The site to which it links is so busy that you cannot access it right now. But you can read the email it quotes. If the email is authentic (and I know nothing of its source) it is - to put it mildly - deeply disturbing.
Is Hillary Clinton a puppet for the Muslim Brotherhood's Huma Abedin? Will the Muslim Brotherhood be sitting in the oval office if Clinton wins? Is anyone awake enough at the switch to acknowledge that reality?
#Wikileaks: Clinton: 'A Potemkin process better than nothing,' exploit Bibi's apology to Israeli Arabs
You might recall that in the final days of the 2015 election, as he was panicked that the Obama administration was underhandedly attempting to remove him, Prime Minister Netanyahu urged Right wing voters to come out and vote to prevent the Arab population from causing the Left to win the election. Later, Netanyahu walked back those remarks.
Wow! Federal judge calls Netanyahu 'turbaned Israeli mullah,' Podesta nods in agreement
Wikileaks yields another treasure trove.
In an email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, US judge George Paine (more on him in a minute) refers to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a 'turbaned Israeli mullah,' and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta nods in agreement (Hat Tip: Zvi S).
The amazing thing about this email is that a federal judge felt
comfortable sending it at all. And he wouldn’t have sent it unless he
knew that Podesta shared his biases… which is obvious from Podesta’s
comment.
And you thought which campaign is being supported by racists and anti-Semites?
I've already written a couple of times about the fears here in Israel of what President Hussein Obama might try to do to us in his final days in his office. Here's a really disturbing Wall Street Journal piece from Jonathan Schanzer about some of the possibilities.
The Middle East has few
bright spots these days, but one is the budding rapprochement between
Israel and its Sunni Arab neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates, thanks to shared threats from Iran and Islamic
State. Now the Obama Administration may have plans to wreck even that.
Israeli diplomats gird for the possibility
that President Obama may try to force a diplomatic resolution for Israel
and the Palestinians at the United Nations. The White House has been
unusually tight-lipped about what, if anything,
it might have in mind. But our sources say the White House has asked
the State Department to develop an options menu for the President’s
final weeks.
One possibility would be to sponsor, or at
least allow, a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli
settlement construction, perhaps alongside new IRS regulations revoking
the tax-exempt status of people or entities involved
in settlement building. The Administration vetoed such a resolution in
2011 on grounds that it “risks hardening the position of both sides,”
which remains true.
But condemning the settlements has always been
a popular way of scoring points against the Jewish state, not least at
the State Department, and an antisettlement resolution might burnish Mr.
Obama’s progressive brand for his postpresidency.
Mr. Obama may also seek formal recognition of a
Palestinian state at the Security Council. This would run afoul of
Congress’s longstanding view that “Palestine” does not have the
internationally recognized attributes of statehood,
including a defined territory and effective government, though Mr.
Obama could overcome the objection through his usual expedient of an
executive action, thereby daring the next President to reverse him.
Both actions would be a boon to the bullies in
the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, while also subjecting
Israeli citizens and supporters abroad to new and more aggressive forms
of legal harassment. It could even criminalize
the Israeli army—and every reservist who serves in it—on the theory
that it is illegally occupying a foreign state. Does Mr. Obama want to
be remembered as the President who criminalized Israeli citizenship?
The worst option would be an effort to
introduce a resolution at the U.N. Security Council setting “parameters”
for a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
The French
have been eager to do this for some time, and one
option for the Administration would be to let the resolution pass
simply by refusing to veto it. Or the U.S. could introduce the
resolution itself, all the better to take credit for it.
As the old line has it, this would be worse
than a crime—it would be a blunder. U.S. policy has long and wisely been
that only Israelis and Palestinians can work out a peace agreement
between themselves, and that efforts to impose
one would be counterproductive. Whatever parameters the U.N.
established would be unacceptable to any Israeli government, left or
right, thereby destroying whatever is left of a peace camp in Israel.
The Palestinians would seize on those
parameters as their birthright, making it impossible for any future
Palestinian leader to bargain part of them away in a serious
negotiation. Arab states would find their diplomatic hands tied,
making it impossible to serve as useful intermediaries between
Jerusalem and Ramallah. It could refreeze relations with Israel even as
they finally seem to have thawed.
President Obama may be the last man on earth
to get the memo, but after decades of fruitless efforts to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be wiser for the U.S. to step back
until the Palestinians recognize that peace cannot
be imposed from the outside.
If Mr. Obama is still seeking a Middle
East legacy at this late stage in his presidency, his best move is do
nothing to make it worse.
A few comments. First, it is longstanding US policy that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' can only come through direct negotiations between the parties. Obama has done much to undermine that policy through his insistence on international peace conferences and other ways of allowing the 'Palestinians' to avoid direct negotiations, including his support for preconditions to negotiations. Perhaps that's why Obama has zero influence in Israel, where the government once again spat in his face on Monday, announcing that it would build 98 new homes in Shilo, which is well outside the 'settlement blocs.'
On Monday the state informed the High Court of Justice it awaited
final bureaucratic approval to develop the site within six months as a
relocation option for the 40 families from the Amona outpost.
It, therefore, asked the HCJ to delay by seven months the mandated December 25 demolition of the outpost.
Alternatively,
the state said, it was also pursuing the option of using the abandoned
property law, so that it could relocate the outpost to land adjacent to
the community’s current location.
Washington has rebuked Israel
for both plans, but the State Department issued a particularly sharp
statement in which it said the Shiloh project was tantamount to the
creation of a new settlement, something Israel had promised the US it
would not do.
“This settlement's location deep in the West Bank…
would link a string of outposts that effectively divide the West Bank
and make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state more remote,” the
State Department had said.
Second, as much as I will never vote for Hillary Clinton (#NeverHillary), it is clear to me that this sort of scorched earth strategy from the Obama administration is far more likely if Donald Trump wins next week's election than if Clinton wins it. After all, it was Netanyahu who set up Clinton's illegal private server, and it was he that caused it to be used for government business (/sarc). Obama would have far more interest in trying to tie Trump's hands than in trying to tie Clinton's.
All in all, the outlook is bleak with the 'most pro-Israel administration evah' set to extract revenge from an Israeli government that has not been willing to surrender to Obama's wishes over the past eight years.
The Jewish Press:Israel recently concluded
its war against Hizbullah in what many consider to be a stalemated
position. How do you see things right now?
Sen. Clinton: First, I don’t think we should have
pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a
big mistake. If we were going to push for an election, we should have
made sure we did something to determine who was going to win instead of
signing off on an electoral system that advantaged Hamas.
That, to me, was a first step that led Hizbullah to take the actions
that it took [killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers and firing
missiles into Israeli population centers]. What has concerned me is that
I don’t think our or Israel’s intelligence was very good at uncovering
what Hizbullah had developed in the last six years.
Frankly, the American intelligence didn’t know how dug in Hizbullah
was, how many rockets they had, where they were going to be launched
from and what the range was.
I think, based on what I know, that a lot of damage was inflicted on
Hizbullah’s capacity. But that capacity is not destroyed and has not
disappeared. Thus, Hizbullah, the Syrians and the Iranians have been
emboldened.
This was a problem of situational awareness and about what we were up
against. This is a longer-term issue for us and for Israel as we try to
figure out how we’re going to get a better grasp of what we’re up
against.
The question relating to Gilad Shalit where Clinton equated Israel and Hamas (see previous post) didn't even appear in the 2006 story.
The Clinton Tapes: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'
From an Israeli perspective, what is perhaps the most interesting leak comes not from Wikileaks, but rather from the release of an old-fashioned audio cassette with a 2006 interview with Hillary Clinton.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant,
such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was
then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on
new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign
by Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is “rigged.”
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for
the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of
the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the
result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the
U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the
Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen.
Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
The sentiment is not surprising. In 2011, former Bush National Security aide Elliott Abrams told the Jerusalem Post that the 'Palestinian Authority' sought to call off the 2006 'Palestinian' elections, and the reason it didn't happen was that they insisted on blaming Israel.
According to Abrams, the Palestinians seized on the voting in Jerusalem
as a possible pretext to cancel the elections, since this issue has been
debated amid questions of how and where Palestinians would vote.
“The
Palestinians said to Sharon, ‘Why don’t you say no voting in Jerusalem.
Zero. Not in the post offices [where voting was allowed in 1995]. Zero.
And this will be a reason to call off the election.’”
Sharon,
according to Abrams, “said he was not going to take the blame for this.
He said, ‘If you want to call off the elections, call off the election, I
don’t care. If you want to have an election, great; if you want to call
off the election, great. But you do it – I’m not taking the blame for
it.’” The Palestinians, Abrams said, then came to the Americans with a
request that they call off the elections.
The American reaction
was that the US doesn’t call off elections just a few days before they
are scheduled, “because it looks like you’re not going to win anymore.
That’s ridiculous.
Your job is to win the election, go out and
work, and get your people to the polls and win the damn election. So the
election was held, and Hamas won.”
Of course, it was 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen who insisted that Hamas participate in that election in the first place.... And by the way, after the election, there were discussions over the possibility of Hamas being expelled from the 'Palestinian Authority.' So Hillary's statement about making sure that Fatah won the election was practically mainstream thought back then.
But there's something else on that audio tape that's even more significant.
Regarding capturing combatants in war—the June capture of IDF soldier
Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants who came across the Gaza border via an
underground tunnel was very much front of mind—Clinton can be heard on
the tape saying, “And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the
terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and
captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know,
there’s a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you
know, well, if they captured a soldier, we’ve got to capture a soldier.”
Equating Hamas, which to this day remains on the State Department’s official list
of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, with the armed forces of a close
American ally was not what many expected to hear in the Jewish Press
editorial offices, which were then at Third Avenue and Third Street in
Brooklyn. (The paper’s office has since moved to the Boro Park section
of Brooklyn.) The use of the phrase “these cultures” is also a bit of a
head-scratcher.
In other words, Hillary equates Israel with Hamas. That ought to bother you all a lot more than whether she thought the 'Palestinian election' should be rigged.
On
the surface, the latest message to the Palestinian Authority from the
Obama administration is no different from the past two decades of
American policy: the U.S. will veto any resolution attacking Israel or
demanding Palestinian independence without them first making peace with
the Jewish state. But, as Haaretz reported, there
was one significant caveat to the warning. They were told not to push
for any such resolution until after the presidential election next
month.
The “senior Palestinian official” who spoke of this message to Haaretz
said PA leader Mahmoud Abbas had “no illusions and no expectations”
that the U.S. wouldn’t veto any resolution they put forward. They also
thought Washington might not have any plan of its own ready. “All we
know is that there are ideas.” But the significance of those “ideas” is a
function of the time frame enunciated by the administration.
If
President Obama had no plans to use his last two months in office to
launch some kind of a diplomatic initiative on the Middle East or to
stick it to the Israelis and his longtime antagonist Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, then why would he even mention the election? Were
the U.S. to keep faith with the Israelis, the Palestinians would just be
told that there would be no change in American policy. Period. Abbas
and the PA would be put on notice that, if they actually had any desire
for peace or hope of future independence, they should do what they
promised to do in the Oslo Accords: head back into direct negotiations
with the Israelis.
...
Yet nothing the
Palestinians have done has been enough to cause Obama to rethink the
mistaken assumption he brought with him into the White House in January
2009. He still thinks creating more daylight between the U.S. and Israel
is the best path to peace, or, at least, is the stance that reflects
his personal inclinations. That’s why he’s still flirting with the idea
of using the lame duck period between the presidential election and the
inauguration of his successor to put forward some kind of plan to
pressure Israel, or even going as far as betraying the Jewish state at
the UN by allowing a pro-Palestinian resolution to pass without an
American veto. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Kerry told Netanyahu that the administration was still thinking about it. Now they’ve told the Palestinians to hold their fire until November 9th.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots and
realize that there is an excellent chance that Obama will finally make
good on this threat. The president may make a gesture before leaving
office that will damage the U.S.-Israel alliance in a way that even a
less hostile president won’t be able to completely undo.
Asking
the Palestinians to wait until after the election is a reflection of the
fact that Obama knows any move against Israel would hurt Hillary
Clinton. But with only 18 days to go until the election, friends of
Israel–both Republicans and especially Democrats–need to use this time
to speak up against any last minute betrayal of Israel.
Which Democrats will speak out against any last minute betrayal of Israel? Surely not Hillary Clinton.
Here is Rabbi Mendel Kessin talking about how he thinks Jews should vote in the upcoming US election and why. Caveat: This was apparently recorded before the release of the Donald Trump 'talkin' dirty' tape, but I doubt that would change Rabbi Kessin's mine (anyone with evidence to the contrary is invited to put it in the comments).
Let's go to the videotape.
By the way, Rabbi Kessin's biography may be found here.
Hillary Clinton campaign manager: Don't mention Israel at public events
Here's another gem from the latest release of John Podesta emails. Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook said that Clinton should not mention Israel at public campaign events.
Here's the conversation:
Re: REVISE HOME BASE TALKING POINTS FOR HRC
From:jbenenson@bsgco.com
To:
re47@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2015-05-17 17:50
Subject: Re: REVISE HOME BASE TALKING POINTS FOR HRC
Good.
Sent from my iPad
On May 17, 2015, at 3:23 PM,
Robby Mook > wrote:
I'm fine w that
On May 17, 2015, at 3:20 PM,
Dan Schwerin > wrote:
What about this as a base, and then she can drop in Israel when she's with donors:
• Fourth and finally, we have to protect our country from the global threats that we see, from terrorists to dictators to diseases – and the ones that are still over the horizon. We have to assert confident American leadership to shape global events rather than be shaped by them. That includes taking on global warming and those who continue to deny that it exists. And it means always standing up for our allies and our values, especially our fellow democracies.
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 3:09 PM,
Jake Sullivan > wrote:
I won't fall on sword over Israel but we need more than climate in that paragraph.
On May 17, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Robby Mook > wrote:
I'm w Joel. We shouldn't have Israel at public events. Especially dem activists.
On May 17, 2015, at 2:48 PM, Jake Sullivan > wrote:
She was Secretary of State.
On May 17, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Joel Benenson > wrote:
Why would we call out Israel in public events now?
The only voters elevating FP at all are Republican primary voters.
To me we deal with this in stride when an if we are asked about FP
Sent from my iPhone
On May 17, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Jake Sullivan > wrote:
We def need the etc. I think good to have Israel too.
On May 17, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Mandy Grunwald > wrote:
I though this was largely for her TP with public events not fundraisers. Do we need Israel etc for that?
Mandy Grunwald
Grunwald Communications
202 973-9400
On May 17, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Jake Sullivan > wrote:
Would add a sentence on standing up for our allies and our values, including Israel and other fellow democracies, and confronting terrorists and dictators with strength and cunning.
On May 17, 2015, at 12:12 PM, John Podesta > wrote:
3 small suggestions:
1) if we are going to talk about building the economy for tomorrow, we should work in the the words innovation and sustainable someplace. Both are dog whistle words.
2) more people are working more jobs is ambiguous and subject to different meaning. Do we mean more people are working two or more jobs?
3) I've tried this one before but in the democracy fight, I still think it's stronger to say "I'll appoint Supreme Court Justices who will protect the the right to vote and not the right of a few billionaires to buy elections." Bernie has now linked Citizens United to Court appointments which may make this more or less desirable.
On Sunday, May 17, 2015, Dan Schwerin > wrote:
I think it's very nice
On May 17, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Mandyt Grunwald wrote:
Attached is a draft of the Home Base intro talking points, using some of HRC's new language.
This reflects Joel's edits too.
Please let me know what you think.
If people are happy with this, please get to HRC.
thx
Mandy Grunwald
Grunwald Communications
202 973-9400
-----Original Message-----
From: Robby Mook
To: Mandy Grunwald
Cc: Huma Abedin ; Kristina Schake ; Dan Schwerin ; Joel Benenson ; Margolis, Jim ; John Anzalone ; David Binder ; Jennifer Palmieri ; Jake Sullivan ; John Podesta ; Jon Favreau ; Lissa Muscatine
Sent: Sat, May 16, 2015 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: Launch speech draft
Yes--that's my understanding.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Mandy Grunwald wrote:
And just to be clear -- she is looking for a tighter version of the opening she has been doing at events/fundraisers -- that is still Four Fights -- but reflects some of her favorite new additions (like mental health)-- without being a laundry list.
Is that correct?
Mandy Grunwald
Grunwald Communications
202 973-9400
-----Original Message-----
From: Huma Abedin
To: Robby Mook
Cc: Mandy Grunwald ; Kristina Schake ; Dan Schwerin ; Joel Benenson ; Jim ; John Anzalone ; David Binder ; Jennifer Palmieri ; Jake Sullivan ; John Podesta ; Jon Favreau ; Lissa Muscatine
Sent: Sat, May 16, 2015 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: Launch speech draft
Yes that would be ideal. This way she will have tomorrow afternoon/evening to review and can give feedback by Monday am.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Robby Mook < re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
Since it sounds like we won't have the paragraphs until later today and since we need the new home base by mid day tomorrow, I think we should just move forward with a revised home base using what we have right now--essentially refining the core message and four fights. I appreciate trying to start to pivot to where we want to go with the speech, but my larger concern is that she have sufficient time with the material.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Mandy Grunwald wrote:
I was hoping to see new speech paragraphs, so we could align the home base language with new announce language.
Mandy Grunwald
Grunwald Communications
202 973-9400
>
On May 16, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Kristina Schake < kschake@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>
> Huma, you mean the home base language for her message events and
> fundraisers until the launch? Basically the topper for every event
> that hits our core message before adding the issue of that day. Mandy
> is helping us write that. Mandy I know we asked you for a lot this
> weekend. Possible to do by noon tomorrow?
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
>
>>
On May 16, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Huma Abedin < ha16@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>>
>> Where are you guys on home base language? Can we get by 12pm tomorrow?
>>
>>
Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On May 14, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Dan Schwerin < dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Team, here is a first draft of the Launch Speech. Thanks to Lissa Muscatine and Jon Favreau for great work on this, and to Joel for his advice.
>>>
>>> This rough draft is very much a work in progress and there are a number of questions to consider as you read.
>>>
>>> -- At this stage, we're most concerned with structure and themes. In general, it would be great if you could focus for now on those issues rather than specific language.
>>> -- You'll see that "It's Your Time" is not in here yet. Jon and Lissa, with fresh eyes, both raised concerns that this wouldn't work well here, if at all. Joel also has concerns. So that's worth discussing.
>>> -- "The Vision Thing." This remains a challenge. As you read, does it feel like a vision for the future comes through? If not, that's a place we really need to focus.
>>> -- The Four Fights. I think nobody really loves the Four Fights but we haven't come up with a better frame for her policy agenda. If there's a great alternative, we should sell her on it. If not, we should try to make sure the Four Fights feels coherent and big enough to carry the agenda and stand up to the echo of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms.
>>> -- This is too long, so suggested cuts would be very welcome.
>>>
>>> We have committed to give HRC a draft to read over the weekend, but then we have several weeks to get this right. So it would be great for folks to send me thoughts and reactions via email tonight or tomorrow morning. And then we can look forward to more in depth conversations down the road.
>>>
>>> Thanks very much.
>>> Dan
>>> <2015-05-14 -="" 4pm.docx="" launch="" speech="">
Is Hillary pro-Israel? Or does pandering to the Democratic base preclude that? (My answers: No and Yes).
Hillary Clinton's 'facade of a peace process' would require releasing real terrorists
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
The latest Wikileaks email dump discloses that Hillary Clinton believes that a 'facade of a peace process' would be better than no peace process at all.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton wrote to her senior advisors, a few days after the Israeli elections, that she believes that a "Potemkin" peace process between Israel and the Palestinians (meaning a peace process that was only for show) was better than no peace process at all, a Clinton campaign email posted on WikiLeaks shows.
On March 23, 2016 at 8:56 P.M. Clinton's senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan emailed Clinton and John Podesta, chairman of her presidential campaign. If Clinton is elected, Sullivan is likely to be appointed White House National Security Advisor. The email sent by Sullivan included a link to a New York Times article discussing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's apology for his Election Day statement that “Arab voters are coming in droves to the ballot boxes." By the link to the article, Sullivan wrote Clinton and Podesta "Unsurprisingly, Pragmatic Bibi makes an appearance."
Seven minutes later Clinton responded positively to Netanyahu's comments quoted in the article. She wrote that Netanyahu's apology was "an opening that should be exploited," and tied it to the promoting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. "A Potemkin process is better than nothing," and referred her advisors to another New York Times article published a few days earlier in which Netanyahu's next moves as prime minister were described.
A 'Potemkin' peace process would not come without cost. Without a price in Jewish blood, the 'Palestinians' won't show up.
We had one of those during the Obama administration. We released 78 terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands to pay for it. It ended badly, with our Defense Minister under attack (and apologizing) for calling US Secretary of State John Kerry a messianic (a fair description especially if you consider this). Thanks, but no thanks.
'Senior Israeli official' told Clinton campaign they fear Clinton Presidency would be '4-year Saban forum'
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Wikileaks dumped another 2,000+ Hillary Clinton emails on Friday night, one of which contains what might be the Netanyahu government's view of a possible Clinton administration. The email is based on a discussion with a 'senior Israeli official,' who may be Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer. The email was written by Stuart Eizenstadt on December 7, 2015 to Dan Schwerin.
This is from the first link.
Dear Dan, Jake and Laura,
I had a breakfast meeting with a senior Israeli official who is very
close to the Prime Minister, and knows his thinking. He had the
following insights:
1. The Prime Minister always had a “surprising good relationship” with
Hillary; she is “easy to work with”, and that she is more instinctively
sympathetic to Israel than the White House. Even during their “famous 43 minute phone call, when he felt like slamming down the phone, he felt
she was simply heavily scripted and reading from points prepared by the
White House.
2. While the Prime Minister favors a two state solution, neither a
majority of the Likud Party nor Bennett’s party does. Indeed, a two
state solution has never been in the government guidelines in any
Likud-led government.
3. The Prime Minister hoped during his most recent meeting with the
President that the new MOU would be announced, but the White House only
wanted to announce the intention to negotiate it. He hopes it will be
concluded in the next few months. When I asked if Bunker Busting Bombs
or the new deep ordinance bomb was on the Israeli request list, he only
indicated that “there is no dispute on platforms” between the
Administration and Israel. He said the biggest issue is the amount of
money, in a lean budget situation. The Israeli Embassy is not going
around the Administration to lobby for a higher figure, although they
could probably get it. But if the figure is too low, they will wait
until the next President.
4. Missile defense funds are also critical, but they come out of the
Pentagon budget, while many of the items on the MOU list are in the
FMF/Foreign Ops budget.
5. He attended part of the Saban Forum and felt that most of the
emphasis was on the Palestinian issue, and wonders if a Clinton
Administration “will be a Saban Forum for four years”, due to “the
people around her, but not her”. Her own speech was “95% good, although
there was some moral equivalence language.”
6. We discussed possible economic initiatives to help the Palestinians,
like more Palestinian investment in Zone C, and/or an agreement to limit
settlement expansion to the established blocs that under the Clinton
parameters would be in Israel after any negotiation. He said the Prime
Minister is genuinely interested in doing positive things on the ground.
He said that they know it would have to be unilateral, and that they
can expect nothing from the Palestinian Authority. But, he said there
are the following complications:
(1) It is difficult to do while the knifings are occurring, and while
Abu Mazan is fomenting violence;
(2) So that it does not appear they are bending to violence they need
the “support” of the USG. This could include:
(a) Opposition to a new UN Resolution, which Secretary Kerry continues
to seek;
(b) Support for settlement activity in the established blocs. But the
Obama Administration will not agree to any settlement activity, even in
areas like Gilo.
(c ) It is little appreciated that despite great pressure to stop any
Palestinians from the West Bank from coming into Israel to work, the
Prime Minister had kept the flow of tens of thousands coming in every
day, recognizing how important this is to the economy of the West Bank
and to stability.
(d) The Prime Minister has also kept the VAT refund money flowing to the
PA, despite the provocative statements.
But he reiterated there is a deal to be made with the next
Administration, looking for positive steps at the outset; “it would be
easy to do”.
7. American Jews are focused on issues like BDS and Israeli legitimacy,
while Israelis are focused only on security, with the stabbings.
8. There are some in the Israeli coalition that want to dismantle the
Palestinian Authority and take over full control. But the Prime Minister
and the Defense Minster, and “certainly the military and intelligence
community”, want to keep the PA. There is still intelligence sharing on
radicals, but when Israel asks them to arrest the radicals they
identify, they refuse, and ask the Israelis to do it, and then protest
the arrests. But this is all part of a scenario of cooperation. However,
if the PA takes Israel to the International Criminal Court, this would
be a “huge problem” and a potential game changer in terms of their
relationship with the PA.
9. Abu Mazan continues to talk about retiring, as he has done for years,
but seems more serious now. There is no obvious successor if he leaves,
“other than the guy in jail” [Barghouti. CiJ].
10. Only about 2% to 4% of Israeli civilians have guns, and certainly
not the kind of assault rifles used in the US.
11. Israel Arabs are a “real problem.” The government had to dismantle
the northern branch of the Islamic Association because they were
radicalizing the Israeli Arabs, who are 20% of the population.
Best wishes,
Stu Eizenstat
I am not able to access the Haaretz columns by Barak Ravid analyzing this story (usually you can access his columns through his Twitter feed even if - like me - you refuse to pay for access to Haaretz), however the Hebrew version has a more detailed summary than the English one. That summary claims that Israel 'fears' that a Clinton administration will adopt the spirit of the Saban Forum and blame Israel for the frozen 'peace process.'
I don't quite see that in item 5 above (and yes, I'm #NeverHillary and therefore voting for Trump), although I have little doubt that Clinton will push the 'Palestinian' issue.
A Hillary supporter on why comparisons of Trump to Hitler are dangerous
The tweet above, among others, have unfortunately enabled comparisons of Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler. No matter whom we support in the US Presidential election, those comparisons are repugnant and dangerous. This was posted to Facebook by a longtime friend who supports Hillary Clinton. Since I have some readers who unfortunately still support Hillary, please at least take this to heart.
I feel the need to put this thought on my wall again. I'm seeing more
and more posts and articles analogizing Trump to Hitler. This is a very
disturbing trend for many reasons. Here's just one: we're now starting
to encounter a generation that has not met and will not meet anyone who
lived through WW-II (much less the Holocaust). When they ask 'what was
Hitler like?' and your answer [via your posts] is "Hitler was like
Trump" ask yourself will those kids understand the enormity of the evil
perpetuated by the Nazis if this is the comparison you're implanting in
their impressionable minds? Trump is bad, yes, Trump is a danger, yes,
Trump [may be] [is] a Fascist (Mussolini-style), but he is NOT a Nazi
and he is NOT Hitler. Making this comparison cheapens the evil
perpetuated by and done in the name of Der Fuehrer. [Rant over.]
Indeed. I don't think he's a fascist either, and I'm voting for him even though I would rather have seen a different Republican nominee. But in any event, those of you who compare Trump to Hitler are cheapening the Holocaust. Let your conscience deal with that.
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
