It had to happen. Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar knows exactly why Donald Trump won the US elections. Zahar told al-Jazeera the next day that Trump is - you guessed it - a Jew.
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?
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?
Just received this by email. It came out a short while ago.
Joint Statement from Jason
Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee
to Donald J. Trump
It has been an exhilarating
election cycle. Approximately seven months ago, we were blessed to have been
tapped by Donald J. Trump to be his top advisors with respect to the State of
Israel. We have been fortunate to work with a talented team of people and have
put together the below positions. Each of these positions have been discussed
with Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign, and most have been stated, in one
form or another, by Mr. Trump in various interviews or speeches given by him or
on his social media accounts. For those of you who are true friends of the
State of Israel, and for those of you who believe that the State of Israel and
the United States of America have an unbreakable friendship, we urge you to
read the below. We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who
have helped us over the past few months – we truly appreciate your efforts,
friendship and guidance. We would also like to express our gratitude to our
friend, a great friend of the State of Israel, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the
tremendous opportunity to serve in this capacity. May God bless the United
States of America and the State of Israel.
·The unbreakable bond between the
United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of
speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all
citizens to pursue their dreams.
·Israel is the state of the Jewish
people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was
founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous
odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human
dignity.
·Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S.
and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military
cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.
·The American people value our close
friendship and alliance with Israel -- culturally, religiously, and
politically. While other nations have required U.S.
troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by
themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and
diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build
in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.
·The Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first
step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure
that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and
tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit
the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give
support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel
and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings
to the table – the relationship is a two way street.
·The U.S. should veto any United
Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international
institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to
oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards
against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products
or boycotts on Israeli goods.
·The U.S. should cut off funds for the
UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by
dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s
attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt
to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence
of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.
·The U.S. should view the effort to boycott,
divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take
strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are
intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities
doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement
is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a
peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier
should be rejected.
·The Trump administration will ask the
Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to
intimidate students who support Israel.
·A two-state solution between Israel
and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are
unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to
exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA
rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united
Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated
terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek
to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and
lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the
region.
·The Palestinian leadership, including
the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations
of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews.
The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian
television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political
and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties –
Hamas and Fatah – regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.
·The U.S. cannot support the creation
of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are
celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt
diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation
of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that
discriminates against people on the basis of religion.
·The U.S. should support direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and
will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct
negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions
imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security
Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to
defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative
forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and
otherwise.
·Israel’s maintenance of defensible
borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity.
Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks
and conflict more likely.
·The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as
the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s
Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
·Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in
2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the
leading state sponsor of terrorism – putting the Middle East particularly, but
the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups
operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing
violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for
nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well
as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed
to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and
non-nuclear threats.
A few observations:
1. It would be interesting to hear with what Hillary Clinton disagrees in this statement, if anything. It's a shame that no one who can will ask her, and no public statements are likely in the next week.
2. I would love to hear this directly from Donald Trump, rather than from his advisers. He should at least release this a statement saying he agrees with everything that is here.
3. To me, these are mainstream positions, certainly in Israel and probably among Republicans in the US as well. It would behoove all of us to carry these as talking points and to see who agrees with them and who does not.
Some of you might recall that when Barack Hussein Obama was a candidate for President eight years ago, he came to Israel, and placed a note in the Western Wall that was promptly stolen out of curiosity.
So when Donald Trump sent a note to be placed in the Western Wall, he did something different. He photographed it and sent it to one of Israel's largest circulation newspapers.
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.
Yuge increase in US citizens registering to vote from Israel in US elections
The number of US citizens who have registered to vote from Israel in the upcoming US Presidential election is now approximately 120,000, as compared with 75,000 in 2012. Republicans are pleased, because most Americans in Israel tend to vote Republican - meaning for Donald Trump.
Republicans see this as a net success, since they estimate that the
vast majority of US citizens living in Israel would prefer Donald Trump
to Hillary Clinton.
Senior trump campaign staffers arrived in Israel in recent days to
meet the party's strategic team in the Holy Land. They will help them
prepare for the presidential campaign's final stretch, which will
include events in Israel.
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.
Trump and Pence to speak out at Jerusalem rally against #UNESCO_Lies, but not at Aish HaTorah
The Republican party is looking for a new location for a Jerusalem rally at which candidates Donald Trump and Mike Pence will speak via satellite, after Aish HaTorah backed out of hosting it.
Aish HaTorah rejected a request by the
Republican Party to host a rally with speeches by Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence next
Wednesday after The Jerusalem Post reported exclusively that the event would be held on the organization's rooftop over-looking the Western Wall.
Trump
and Pence agreed to speak via satellite at the rally which was billed
as an event calling for the strengthening of Jerusalem following
UNESCO's controversial decision about the city.
"We decided not to do the event, because Aish is a non-profit
that doesn't get involved in partisan politics," Aish director general
Rabbi Steven Burg told the Post.
Burg said Aish would
do its own event in response to UNESCO "because the real issue is an
unjust decision trying to erase the Jewish connection to the Temple
Mount." Burg posted The Jerusalem Post article about the rally on Facebook explaining that Aish has decided not to host the event.
He said that he had received protest letters. There was also an outcry on Twitter.
Maybe Trump should just come here and visit the Kotel (Western Wall). That's what Romney did.
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).
'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.
If you were thinking of celebrating the new United States - Israel Memorandum of Understanding signed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama this week, Eli Lake has a bunch of reasons why you shouldn't.
After all of this bad blood, in the last months of his
administration, Obama has decided to sign an agreement with Israel that
guarantees $3.8 billion per year between 2018 and 2028. On paper it
seems generous. As Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, said
Wednesday, this is the "single largest pledge of military assistance --
to any country -- in American history."
The
fine print tells a different story. The key word in Rice's statement is
"pledge." Congress is the body that appropriates the annual aid budget.
When Obama is long gone, it will be Congress that doles out the money
for Israel to spend on U.S. military equipment. So one aspect of the aid
deal should raise eyebrows: terms saying that Israel will stop making
its case directly to Congress for military aid.
Morris Amitay, a
former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, or Aipac, told me he had never before heard of a president
asking a sovereign country, as part of an aid package negotiation, not
to lobby Congress.
At first Netanyahu didn't want to give up
Israel's ability to ask Congress for more funding. But he relented. A
secret annex to the memorandum signed Wednesday requires Israel to forgo
any funding Congress would want to give it that exceeds what was in the
aid agreement that expires in 2018.
It's unclear how restrictive
the lobbying restriction will actually be. Israel doesn't lobby Congress
much. Far more pro-Israel lobbying is done by Aipac, which comprises
U.S. citizens. Could an agreement between Israel and the U.S. limit the
rights of Americans to petition Congress? When I put this question to
Aipac's spokesman, Marshall Wittman, he told me: "The agreement, of
course, is only between the two governments. When the two governments
reach an agreement on an issue, we give that factor great weight." For
the time being, Aipac says it will lobby Congress to enact the terms of
the new 10-year aid agreement signed on Wednesday.
Obama's 11th-hour
aid deal is less than it seems, not only because the White House cannot
appropriate and because the lobbying restriction is off target, but
also because Obama's successors may not honor his pledge. Obama himself
discarded an agreement with Israel's leaders that was made by George W.
Bush and supported by Congress, to accept the legitimacy of some
settlements in and around Jerusalem. (That agreement was made as part of
negotiations to get Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.)
The
White House also got its way on another key issue known as the
"off-shore procurement" carve out, whereby Israel is allowed to spend
around 26 percent of the U.S. aid on its own defense industry. In the new aid deal, Israel will spend all of the U.S. subsidy on U.S. defense equipment by 2024.
In
this sense the U.S. aid to Israel is a subsidy to American defense
companies. The U.S. also retains the leverage that comes from
subsidizing around 20 percent of a sovereign nation's defense budget.
Of
course, Israel doesn't even need the money. When the U.S. began giving
Israel serious military assistance in the 1960s, the country's planned
economy was minuscule. In the 1970s it faced a very real boycott, backed
by wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia (as opposed to an inconsequential
boycott backed by U.S. and European college professors). Back then, the
Jewish State really needed as much help as it could get.
Today,
Israel's economy is thriving. In the last 10 years, the country's gross
domestic product has nearly doubled, to $230 billion. Israel has
discovered great deposits of natural gas. Its lawmakers in recent years
have discussed starting a sovereign wealth fund. Israel is a key partner
with the U.S. arms industry.
I've heard it claimed that Netanyahu agreed to this because he 'fears' that if elected President, Donald Trump will force Israel to repay aid money. If that were true, as Lake points out, this deal would not stop Trump from doing that.
I suspect that the quid pro quo is much more immediate and relates to the Obama administration's behavior at the United Nations over its last four months in office.
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
