Support, Among Liberals, For America and Israel Is Declining. Hillarious, Billious and Glass Steagall!

Those Pesky Islamist Terrorists Who Shoot Down
Planes and Obama Cannot Bring  Himself To Name
Them Because To Do So Would Be Politically
Unseemly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let bygones be bygones. (See 1, 1a and 1b below)

I purposely repeated 1b for those who may not understand where Netanyahu stands vis a vis a deal with the Palestinians and why he is a shrewd and successful politician.  Israel remains a land mine of political intrigue.

Support for Israel among liberals is declining but then support for America among liberals is also declining. 

Liberals want America to embrace socialism, get rid of its armed forces and transfer all wealth, in the form of handouts, to the poor.  They also seem to oppose free speech and would eliminate citizen's right to own weapons. Their religion is PC'ism. (See 1c below.) 
===
Hillary is going to appoint her husband "Billious" to get our economy back on track. Then she walked her comment back a bit.

Few remember, "Billious" helped bring about the worst recession in our entire history when he signed legislation repealing The Glass Steagall Act, which prevented banks from engaging in investment banking.  (The Glass–Steagall legislation was enacted by the United States Congress in 1933 as part of the 1933 Banking Act, amended as part of the 1935 Banking Act, and most of it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA).)

In other words, Billious de-regulated Wall Street which led to wild and speculative activity on the part of banks something Glass Steagall was passed to prevent following "The Great Depression."

Was Hillary signalling, by her comment about "Billious," she was paying Wall Street for sponsoring her speaking engagements which support their life style.

I have written in many previous memos,  I know of no one act more responsible for our most recent economic debacle than the repeal of GS.

The mere idea of allowing her husband to prowl the halls of The White House in control of our economy is ludicrous and for young women working there has to be frightening.

Better Hillarious put Billious in charge of the D.C. Zoo!
===
Have a lot of packing and odds and ends to do before leaving for Litchfield Beach so this is last memo for about 2 weeks. I know, I have said that before but this time it is a credible comment.

Have a great time while I am away.
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Abbas: We Are Guilty of Incitement, But 'Let's Leave Everything in the Past'

By Deborah Dana

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the French initiative for reviving the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, saying his failure to do so “will bring the Islamic State to Israel.”

“If we don’t revive the peace process, the violence and radicalism from Syria will come here,” Abbas said. “The Islamic State and the Al-Nusra Front will reach Israel and the West Bank.”

Speaking in Ramallah to a delegation from the left-wing Meretz party, Abbas also admitted that there was incitement to violence against Israelis in official Palestinian media and government-issued textbooks: “Yes, there is incitement in our textbooks and on television.”

However, he said that the problem could easily be resolved: “Let’s solve the problem and revive the incitement commission that was agreed upon [between Israel and the Palestinian Authority] 16 years ago.” “The commission [which is chaired by the United States] will determine what needs to be corrected,” Abbas said.

“Let’s leave everything in the past and let’s meet,” Abbas continued. “When two sides are invited to a meeting, one cannot present preconditions. It’s the international community that should determine what is right and what isn’t.”

This week, Netanyahu told French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault that he was opposed to the idea of a peace conference in Paris, claiming that the only way forward is direct negotiations between the two sides.

Abbas refused to comment on why he continues to reject Israel’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also slammed the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. “The Israeli government is building settlements on Palestinian land,” Abbas said. “We will not agree to a situation whereby a new settlement and a new checkpoint are cropping up all the time.” “The entire world is against settlements. This is the position taken by the Americans and the Europeans. There have been 12 Security Council resolutions against settlements. Stop them,” he added.

Asked whether he has lost faith in Netanyahu and his ability in negotiating peace, Abbas answered cryptically:

“Ever since we started negotiating with the Israelis, we’ve been talking to every prime minister. I can’t say whether I believe him or not, or whether I’ve lost faith in him.”

However, at one stage he addressed Netanyahu directly:

When the whip is over my head, you can’t tell me to stop. You have to stop. You say that there is no partner for negotiations and that your hand is outstretched for talks. You want to pick someone else [with whom to negotiate]? The Israelis picked you and the Palestinians picked me. I’m a “diplomatic terrorist,” as [former foreign minister Avigdor] Liberman put it. Besides that, there’s nothing you can say about me.

“Put it all to the side and let’s negotiate,” Abbas said. “We aren’t far apart [physically] and we cooperate on a daily basis. Don’t push us to the wall. We will all lose.”

Abbas praised the French initiative to the Meretz officials. Meretz is the only non-Arab party that has publicly backed the French plan.

“The French plan is a good one since we want the international community to take responsibility for this endless conflict,” Abbas said. “We want the whole word by our side. We are one of the last remaining nations that suffer under military occupation. How much longer will this go on? How much longer will the world permit one people to control another?”

1a) Netanyahu Welcomes Egypt's Peace Overture, Rejects French Initiative

By James Abbott

President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said Tuesday that Egypt’s relations with Israel, rooted in a landmark 1979 peace treaty, can only be “warmer” if his country’s former enemy reached a settlement with the Palestinians, and he pledged that Cairo would “make every effort” toward a solution.

The Egyptian leader also declared his support for a French proposal to hold a Mideast peace conference, an idea already rejected by Israel, citing it along with U.S. efforts, a 2002 Arab peace plan and the international Mideast peace quartet as possible avenues to such a settlement.

“I welcome Egyptian President El-Sisi’s remarks and his willingness to make every effort to advance a future of peace and security between us and the Palestinians and the peoples of the region,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “Israel is ready to participate with Egypt and other Arab states in advancing both the diplomatic process and stability in the region. I appreciate President El-Sisi’s work and also draw encouragement from his leadership on this important issue.”

Netanyahu has rejected the French initiative, saying direct negotiations were the only way to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. He is on record as saying the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative has some positive aspects, but could not be the basis for negotiations. The Arab peace plan offers Israel full recognition by Arab states in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from territory it captured in the 1967 Six Day War.

In one of his most detailed public comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since taking office nearly two years ago, el-Sissi called on Israel and the Palestinians to seize what he described as a “realistic” and “great” opportunity to reach a peaceful settlement to their decades-old conflict, saying they need look no farther than the Egypt-Israel accord to see the positive outcome of peacemaking.

He said the “trust” that exists between Egypt and Israel nearly 40 years after their peace accord is demonstrated in Israel’s consent to the deployment of Egyptian troops backed by warplanes and armor in a section of the Sinai Peninsula that borders Israel and should be demilitarized under the provisions of their peace accord. The deployment is part of Cairo’s fight against Islamic terrorists.

Egypt and Israel fought four full-fledged wars between 1948 and 1973 before the two neighbors signed the 1979 treaty, the first between Israel and an Arab state.

Acknowledging the widely held assessment that his country’s peace with Israel has been “cool,” the Egyptian leader said: “There will be no warmer peace without a solution for our Palestinian brothers. If we do that (reach an Israeli-Palestinian settlement), we will have changed a very difficult era … I have genuine hope.”

France planned to host a ministerial meeting of 20 countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as a first step ahead of an international conference tentatively scheduled for next month and aimed at reviving the dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Addressing Israelis and their government, el-Sissi said there was a “real opportunity” for peacemaking although some in Israel did not think peace is possible now, given the turmoil in the region. An Israeli-Palestinian deal, he added, would “give safety and stability to both sides. If this is achieved, we will enter a new phase that perhaps no one can imagine now.”

“I want to say to all those listening, Palestinians and Israelis: Please, there is now a great opportunity for a better future and life and greater hope and stability,” el-Sissi said. “Should not we seize the chance and move in that framework?”

1b)

What Israel’s New Coalition Means

BY JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

What just happened in Israel? When the dust settled after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s attempts to widen his coalition ended in apparent success, the result was a more right-wing government. That’s an accurate observation and will, no doubt, bring down more opprobrium 

on the government from foreign critics, especially American liberals, that will see it as 

unalterably opposed to peace. But the process that led to this result tells us something 

different.

While in the end, Netanyahu chose to make a deal that would expand his coalition with a right

-wing party, the fact that the party he jilted at the last moment was the leading opposition 

faction illustrates the fact that on the really big issue facing the Israeli people — how to deal 

with the Palestinians and the peace process — there are no real differences between any of the mainstream parties. Though politics in Israel will remain fractious and nasty, no one should 

imagine that what has just happened demonstrates the prime minister’s weakness or that his approach to war and peace issues is discredited. To the contrary, the competition to sit at the 

Cabinet table with him shows that he not only remains in control of events but is also sitting 

in the political center of the nation rather than on the right as his foreign detractors think.

Having survived more than a year since his third election win in a row with a razor thin 61-

member coalition in the 120-seat Knesset, Netanyahu was determined to expand his margin 

for error, and he has apparently succeeded. After a very public flirtation and what apparently 

were substantive negotiations with the Zionist Union — the nation’s largest opposition party 

and the home of Labour, Israel’s traditional home for left-wingers and liberals — Netanyahu
switched horses in the last day and made a deal with the sole right-wing party that hadn’t 

joined his government last year.

The addition of Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu’s six seats gets the prime minister to a 67

-member coalition ought to be enough to avoid the problems the prime minister had been 

having due to the constant fear that the absence of an MK on any given day will topple the governmental apple cart. Since there are no real ideological differences between Lieberman 

and Netanyahu, it removes a voice criticizing him from the right and gives him governmental responsibility.

It also helps solve a growing problem at the Cabinet since it gives him an excuse to replace 

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, who had been causing problems with comments that placed 

him at odds with the prime minister over the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces. Yaalon now

will either take a lesser portfolio or leave the Cabinet. At any rate, with this demotion Yaalon 

now joins the list of other potential successors to Netanyahu, who entertained the vain notion

that they could challenge him within the Likud.

But the biggest loser out of this affair is Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog. A year ago, Herzog seemed to revive the fortunes of Labor by forming an alliance with former foreign minister 

Tzipi Livni and leading the faction they formed to a strong second-place finish in the March

2015 election. That should have put him in a position to harry Netanyahu and set his party up 

for a better chance at victory the next time. But instead of revitalizing Israel’s left wing, 

Herzog seems to have crashed it.

What followed was something that dismayed Israeli leftists and shocked American liberals 

that are praying for Netanyahu’s demise. Herzog conceded that Netanyahu was basically right 

on the big issue that divided Israeli voters for the past 50 years: the peace process. Instead of pretending as most other leftists have done all these years that Israel giving up the West Bank 

and other territory would bring peace with the Palestinians, Herzog told the truth. In January,

he said that Israel had no real peace partner and that the two-state solution that most Israelis 

longed for was an impossibility for the foreseeable future.

While Herzog had plenty of critical things to say about the prime minister, his ideas for 

different ways of managing the conflict until a sea change in the Palestinian political culture 

will allow peace were either unrealistic or no different from what Netanyahu was already 

doing. What happened next seemed inevitable. Herzog entered into negotiations with 

Netanyahu for a national unity government.

This set off some members of Labour, including the more liberal faction that he had displaced 

in the leadership of the party, as well as its media cheering section at the ultra-left Haaretz newspaper. They condemned the negotiations and damned Herzog for a traitor to his party. 

These critics got the last laugh because Netanyahu may never seriously intended to bring him 

into the Cabinet. He was just using Herzog for leverage in his talks with Lieberman. Instead of

an unwieldy broad coalition, he’ll stick with a narrow right-wing government but one that is 

large enough to be more stable. This means that Netanyahu will not only outlast Barack 

Obama but will also have a better-than-average chance of remaining in office until at least the

end of the decade, if not beyond it, and surpass Israeli founding father David Ben Gurion as 

the longest serving prime minister.

It will also weaken the Zionist Union. Herzog being played for a sap by Netanyahu may mean 

the end of his time as leader of Labour. If the party swings further to the left that will hurt its 

chances in future elections where, if the current polls are accurate, it will be replaced as the 

leading opposition party by Yair Lapid’s centrist Yesh Atid.

Where does this leave Israel?

Herzog’s leftist critics in his own party are happy about his likely demise and Netanyahu 

emerges again as this generation’s unrivaled champion of maneuvering. But there’s more to be gleaned from Netanyahu’s latest proof of his political skill than those conclusions.

The mere fact that a Likud-Labor coalition was not only possible but seemed the most likely 

scenario for some time should awaken the country’s critics to a basic fact about Israeli politics.

 While the competition for cabinet seats in Israel is fierce, the great dispute that foreigners 

imagine divides citizens of the Jewish state isn’t the locus of political debate. The world may 

think Israelis are still — as they were in the 1980s and 1990s — evenly split on the question of whether to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. But the election results as well as the 

coalition negotiations tell a different story.

Most Israelis, including many that voted for some of the right wing parties, would be willing to

 make such a swap and give up territory if it meant a real peace. But outside of the far left 

virtually no one thinks such an arrangement is possible because of the reality of Palestinian intransigence. Neither Herzog nor Lapid — the two potential replacements for Netanyahu as 

head of the country — really disagree with him about whether a two-state solution is desirable 

or if it can be implemented. All three agree it’s a good idea. All three also agree that it isn’t 

going to happen because the Palestinians are still unwilling to make peace and addicted to 

violence.

Israeli political strife is still intense but it is about economic issues and personalities since 

Netanyahu remains personally unpopular even though he has won three consecutive elections 

and would probably be favored for a fourth if it were held anytime soon. That means 

Americans who think the prime minister is wrong about peace should take into consideration 

the fact that most Israelis share his views. Though he is blasted regularly in the international 

and media as a right-wing extremist, he is on the left of his current coalition and smack dab in

the center of Israel’s political spectrum at the moment. Netanyahu's government may not be 

loved but it does represent the country's consensus about peace. That may be astonishing to Americans, but it should also cause them to start thinking about whether it is time for them to

 give up illusions about the Palestinians and peace that the majority of voters in the Jewish 

state have long since abandoned.

1c)

The Partisan Divide on Israel Deepens Richard Baehr writes: A new Pew Research poll provides more evidence that there is a growing partisan divide among  Americans related to support for Israel. The poll reflects the rapid demographic changes underway in  America, most of which do not augur well for the traditionally strong base of American support for the Jewish state. The overall numbers mask the growing split between Republicans and conservatives versus Democrats and liberals on Israel. In fact, the poll shows that while Republicans’ support for Israel remains very strong,  Democrats' support is under 50%. And Democrats who are younger, more to the left, or  supporters of Bernie Sanders are even less likely to sympathize with Israel over the  Palestinians: The partisan gap remains wide. Three-quarters of Republicans (75%) say they sympathize more with  Israel (just 7% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians). And though a larger share of  Democrats sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, that margin is much narrower  (43% vs. 29%). …Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, are statistically divided in their views: 33% sympathize more  with Israel and 40% sympathize more with the Palestinians. …Notably, there are no differences in views by candidate support among GOP voters. By contrast,  while Clinton supporters, on balance, are more likely to sympathize with Israel (47% vs. 27%), Sanders supporters are divided (33% sympathize more with Israel, 39% sympathize more with Palestinians). …Over the past decade, the share of Americans saying they sympathize more with Israel has grown  among most ideological groups – with the exception of liberal Democrats.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++