Friday, May 19, 2017

Four Timely Comments. Nothing Stops The Clinton" and Democrats. Have A Great Memorial Day Weekend!

This from a dear, clear eyed  and logical friend and fellow memo reader. (See 1 below.)

My response: "It is not a mess,  it is a flagrant fraudulent act of perfidy.  Me"
Tobin believes Trump has turned wimp when it comes to Israel. (See 2 below.)
I picked this up before I left.


Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center, Amb. Alan Baker

In anticipation of the upcoming visit of President Trump to Israel, statements have been made by various sources regarding issues involved in the peace negotiation process, including the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the location of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, the Palestinian willingness to make peace, and Israel’s settlements.
The following four comments address these issues.

The U.S. Consulate Comments Regarding the Western Wall

U.S. Jerusalem consulate staff, part of the White House advance team, charged that the area of the Western Wall “is not your [Israel’s] territory,” is part of the West Bank, and Israel does not have jurisdiction there.1 Their remarks are indicative of a worrying mindset maintained by the Jerusalem consulate staff.
This flawed and even hostile conviction has developed over the years as a result of a strict separation maintained by U.S. Administrations between the Tel Aviv embassy, accredited to the State of Israel, and its Jerusalem consulate. The consulate defines itself as “an independent mission that serves Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.” The consulate’s website adds that “…since the signing of the Oslo Accords, the Consulate General has served as the de facto representative of the United States government to the Palestinian Authority.”2
This situation emanates from the American refusal to recognize any part of Jerusalem – whether western Jerusalem (since 1948) or eastern Jerusalem (since 1967) – as part of the State of Israel.
The U.S. Jerusalem consulate reports only and directly to the State Department. It is not part of, nor subject to the authority of the U.S. diplomatic mission to the State of Israel.
It is, in fact, perceived, by the State Department and especially by its own staff, as being the informal U.S. embassy to the Palestinians. As such it functions to further Palestinian interests and identifies itself with Palestinian concerns.
The above-noted comment by the consular officials regarding the status of the Western Wall brings to the fore a long-existing and serious flaw in the U.S. policy towards Israel.
The wide, liberal, and independent political latitude practiced by the consular staff and their manifest enmity to Israel and animosity to Israeli citizens requiring consular services would appear to be at odds with the basic tenor and positions of this U.S. Administration.
Whatever decision will ultimately be made regarding the physical location of the United States’ Israel embassy, it is high time that the role and the activity of the U.S. Jerusalem consulate, including the attitude of its staff, be placed under serious review, with the aim of bringing them into line with the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Threats against U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

According to media reports, officials at the U.S. State Department, U.S. Defense Department, and the U.S. intelligence community have warned the White House that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would be “harmful to the peace process and carry broader regional risks.”
The warning echoed sentiments coming from within the White House as well as those of Gulf states, Arab diplomats, and the Palestinian leadership.
Such warnings may well emanate from viewpoints and opinions held by various administration officials based on past U.S. policies and positions over the years. However, since such policies never achieved progress in the peace process, they can no longer be considered relevant, useful, or effective.
In fact, they represent a misreading of the present political and legal situation, as well as being at odds with Congressional directives and legislation.
Above all, they are the result of a distinct policy of intimidation aimed at preventing any anticipated change or innovation in the handling of the peace process, as well as preventing the realization of assurances voiced by the President on this matter.
The contrary viewpoint has no less, and even more, merit.
As long as the Administration allows itself to be intimidated by threats, it cannot expect to be considered credible regarding this or any other issue that may come up in the political negotiating process.
The effectiveness of such intimidation in limiting the actions of the Administration will, of necessity, be viewed by the Palestinian leadership and Arab states as American weakness and a green light for maximalist demands. It will serve as a precedent for any other controversial issue and is tantamount to allowing external elements to dictate to the U.S. president.
Substantively, the fact that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel is an accepted, legal, historical, and political fact. Continued reticence and hesitation by the U.S. Administration are indicative of a continuing American reservation to that fact, something that is clearly incompatible with the positive relationship between the two countries.
The agreed issue to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations is that of the status of the eastern part of Jerusalem. Both the Palestinians and Israel have agreed, in the Oslo Accords, to which the U.S. President is a signatory, to negotiate this issue.
Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would in no way prejudice this negotiation on Jerusalem, and in any event, the diplomatic and consular jurisdiction of the embassy vis-à-vis the eastern part of Jerusalem would be subject to the outcome of such negotiation.
Accordingly, the above-noted threat is an empty one intended to intimidate the United States and to stunt the U.S. sovereign prerogative to locate its embassy wherever it wishes. Not only will it not harm the peace progress, but it will serve as a boost to invigorate and encourage progress in that peace process.

Palestinian Willingness to Make Concessions

Several sources, including World Jewish Congress president Ron Lauder, have opined that the Palestinian leader Abbas is prepared to make concessions and to reach a peace deal with Israel.3
In his statement after meeting President Trump, Abbas stated: “Our strategic option, our strategic choice is to bring about peace based on the vision of two states, a Palestinian state, with its capital of east Jerusalem that lives in peace and stability with the state of Israel based on the borders of 1967.” 4
So far so good, but Lauder’s view would appear to be overly naïve, to the extent of “wishful thinking,” and both misleading and dishonest on the part of Abbas.
The Palestinian leadership is far from moderate, by any standard. Even without Hamas incitement, it engages in an officially-sanctioned policy of “de-normalization” vis-à-vis Israel. The leadership, including Abbas, officially supports acts of violence, and praises, memorializes, and encourages Palestinian terrorists. It finances the families of mega-terrorists serving prison sentences, thereby further encouraging and rewarding acts of terror.
Just days ago, on May 15, 2017, President Abbas declared in India, “”Our people will not leave behind the issue of the Nakba until all their legitimate national rights are recognized, without exception – and first and foremost the right of return and the right to self-determination and establishing an independent, fully sovereign state in the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.”5 [Emphasis added.]
Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have consistently refused to resume negotiations, nor to meet or to enter into any dialogue with Israel’s leaders. They insist on the “right of return” which is tantamount to the destruction of Israel. They block contacts between Palestinians and Israelis at the diplomatic, professional, and people-to-people levels. This policy runs counter to Palestinian commitments in the Oslo Accords to encourage the development of cooperation and “people-to-people dialogues” at all levels.
The Palestinian leadership initiates and openly supports boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) aimed at the delegitimization of Israel in international and regional organizations, international tribunals, and the UN and its specialized agencies. The leadership has initiated criminal charges against Israel’s leaders in the International Criminal Court.
In the context of discussions concerning “two states for two peoples,” the Palestinian leadership has consistently refused to accept the concept of Israel as the democratic nation state of the Jewish People.

Israeli Settlements and the Peace Process

In a recent statement, White House sources declared that “new Israeli settlements in Palestinian-occupied territories may not be helpful in resolving the decades-old conflict.”6
According to the Oslo Accords, the issue of Israel’s settlements is an open, agreed-upon negotiating issue between the Palestinians and Israel. Pending attainment of a negotiated settlement, the Oslo Accords place no freeze or restriction on either Israel or the Palestinians to engage in planning, zoning, and construction in areas under their respective control.
Accordingly, arbitrary and unilateral predetermination as to the legitimacy of settlements, and any call for their removal prior to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians are inconsistent with the agreements and constitute prejudgment of a negotiating issue.
The claim that the settlements are the source of the conflict holds no logic. The Arab-Israel conflict existed long before the establishment of any settlement, with efforts by the Arab states in 1948 to prevent the establishment of the state of Israel and their ongoing efforts since then to bring about its demise.


It is hoped that President Trump and his close advisers are conversant with the above points and will not allow themselves to be confused or deceived by empty threats and unrealistic and irresponsible statements.
* * *
Amb. Alan Baker is Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center and the head of the Global Law Forum. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.
See I always said the Democrats play hard ball and we already know the Clinton's will stop at nothing.  (See 3 below.)
We left later than I thought we would so had the chance to put together and e mail one last memo.
Have a Great Memorial Day weekend.
1) Dick, through all the Obama scandals there was never a call for a special counsel.  This includes the IRS crap, Benghazi, Clinton's pay for play and the server at home junk, ATF guns to Mexico, etc.  Now, after just four months, and with no crime on the table, we have a special counsel. And the Administration is fighting off a determined media out to destroy Trump, a Democratic party determined to bring him down, Republicans that are Never Trumpers, a rabble that refuses to acknowledge the results of the election and willing to riot, GOP office holders that are ever sniping the president, universities that deny freedom of speech and probably others.
What a mess. A--
2)New York Post

President Trump was elected as the outsider who would topple the establishment and toss its conventional wisdom and past mistakes into the dustbin of history.
In some respects, he has played true to form, and his unconventional behavior has driven some of the controversies that have gotten him into hot water. But on foreign policy and specifically his attitude toward Israel and Jerusalem, Trump the outsider has become Trump the wimp.
Perhaps those who expected Trump to be the first president to make good on the promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were kidding themselves. But Trump not only said it repeatedly; his first major Middle East appointment indicated he meant business. By naming attorney David Friedman, ardent supporter of Israel, as his ambassador to the Jewish state, the president was signaling the foreign-policy establishment that he wouldn’t be playing by their rules.
Having a complete outsider running the embassy wasn’t just going to help reverse President Obama’s effort to create more “daylight” between Israel and the United States. It was also a down payment on rejecting the legal fiction that Jerusalem — even the Western portion within the 1967 lines — wasn’t part of the state of Israel. But despite Friedman’s confirmation, nothing has changed in US policy toward Israel.
To the contrary, on the eve of Trump’s visit to Israel next week, the administration confirmed that the embassy won’t be moved anytime soon — and that Trump isn’t even prepared to acknowledge that the Western Wall is part of the Jewish state. When the Israeli government asked to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accompany Trump to the Wall, they were shot down and reportedly told that as far as the Americans were concerned, the holy site was part of the West Bank.
Though the White House disavowed that comment, the assurance rang false when National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster wouldn’t say if he thought the Wall was in Israel.
Part of the problem is that Trump has come under the influence of mainstream figures like McMaster, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. With respect to issues like NATO, they are giving Trump good advice. But on Israel, they may be feeding him the same myths that drove Obama to put pressure on the Jewish state rather than the Palestinians.
Trump has also been tempted to think he’s the man who can solve the puzzle of Middle East peace that eluded his predecessors. He may be different from previous presidents, but like them he has allowed himself to be bamboozled by a Palestinian leader.
Trump seems to have believed the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas when he claimed he opposed terror and the anti-Semitic incitement that fuels the conflict, even though Abbas continues to subsidize terrorists and anti-Israel propaganda in PA schools and media. Yet rather than holding Abbas accountable, Trump is leaving in place the old policy on Jerusalem so as to avoid antagonizing his new friend.
The problem here isn’t just that Trump’s ego has gotten the better of his judgment.
Moving the embassy or recognizing that Jerusalem is part of Israel may generate violence in the Muslim world. But by adhering to the same discredited policies that don’t recognize that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and that for the first time in history the city’s holy places are open to all faiths, Trump is going to get the same disastrous results as Obama.
So long as the Palestinians are allowed to get away with delegitimizing Jewish rights even at the Western Wall, they won’t make peace.
Only by forcing them to accept the reality of Jewish Jerusalem will they come to grips with the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Reinforcing their delusions, as Trump has done, will make peace even less likely.
Trump will have an opportunity to correct this mistake by going off-script when he’s in Israel next week. But if he doesn’t, it’ll be clear that at least as far as the Middle East is concerned, the brash outsider has become a captive of his establishment minders.
Jonathan S. Tobin is opinion editor of and a contributing writer to National Review.
3)While the Democrats are frantically trying to push their Russia conspiracy theory forward, news just broke today that completely undermines the Left’s entire narrative.

There was a murder last year that got minimal headlines. Seth Rich (shown above) was a staffer at the Democratic National Committee. He was found murdered on the street last year in Washington DC. Police described the killing as a robbery gone wrong, but all of Seth’s valuables - including his wallet and phone - were still in his pocket. Twelve days later, Wikileaks released a trove of internal DNC emails showing staffers colluding to help Hillary Clinton defeat Bernie Sanders. None of the DNC’s leaked emails were sent or received after Seth’s death.
It didn’t take long for internet theorists to put two-and-two together. A DNC staffer gets murdered in cold blood and just days later, Wikileaks releases tens of thousands of emails belonging to the organization he worked for. At the time, Wikileaks’ Founder Julian Assange offered a reward to anyone with information about Seth’s murder.
As the weeks passed, the investigation faded from the headlines. But a third party hired an investigator to begin looking into his killing.

Just this morning, news broke that the investigator uncovered evidence that Seth Rich had been emailing Wikileaks before he was murdered. Not only that, but the investigator and law enforcement sources confirmed that the investigation was being deliberately stalled by the Washington DC Police. They are trying to bury this.
As you remember, the DNC never allowed the FBI to access their “hacked” servers. Yet, James Comey’s investigators were able to conclude that the Russians hacked the Democratic Party, without ever examining the hardware. A Federal investigator has since confirmed to FoxNews that Rich was in email communication with Wikileaks.

For months, Seth Rich’s name has been synonymous with conspiracy theories. Not anymore. Now, major news outlets are confirming that the DNC staffer was killed after communicating with Wikileaks. Coincidence?
There is a key difference between Donald Trump and the Democratic Party: When government employees leak damaging information, Donald Trump doesn’t have them murdered…

The liberal media is now scrambling to try to convince us that this is just a coincidence. They claim that it is purely coincidental that a DNC staffer was murdered just days after apparently leaking thousands of DNC emails to Wikileaks. The investigator claims that FBI reports show Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks’ Director, Gavin MacFadyen. It would be great to get Gavin’s perspective, but he is also dead.

So what do we have. We have a DNC staffer dead, reportedly in a robbery even though the attacker didn’t take his valuables. Wikileaks published leaked emails from the Democratic Party just 12 days after Seth’s death. Months later, FBI Director Comey announced that Russia was behind the “hack,” even though he never even asked for access to the server. Instead of relying on Federal Law Enforcement to investigate, Comey simply accepted the DNC’s own report as fact.

We know that in 2015, Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta emailed Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager, about leaks in the organization. Podesta told Mook, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”

Mook responded, “I would love an example being made.” That is ominous...

Now, nearly a year later, the truth is starting to come out. Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and shortly there after, he was gunned down in the street. The private investigator has come forward and accused the DC Police of stonewalling the investigation. Law enforcement officers have confirmed the allegations.

Here at Conservative Daily, we don’t deal in conspiracy theories. That is why even with all the suspicious information surrounding this over the past year, we never covered it. But we can’t stay quiet on this anymore. When you take these new details and combine it with the fact that James Comey determined that Russia was responsible without even examining the DNC’s servers, there are simply more questions than answers.
The Democrats are demanding that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate “Russian hacking.” Now that we know it wasn’t the Russians, how about we give them what they want?

None of this passes the smell test. None of it at all.

While the entire Democratic Party is accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians to hack their emails, it is looking more and more like the “hacking” was done by a disgruntled DNC staffer who was fed up with watching the Party collude with the Clinton Campaign. While the Democrats are accusing Trump of firing Comey to derail the Russia investigation, it turns out that it was Comey who derailed the DNC “hacking” investigation.

There is more evidence here that Seth Rich was killed for leaking than there is evidence proving Trump “colluded” with the Russians. And yet, the Republicans in Congress keep giving the Democrats exactly what they want.
No more.

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

No comments: