Hillary Clinton is trying to keep the Jewish money flowing by suggesting privately she will be better for Israel than President Obama, according to Politico.
And you know what? It will probably work. The people of my tribe vote Democratic every time – and donate the same way – despite the abundant, irrefutable evidence that Republicans are far more supportive of Israel than Democrats. Not to mention better for the economy, but one can at least have an argument about that.
From the piece:
Hillary Clinton is privately signaling to wealthy Jewish donors that — no matter the result of the Iranian nuclear negotiations — she will be a better friend to Israel than President Barack Obama.
But, even as donors increasingly push Clinton on the subject in private, they have emerged with sometimes widely varying interpretations about whether she would support a prospective deal, according to interviews with more than 10 influential donors and fundraising operatives.
Clinton’s private responses in some ways resemble a foreign policy Rorschach test; donors who see a deal as important to world peace have come away thinking that Clinton shares their perspective, but so, too, do donors who oppose any prospective agreement as compromising Israeli security.
Publicly, she’s expressed support for the negotiating process, which she secretly initiated during her time as secretary of state, but has also said “no deal is better than a bad deal.”
Well, this is easy enough for her, isn’t it? After all, being better than Obama to Israel is not much of a commitment.
A new insider book by former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren will provide “an incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama administration toward the Jewish state,” according to writer John Podhoretz.
Oren was ambassador from 2009-2013 and is, as Podhoretz notes, no “flame-breathing Israeli right-winger.”
Rather, he was actually suckered by Obama’s promises of “hope and change.” Until, apparently, he found out that part of the “change” applied to George W. Bush’s stalwart support for Israel.
On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with.
Example: The Palestinian Authority made moves toward seeking a declaration of statehood at the United Nations in 2011, which would’ve triggered a law shutting down their US mission and suspending all aid to the PA and to UN agencies that recognized Palestine.
In response, Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides called Oren into his fancy Foggy Bottom office and screamed at him: “You don’t want the f - - - ing UN to collapse because of your f - - - ing conflict with the Palestinians, and you don’t want the f - - - ing Palestinian Authority to fall apart either.” To which Oren replied that Israel didn’t want the United Nations to collapse, “but there are plenty of Tea Party types who would, and no shortage of Congress members who are wondering why they have to keep paying Palestinians who spit in the president’s eye.” He reports that Nides “slumped into his Louis XVth chair.”
Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the president was angry about something having to do with the peace process.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was heckled, jeered, and booed as he spoke Sunday to a conference organized by the Jerusalem Post.
Clearly, those in attendance understand the enormous peril posed by the Obama administration’s appeasement of Iran. And so, naturally, they reacted with anger as Lew artlessly read the administration’s propaganda off his teleprompter, no doubt assuming that a rote recitation of the White House nonsense on Iran would suffice.
It didn’t. These people know better.
Have a look. In this video, the anger heats up and hits crescendo during the final 30 seconds.
This next video has some further outtakes, showing the point at which audience members are simply having none of Lew’s nonsense.
Lew, an orthodox Jew and a Very Powerful Person, assumed Jewish audience members would just take him at his word that Obama stands with Israel, even though everything Obama does – from striking a deal that will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapons to dissing Netanyahu – suggests that he stands elsewhere.
Lew has no business being Treasury Secretary in the first place. He has limited experience outside of the government in any field related to the work of the Treasury. He is instead someone whom Obama could count on to spout the Party Line. Nice to see him get a comeuppance for trying to sell his fellow Jews a bill of goods.
Haven’t seen a senior government official so ignominiously shouted down since this.
President Obama told Israeli TV in an interview broadcast Tuesday that a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal is not going to happen under his watch.
Secretary of State John Kerry, you may remember, wasted two years trying to arrange a Nobel Peace Prize for himself by seeking to force the two sides together into an agreement neither was particularly interested in reaching at the moment.
Fortunately, with the Iran deal, Kerry has a new path toward a Nobel Prize, which at least has given him something else to do.
Instead blaming himself for the failure – this of course could never happen – Obama blamed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, saying Bibi had “lost credibility” in the quest for peace. Somehow, the Palestinians, who are led in part by terrorists and regularly launch bombs on the heads of the Israelis, retain their peacenik creds.
“I don’t see the likelihood of a framework agreement,” Obama said in an interview with Uvda, a current-affairs program produced by Israel’s top-rated Channel Two and Keshet television. “The question is how do we create some building blocks of trust and progress.”
While Obama has acknowledged the geographical and ideological divisions among Palestinians that have bedeviled peace efforts, in the interview — taped in the White House on Friday — he focused on Netanyahu’s policies . . .
Obama said Netanyahu’s position “has so many caveats, so many conditions that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met at any time in the near future.
“So the danger is that Israel as a whole loses credibility. Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution.”
Meanwhile, the president apparently proclaimed himself an honorary Jew, telling advisor David Axelrod at one point, “You know, I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office,” and adding, “For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.”
Anyway, no doubt the closest thing to a Jew will soon be launching retributive actions against Israel in the UN for it’s failure to make peace with enemies sworn to destroy it.
Now that’s touching. Then why is President Obama negotiating a deal with Iran which, by his own reckoning, will within 15 years allow the Iranians a nuclear “breakout time” of a nanosecond?
Obama spoke to Israeli TV during an interview that is being broadcast there this week, according to The Blaze:
I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement. A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.
As usual, Obama presents the choice as between his deal and military action. He ignores Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s whole point, made during his address to Congress, which was that a tougher deal is necessary.
And how, BTW, does Obama know a massive military operation, coupled with sanctions, will not put and end to this? The infrastructure Iran has pieced together was very laboriously acquired and built over many years.
Obama was asked whether he could you imagine a scenario in which Netanyahu goes it alone with the military option:
What I can say is, to the Israeli people: I understand your concerns and I understand your fears.
Maybe he understands everyone’s fears. What he doesn’t understand is the patience and determination of the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon.
Here’s the video. There’s a bit of a Hebrew lesson involved, but the Obama remarks come up soon enough.
What’s going on here? The Israelis have picked up on something President Obama said in his interview with Tom Friedman, which appeared Saturday in the New York Times.
It appears the goal posts might have been moved a little bit, turning a 50-yard field goal try into an extra point kick.
“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it,” Obama told Friedman.
On my watch? Uhh, I thought the goal was to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon on ANYONE’S watch.
Well, Obama possibly has prevented Iran from getting the bomb during the next two years. But as Obama himself said, probably accidentally, “What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
By then, Obama will be on the golf course EVERY DAY and President Chelsea Clinton will be dealing with it.
Sorry, didn’t mean to scare you while we were having a nice little discussion about Iranian nuclear weapons.
Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations – talk about thankless jobs – Dan Gillerman expressed urgent alarm:
Mr. President, this is not about your watch. This is about the Iranian clock, which is racing towards a nuclear device . . . this is about the life of our children and our grandchildren as well as your grandchildren. So if you don’t care what happens in 20 months, when you leave the White House, we do . . . I think the way that the president is trying to appease Iran is very similar to the appeasement of Hitler.
Gillerman also took strong exception to the White House insult of Prime Minister Netanyahu, done with a tweet mocking Netanyahu’s attempt to delineate the Iranian threat with a drawing of a bomb.
Strong words here from someone who served for years as a spokesman for Israel to the international community.
President Obama, like most liberals, is under the unfortunate and rather self-indulgent misimpression that the rest of the world is just like us.
That’s why Obama and his friends have a hard time being American exceptionalists. That’s why they trust, but aren’t really serious about verify, and to the extent they are, they blithely assume that someone’s going to let them in to verify in the first place. That’s why they don’t see anything wrong with subsuming the country within horde after horde of illegal immigration. Because ultimately, we’re all the same deep down inside, aren’t we?
But are populations that seek to murder other populations the same as us, even, ya know, underneath it all? I sure hope not.
During his press conference this week with Afghan President Ghani, Obama offered his latest glimpse into the attitude the underlies his hope for partnership with the Iranians and the moral equivalence he attaches to the two sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
But I am required to evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli-Palestinian relations over the next several years. Because up until this point, the premise has been, both under Republican and Democratic administrations, that as different as it was, as challenging as it was, the possibility of two states living side by side in peace and security could marginalize more extreme elements, bring together folks at the center and with some common sense, and we could resolve what has been a vexing issue and one that is ultimately a threat to Israel as well.
The presupposes that “folks at the center” among the Palestinians have goodwill and “some common sense.” But in reality, these folks have some very disconcerting views.
According to a just-released poll of Palestinians by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, sixty eight percent support the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israel if the current security blockade imposed by Israel is not lifted. The blockade was established as a protective measure after the Palestinians voted Hamas, a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel, into the government and then Hamas seized full control of Gaza.
Launching rockets. On the heads of children.
Half of Palestinians polled support resumption of an armed Intifada, which mainly involves targeting and killing Israeli civilians.
Seventy four percent favor the “Hamas way” of resisting occupation, and 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the West Bank.
Only half of Palestinians polled support a two-state solution, with the other half presumably hoping to drive Israelis into the sea and reclaim the whole place for the Arabs. AND JUST BECAUSE ONE SUPPORTS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IN THE SHORT RUN DOESN’T MEAN THE ULTIMATE GOAL ISN’T A SINGLE STATE. It is. Talk to almost any Muslim Arab.
Only 39 percent support recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people in return for an Israeli recognition of Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people.
Most Palestinians do not support negotiations with Israel. Thirty seven percent believe that armed confrontation is the most effective route to statehood, 30 percent support “non-violent resistance,” and just 29 percent back negotiation.
Obama exists in his own world of presumptuous fantasies. The Israelis actually have to live in Israel, surrounded by Palestinians and other hostile Arabs, which is why they elected Netanyahu, despite Obama’s objections.
I have new piece running at the top of the Reuters opinion section this morning, “The Republican road to the White House runs through Israel.” The gist of it is that Israel is going to become a huge issue in the 2016 election and that Republicans will benefit – both against each other and the against… Continue Reading
It was difficult to ascertain exactly what President Obama was trying to say today during his press conference when he addressed the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations. But as far as I can tell, what’s going on is that the U.S. stance toward Israel is going to become confrontational, and the United States will join other countries… Continue Reading
I’m beginning to wonder if President Obama is going to provoke another Intifada. What has happened is clear. Secretary of State Kerry tried to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize – and who knows, a second for Obama? – by negotiating a “peace” agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now that this didn’t work,… Continue Reading
Well, President Obama finally called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Thursday evening to “congratulate” him on his election victory, but it wasn’t your typical congratulatory call. It was congratulations, Obama style. It’s a little like congratulating someone on their wedding by saying, I hope you get divorced soon. During the call, according to the New York… Continue Reading
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today declined to accept Israeli Prime Minister Netayahu’s reversal today of his earlier rejection – which had been made during the final moments of a campaign – of a two state solution, saying the White House “reevaluation” of its stance toward Israel would go forward. Why? I’ll tell you… Continue Reading