Showing posts with label Middel East Politic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middel East Politic. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 7, 2024




BUY 25 SMCI AND NVDA BUT ONLY ON SHARP DIPS AND THEN AGAIN ON FURTHER DIPS.
+++
I am in the process of  initiating an entire economic system based on oil and gas because so much of everything we consume is made from these two sources.

I WILL LIST 12 CATEGORIES AND EVERY MONTH WILL ROTATE THESE 12 CATEGORIES  OF OIL AND GAS AND ADJUST THEM ACCORDINGLY IF THEY EXCEED 5%

OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD 100% OF OIL AND GAS WILL HAVE ROTATED .
+++
lETS DO A REVIEW OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. TRUMP ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT USING COMMON SENSE.  THEN WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING ATTACKING GOVERNOR HARRIS.  THAT IS NOT COMMON SENSE. IT IS STUPID. ONCE AGAIN HE CANNOT CONTROL HIS EGO.

ON THE OTHER HAND HIS MORE THAN HOUR LONG PRESS CONFERENCE, WHERE HE TOOK ALL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERED THEM, WAS EXCELLENT.

SOME WERE REPITITOUS AND LONG BUT THAT IS HIS STYLE

ALSO. HIS STYLE IS HE LIVES IN A WORLD OF GOOD AND BAD AND FAILS TO UNDERSTND MOST PEOPL LIVE IN A GREY WORLD. HE ALSO LOVES TO TAG PEOPLE WITH NAMES. WELL HERE ARE TWO NAMES THAT COVER BOTH KAMALA  AND  WALZ. 

SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY.
MOSCOW KAMALA AND WHITE WASH GANZ.  

GANZ KNEW, WHEN HE LOOKED IN THE MIRROR. TRUMP DID NOT EMBRACE PROPOSITION 2050, SO HE CHOSE TO LIE TO HIMSELF AND VOTERS. HE ALSO KNEW THE RNC HAD REJECTED 2050 AND THE AUTHOR HAD BEEN REMOVED.

I SUBMIT, You cannot hold public office without having a conscience. Moscow kAMALA does not own a conscience because She believes, SHE is a magician, and can stand before a mirror and turn a lie it into a fact both to HERSELF as well as voters.

SHE knew Trump rejected Proposition 2025, that the RNC has also done so and the person who drafted it was no longer involved. Yet "Moscow KAMALA" lied thinking She could get away with doing so because the unwashed would buy HER lie. Obviously if She will lie to you and HERSElf campaigning what would She do if elected?

Blackboard Kamala also believes she is a magician and can turn lies into facts. She knew Biden's health was deteriorating as well as his mental acuity.  However, she denied it both to herself and you, the voter.  Why did she believe she could get away with doing this? Because she wanted to become president, gain power and rule over her subjects like a monarch.

Is this the kind of president we want to rule our republic?

Let's look at Trump who, we know, lacks a presidential persona.  Trump stretches the truth but when he said more were present at his inauguration he was not doing so as a magician. Yes, he stretched the truth but that is not the same as lying.

Lying is destroying truth and replacing it, not stretching it with something else. That is what Democrats have been doing for years. They have weaponized politics, turned their lying projections into imputing they are those of their opponents so they can retain power at any cost. Their projections are a shameless act of bald face lying and are unconscionable FRAUDLENT acts.

By doing so, they impute lies they tell to their opposition in the hope they can get voters to buy their version of the truth.WHTE WASH WALZ and Blackboard Kamala  believe they are magicians.
Josh Shapiro and the unmaking of a vice president
The successful campaign to keep the Jewish GOVENOR of Pennsylvania off the Democratic ticket is a watershed moment for Democrats and American Jews.
By Jonathan S. Tobin

There was probably more than one reason why Vice President Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz rather than Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to be her running mate. It may well be that Shapiro rubbed Harris the wrong way in their interviews when she was auditioning potential candidates. The same factors that led Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) to advise her against picking Shapiro might have influenced her. Shapiro does not have a reputation as a team player. His steady rise through Pennsylvania politics has been fueled by genuine talent as well as the sort of naked self-interested ambition that would have to be put on hold if he were to be the No. 2 in a campaign  administration.

But there’s little doubt the decision to bypass a popular governor who could have played a decisive role in winning a key battleground state that Harris must have if she is to beat former President Donald Trump in November wasn’t made solely because of Shapiro’s healthy ego. As we all know, that is a quality that hardly marks him as an outlier among politicians. Instead, it was his identity as a Jew and an unabashed supporter of Israel that sparked an ultimately successful campaign among Democrats to spike the Shapiro boomlet.

His positions on Israel and the war on Hamas are not, in fact, very different from those of the other men Harris was considering, including Walz and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. They, too, support Israel’s right to exist and condemned the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, as well as expressed concern about the pro-Hamas demonstrations that have become the hallmark of a surge in American anti-Semitism during the last 10 months. And like them, Shapiro supports proposals for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict that is hopelessly out of touch with what Palestinians want; all are critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Choosing Dearborn over Pennsylvania

But only the possibility of Shapiro being a heartbeat away from the presidency caused leftist magazines like The New Republic and Slate to denounce him for being “egregiously bad on Palestine.” 

As reports in The New York Times and other publications also made clear, his willingness to stand up on the issue in recent months was seen in a different light than that of other pro-Israel Democrats. The fact that he had rightly compared the pro-Hamas anti-Semites to members of the Ku Klux Klan, while Harris had voiced understanding and sympathy for them, was seen as disqualifying.

Indeed, it got so bad that when an op-ed Shapiro wrote for his college newspaper in 1993 popped up, in which he voiced skepticism about the Oslo Accords and doubted whether the Palestinians would ever choose peace, he was forced to back away it. Of course, everything he wrote at that time was subsequently proven correct. But when confronted with it, Shapiro acted as if it was a youthful indiscretion. “Something I wrote when I was 20, is that what you’re talking about? I was 20.”

This is an election in which leading Democrats believe they are going to need a united party with their left-wing activist base fully on board with the national ticket. That’s why President Joe Biden sent officials to bend their knees to Dearborn, Mich., earlier this year to the pro-Hamas mayor of the city known as America’s “jihad capital.” Shapiro being an affiliated synagogue member who attended Jewish day school and sends his own children to them, AND has a record of support for Israel dating back to his youth, made him unacceptable to that crucial wing of the party.

That put Harris in something of a dilemma.

If winning the election and “saving democracy,” from alleged threats by former President Donald Trump and the Republicans were primary goals, then Shapiro was her best bet. Naming him gave her the best chance of tipping Pennsylvania, where Trump has led for most of the year, back into the Democratic column. And his centrist approach would have expanded the Democratic coalition, giving it a better chance to win over independent voters who have also favored Trump this year.

Indeed, his gracious and respectful attitude to the victims of the attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pa., last month struck a chord with both Republicans and Democrats at a time when most politicians seem determined to drive us farther apart.

Sending a message

It also would have also shored up Jewish support, both in terms of votes and campaign contributions. It’s not clear whether that would have won Harris any more Electoral College votes. But in a year when there are some signs that even the most partisan Jewish Democrats have been shocked by the way left-wing anti-Semites have been allowed to run amuck on college campuses and in the streets of U.S. cities spouting hate for Jews and Israel since Oct. 7, it would have sent a message to Jews that they still have a home in a Democratic Party, even though many in its left-wing base think that they are intersectional villains who are guilty of “white” privilege.

More than that, it would have given Harris a “Sister Souljah moment” like the one Bill Clinton seized in 1992 when he criticized a black artist for saying there was nothing wrong with blacks killing whites, and in doing so, demonstrated both his centrist bona fides and a willingness to take on extremists within his own party.

But Democrats don’t believe in Sister Souljah moments anymore. Harris, who supported a fund that bailed out Black Lives Matter rioters in 2000, had no appetite for confronting the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel wing of her party. While there are still far more votes to be won in the pro-Israel center of American politics than on the pro-Hamas left, choosing the person that leftists have now dubbed “Genocide Josh” would have guaranteed dissension inside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and riots outside of it.

Walz IS the most left-leaning of all the potential vice-presidential nominees that were finalists for the Democrats. That’s why members of the far-left congressional “Squad” and Socialist Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) celebrated Harris’s choice. Though Democrats are rebranding him as being no different from Shapiro in most respects, he’s clearly the favorite of “progressives.” He’s a supporter of the anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), imposed draconian COVID-19 lockdowns on his state and dithered for three days before finally agreeing to the anguished pleas of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to send in the National Guard to stop Black Lives Matter rioters from burning down the city.

Walz is a capable politician, and there are some Democrats who think his experience as a Midwestern high school football coach is exactly the kind of résumé line that Harris needs to balance her reputation as a San Francisco liberal. It’s also true that most Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when they heard of her decision. Putting Shapiro on the Democratic ticket might not have guaranteed them victory, but it would have made the task for Trump and the GOP in battleground states a lot harder. That would have also been the case if Harris had picked Kelly, a former astronaut and U.S. Navy combat pilot with centrist appeal.

Had Harris chosen Shapiro, it would have signaled that she was determined to steer the Democrats back into the political center on not just Israel but other issues like school choice, though Shapiro’s stand on that topic is also anathema to the Teachers Unions that hold so much sway among Democrats.

A lot has changed since 2000

Above all, the rejection of Shapiro after he was bashed by so many on the left serves as a reminder of how much the Democratic Party has changed in the last 24 years.

At this moment, August 2000 seems like a very long time ago. When then Vice President Al Gore choose Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, the decision was hailed as a brilliant political move by the Democratic Party’s nominee. It both solidified the hold of moderates on the Democratic Party and marked the first time a Jew was named to a national ticket. Like Shapiro is now, Lieberman’s views were liberal on most issues. But he was also a well-respected centrist Democrat as well as an observant Jew, whose piety and plain-speaking manner was admired by people of all faiths.

As is true of almost all vice-presidential nominees, neither Lieberman nor his Republican counterpart Dick Cheney played a decisive role in determining the outcome of an election that was razor-close and decided in favor of George W. Bush by a mere 553 votes in Florida. Lieberman’s nomination was a milestone in American history that seemed to prove that Jews were accepted virtually everywhere in the United States and could aspire to the nation’s highest offices without being subjected to anti-Semitic invective.

The attacks on Shapiro illustrate that this is no longer the case.

That is not to say that Shapiro has no future in national politics. Should Harris lose this year, he will immediately be classified as among the likely Democratic presidential contenders in 2028. Perhaps political fashions will shift in the next four years in a way that will ease his path. For now, though, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats picking someone who is considered a centrist and well as seen as a throwback to an earlier era where pro-Israel Democrats were the rule and Israel-haters were the exception in the party.

Radical Islamist SHOES finallyHAVE begun dropping.

And:

Tim Walz; “A Radical Liberal Socialist” “An Unaccomplished Nobody From No Where”


Our republic NO Longer enjoys the benefits of a guard rail FROM THE MASS AND SOCIAL MEDIA and that is dangerous. 

Finally:

+++
I read Rufo's latest book. Bright and on top of what is happening.
+++
The Hollow Kingdom
A dispatch from London on the brink of chaos
By Christopher F. Rufo

I have spent the past week in London. The city’s transformation, which I had followed only abstractly in the newspapers, has prompted a visceral shock.

“I haven’t been to London since I was a student,” I told a group of British journalists. “What the hell happened?”

“The fact that you would ask such a question,” one responded, “is an act of racism.” The others laughed.

The unstated premise of the joke was that everyone knows what the hell happened—mass immigration—but no one is allowed to speak about it. The statistics reveal the general trend. Since my last visit nearly two decades ago, the white British population of London has declined from 60 percent to 37 percent. Meantime, the Muslim population of London has nearly doubled, and migrants from South Asia and Africa have entrenched themselves throughout the city.

Anglos have been a minority for more than a decade. What I’ve observed in the city this week has amazed me. Women’s eyes peering through the slit of black niqabs. A procession of sub-Saharan Africans traversing Westminster Bridge, waving the flags of their homelands and demanding reparations. Street corners that could be confused for Peshawar or Islamabad. Districts in which one could pass an entire day with barely a glimpse of an Englishman.

These are facts. There is nothing inherently racist or antiracist about them. The question is one of perspective. England’s progressives would have one believe that these snapshots represent the triumph of diversity. But this position appears increasingly untenable.

For good reason. England, unlike the United States, does not have a long history of assimilating others. And many of the country’s migrants—in particular, the large Muslim population—are among the most difficult populations to integrate.

From a critical perspective, the history of mass migration in Britain is a history of civil tension, punctuated by violence: riots, terrorism, murder, rape. Events of this week have brought this suppressed conflict to the surface once again.

The day after my conversation with the British journalists, England broke out in another round of riots. A first-generation Rwandan teenager had stabbed three young girls to death, prompting British nationalists and Muslim counter-protesters into the streets. The resulting clashes led to significant property damage and nearly 400 arrests. The country’s left-wing prime minister, Keir Starmer, has signaled his support for suppressing the nationalists.

A question lies buried under these events: What makes a nation? And what is the relationship between its content and its form?

It’s easy to understand why migrants from Somalia or Pakistan would select England as their destination. The political, economic, and cultural form of their home countries is a disaster. In England, by contrast, these migrants are able to secure an income, often including public benefits, and enjoy the fruits of a developed, modern, peaceful country.

The predominant theory among Western elites is that the content of mass migration—the particular people, and the culture they bring—is irrelevant. All groups are equal. Individuals are interchangeable. To think otherwise is to engage in bigotry.

This logic has a whiff of liberalism, but only in the most reductive, naïve sense. The truth is that, even if we believe in the principle that all men are created equal, this does not mean that all cultures are equal or interchangeable—far from it. The structure of a civilization is a delicate thing. Changing its citizens will, over time, change its form.

This process is underway in London. The buildings, avenues, and palaces look the same as before; there is still a parliament, a king, and the pound. But the central city feels hollowed out. The old connection between citizen and nation has been altered. The old bonds of culture have been frayed.

The situation in London recalls the Ship of Theseus, a thought experiment that asks whether, if every part of a ship is replaced, it is the same ship in the end. The answer, in our case, is a confident “no.” England without the Englishman would no longer be England. The form—parliamentary democracy, economic growth, liberal culture—might hold for a time, but eventually, it would give way, too.

To engage in violence is not the answer. But neither is the answer to pretend that this conflict, or this re-composition, does not exist. Sooner or later, Britain will have to answer some hard questions. Reality has a way of breaking through.

Christopher F. Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support HIS work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In a previous memo, I wrote about Democrats and money.  

They believe the more campaign funds the merrier and they seem to prove they generally raise more funds, spend more funds and, thus, win more races

The political ad market is expected to reach record spend levels this year.

 




Seconds After Kamala Leaks Her VP - His Dirty Laundry Comes Spilling Out
She really can pick 'em!

Harris VP Pick Tim Walz Faces Scrutiny Over Past Actions Amid 2024 Election
By Mick Farthing

For a while, it looked as if Kamala Harris would pick Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her vice president running mate. But the anti-Semitic progressives must have had their way because word is that Kamala is picking another governor to be her patsy. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has been slotted to carry Harris’ baggage through November.

This isn’t a monumental surprise, given how Minnesota is another must-win swing state. Harris’ people are probably banking on Walz’s popularity to help her win Minnesota.

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

But how popular is Walz in his home state? While he might enjoy support from liberal voters, he is far from a slam dunk for Harris. The Democrat nominee has to convince Americans she won’t be as big of a disaster as her boss—even though she promises the exact same administration. But by bringing along Walz, Harris is proving her administration will be as corrupt and incompetent as the one she is currently serving in.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D)… failed in 2020 to anticipate and react to riots in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd at police hands.

The violence led to the destruction of a police precinct, widespread looting, and the spread of riots nationwide.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey blamed Walz for failing to respond.

In addition to this major issue, stories are surfacing of a DUI Walz committed years ago. One that hasn’t been properly addressed to the public.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), who emerged Tuesday as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, will likely face new scrutiny over a 1995 DUI arrest after court records emerged to suggest he had misled the public about the case.

Walz and the BLM Riots

In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is under fire for his handling of past events that are now resurfacing with a vengeance. The dual controversies include his failure to effectively manage the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots and his past DUI arrest, both of which are casting a long shadow over his political aspirations.

As the BLM riots swept through Minnesota, Walz’s leadership came under intense scrutiny. Critics argue that his lack of decisive action allowed the chaos to escalate. Kamala Harris’s involvement didn’t help matters; she was busy soliciting bail money for arrested protesters, adding fuel to the fire. This dual-pronged approach from key political figures left many Minnesotans feeling abandoned and betrayed as their communities suffered.

A prominent critic said, “Governor Walz had a chance to protect his constituents, but instead, he chose to stand by and watch as the city burned.”

The DUI Scandal

Adding to his woes, Walz’s past DUI arrest has resurfaced, raising questions about his character and judgment. The details of the incident are murky, with conflicting claims about what transpired. This lack of clarity is only making matters worse for Walz, as voters question his integrity and ability to lead. During a congressional run in 2006, Walz seemed to lie about the arrest, claiming it was a “misunderstanding.” Did the cops misunderstand that he was driving drunk? I don’t think so.

Fallout for 2024

Why did Harris reportedly pick this man with so much baggage? Did she think people would see her in a better light compared to this governor? That’s not a winning strategy. But we are not surprised she picked a controversy-ridden politician with little credit to his record. Harris is the vice president of an administration full of incompetent people unqualified for their jobs. She is sure to continue that legacy if she becomes president.

Key Takeaways

BLM Riots: Walz was criticized for failing to control the riots, and Kamala Harris’s actions complicated the situation.

DUI Arrest: Past DUI arrest raises questions about Walz’s character, with conflicting claims damaging his credibility.

Election Impact: Both controversies are likely to influence voter perception and impact his 2024 election campaign
Source: All Breitbart

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You cannot hold public office without having a conscience. Moscow Waltz does not own a conscience because he believes, he is a magician, and he can stand before a mirror and turn a lie it into a fact both to himself as well as voters.

He knew Trump rejected Proposition 2025, that the RNC has also done so and the person who drafted it was no longer involved. Yet "Moscow Walz" lied thinking he could get away with  doing so because the unwashed would buy his lie. Obviously if he will lie to you and himself campaigning what would he do if elected?

Blackboard Kamala also believes she is a magician and can turn lies into facts. She knew Biden's health was deteriorating as well as his mental acuity.  However, she denied it both to herself and you, the voter.  Why did she believe she could get away with doing this? Because she wanted to become president, gain power and rule over her subjects like a monarch.

Is this the kind of president we want to rule our republic?

Let's look at Trump who we know lacks a presidential persona.  Trump stretches the truth but when he said more were present at his inauguration he was not doing so as a magician. Yes, he stretched the truth but that is not the same as lying.

Lying is destroying truth and replacing it, not stretching it with something else. That is what Democrats have been doing for years. They have weaponized politics, turned their lying projections into imputing they are those of their opponents so they can retain power at any cost. Their projections are a shameless act of bald face lying and are unconscionable acts..

By doing so, they impute lies they tell to their opposition in the hope they can get voters to buy their version of the truth. Moscow Walz and Blackboard Kamala  believe they are magicians.
+++
Josh Shapiro and the unmaking of a vice president
The successful campaign to keep the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania off the Democratic ticket is a watershed moment for Democrats and American Jews.
By Jonathan S. Tobin

There was probably more than one reason why Vice President Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz rather than Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to be her running mate. It may well be that Shapiro rubbed Harris the wrong way in their interviews when she was auditioning potential candidates. The same factors that led Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) to advise her against picking Shapiro might have influenced her. Shapiro does not have a reputation as a team player. His steady rise through Pennsylvania politics has been fueled by genuine talent as well as the sort of naked self-interested ambition that would have to be put on hold if he were to be the No. 2 in a campaign and an administration.

But there’s little doubt that the decision to bypass a popular governor who could have played a decisive role in winning a key battleground state that Harris must have if she is to beat former President Donald Trump in November wasn’t made solely because of Shapiro’s healthy ego. As we all know, that is a quality that hardly marks him as an outlier among politicians. Instead, it was his identity as a Jew and an unabashed supporter of Israel that sparked an ultimately successful campaign among Democrats to spike the Shapiro boomlet.

His positions on Israel and the war on Hamas are not, in fact, very different from those of the other men Harris was considering, including Walz and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. They, too, support Israel’s right to exist and condemned the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, as well as expressed concern about the pro-Hamas demonstrations that have become the hallmark of a surge in American antisemitism during the last 10 months. And like them, Shapiro supports proposals for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict that is hopelessly out of touch with what Palestinians want; all are critics of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Choosing Dearborn over Pennsylvania

But only the possibility of Shapiro being a heartbeat away from the presidency caused leftist magazines like The New Republic and Slate to denounce him for being “egregiously bad on Palestine.” As reports in The New York Times and other publications also made clear, his willingness to stand up on the issue in recent months was seen in a different light than that of other pro-Israel Democrats. The fact that he had rightly compared the pro-Hamas antisemites to members of the Ku Klux Klan, while Harris had voiced understanding and sympathy for them, was seen as disqualifying.

Indeed, it got so bad that when an op-ed Shapiro wrote for his college newspaper in 1993 popped up, in which he voiced skepticism about the Oslo Accords and doubted whether the Palestinians would ever choose peace, he was forced to back away it. Of course, everything he wrote at that time was subsequently proven correct. But when confronted with it, Shapiro acted as if it was a youthful indiscretion. “Something I wrote when I was 20, is that what you’re talking about? I was 20.”

This is an election in which leading Democrats believe they are going to need a united party with their left-wing activist base fully on board with the national ticket. That’s why President Joe Biden sent officials to bend their knees to Dearborn, Mich., earlier this year to the pro-Hamas mayor of the city known as America’s “jihad capital.” Shapiro being an affiliated synagogue member who attended Jewish day school and sends his own children to them, as well as has a record of support for Israel dating back to his youth, made him unacceptable to that crucial wing of the party.

That put Harris in something of a dilemma.

If winning the election and “saving democracy” from alleged threats by former President Donald Trump and the Republicans were primary goals, then Shapiro was her best bet. Naming him gave her the best chance of tipping Pennsylvania, where Trump has led for most of the year, back into the Democratic column. And his centrist approach would have expanded the Democratic coalition, giving it a better chance to win over independent voters who have also favored Trump this year.

Indeed, his gracious and respectful attitude to the victims of the attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pa., last month struck a chord with both Republicans and Democrats at a time when most politicians seem determined to drive us farther apart.

Sending a message

It also would have also shored up Jewish support, both in terms of votes and campaign contributions. It’s not clear whether that would have won Harris any more Electoral College votes. But in a year when there are some signs that even the most partisan Jewish Democrats have been shocked by the way left-wing anti-Semites have been allowed to run amuck on college campuses and in the streets of U.S. cities spouting hate for Jews and Israel since Oct. 7, it would have sent a message to Jews that they still have a home in a Democratic Party, even though many in its left-wing base think that they are intersectional villains who are guilty of “white” privilege.

More than that, it would have given Harris a “Sister Souljah moment” like the one Bill Clinton seized in 1992 when he criticized a black artist for saying there was nothing wrong with blacks killing whites, and in doing so, demonstrated both his centrist bona fides and a willingness to take on extremists within his own party.

But Democrats don’t believe in Sister Souljah moments anymore. Harris, who supported a fund that bailed out Black Lives Matter rioters in 2000, had no appetite for confronting the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel wing of her party. While there are still far more votes to be won in the pro-Israel center of American politics than on the pro-Hamas left, choosing the person that leftists have now dubbed “Genocide Josh” would have guaranteed dissension inside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and riots outside of it.

Walz is no leftist, but he was definitely the most left-leaning of all the potential vice-presidential nominees that were finalists for the Democrats. That’s why members of the far-left congressional “Squad” and Socialist Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) celebrated Harris’s choice. Though Democrats are rebranding him as being no different from Shapiro in most respects, he’s clearly the favorite of “progressives.” He’s a supporter of the anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), imposed draconian COVID-19 lockdowns on his state and dithered for three days before finally agreeing to the anguished pleas of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to send in the National Guard to stop Black Lives Matter rioters from burning down the city.

Walz is a capable politician, and there are some Democrats who think his experience as a Midwestern high school football coach is exactly the kind of résumé line that Harris needs to balance her reputation as a San Francisco liberal. It’s also true that most Republicans breathed a sigh of relief when they heard of her decision. Putting Shapiro on the Democratic ticket might not have guaranteed them victory, but it would have made the task for Trump and the GOP in battleground states a lot harder. That would have also been the case if Harris had picked Kelly, a former astronaut and U.S. Navy combat pilot with centrist appeal.

Had Harris chosen Shapiro, it would have signaled that she was determined to steer the Democrats back into the political center on not just Israel but other issues like school choice, though Shapiro’s stand on that topic is also anathema to the Teachers Unions that hold so much sway among Democrats.

A lot has changed since 2000

Above all, the rejection of Shapiro after he was bashed by so many on the left serves as a reminder of how much the Democratic Party has changed in the last 24 years.

At this moment, August 2000 seems like a very long time ago. When then Vice President Al Gore choose Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to be his running mate, the decision was hailed as a brilliant political move by the Democratic Party’s nominee. It both solidified the hold of moderates on the Democratic Party and marked the first time a Jew was named to a national ticket. Like Shapiro is now, Lieberman’s views were liberal on most issues. But he was also a well-respected centrist Democrat as well as an observant Jew, whose piety and plain-speaking manner was admired by people of all faiths.

As is true of almost all vice-presidential nominees, neither Lieberman nor his Republican counterpart Dick Cheney played a decisive role in determining the outcome of an election that was razor-close and decided in favor of George W. Bush by a mere 553 votes in Florida. Lieberman’s nomination was a milestone in American history that seemed to prove that Jews were accepted virtually everywhere in the United States and could aspire to the nation’s highest offices without being subjected to anti-Semitic invective.

The attacks on Shapiro illustrate that this is no longer the case.

That is not to say that Shapiro has no future in national politics. Should Harris lose this year, he will immediately be classified as among the likely Democratic presidential contenders in 2028. Perhaps political fashions will shift in the next four years in a way that will ease his path. For now, though, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats picking someone who is considered a centrist and well as seen as a throwback to an earlier era where pro-Israel Democrats were the rule and Israel-haters were the exception in the party.
++++
Radical Islamist shoe finally has begun dropping.



By Sara Fischer

Politics & Policy

Money still pouring into election ads


Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios


Political advertising around the 2020 election is expected to reach $6.7 billion this cycle, up 12% from initial projections of around $6 million, according to a new report. Nearly $2 billion will be spent on digital video, primarily on Facebook and Google.


Why it matters: The pandemic has forced campaigns to shift budgets from in-person campaign events, like canvassing and town halls, to digital advertising and virtual events. This has expedited a growing shift from traditional campaign marketing to dgital.


Technology

Joe Biden surges past Trump on Facebook and Google spending

i

Adapted from Advertising Analytics; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

Why it matters: For a while, Trump was dominating online advertising spend on Google and Facebook, giving his campaign an unprecedented early lead in drumming up grassroots support ahead of 2020. Now, Democrats — led by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — are catching up.


Go deeper (1 min. read)

By Sara Fischer


Economy

2020 candidates are mostly focusing their advertising spending online

A phone with a dollar bill as a screen.

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios


The 2020 presidential election is being fought online at a level we've never seen before, eclipsing television's traditional dominance.


Why it matters: Television is still one of the most important vehicles for candidates to message during a presidential election, especially during the general election, but its dominance is quickly being eaten by digital, and that's including digital alternatives of television, like commercials on Hulu.

+++

Much Ado About Nothing

 

By Sherwin Pomerantz

 

Well, everyone here has been hunkered down since the weekend waiting for the big attack by Iran and its proxies (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houtis, and even Palestinians living in Judea & Samaria/the West Bank), yet, except for a drone here and there from Lebanon …..nothing.   It actually seems now that all the supplies we put in to our “safe rooms” in case we were attacked may not be needed after all. So, what happened?

 

Frankly a lot of things because nobody anywhere in this region except Iran really wants a regional war to break out and that is a feeling shared by other countries of influence as well.  

 

Som observations from a lay person……

 

First. the United States sent two strike forces (i.e. each is an armada of warships led by an aircraft carrier or two) to the eastern Mediterranean and parked them right off Israel’s coastline.  The appearance of that much naval firepower along with fighter aircraft ready to launch was a message to Iran & Co. that perhaps they better think twice before attacking us lest they suffer the wrath of the US’ show of strength, joined by the UK as well.  

 

No doubt this made the Iranians think twice about unleashing their own firepower.  They clearly remember that when they tried this the last time on April 13th, 98% of the 300+ drones and missiles that they launched in that barrage were shot down in mid-air, and not just by us.  The US, UK, France and even Jordan and Saudi Arabia joined in our defense.  

 

Second, Russia’s Putin travelled to Tehran earlier this week to meet with the Iranian leadership as well.  According to reliable press reports he told the Iranians that if they did attack Israel, they should make sure not to go after civilians in Israel but stick to military targets only.  The Iranians, of course, don’t want to get the Russians angry as Russia is a huge buyer of Iranian oil and a political ally as well.   Of course, the Russian instructions to Iran are also very difficult to follow technologically, as the Iranian missiles are not so accurate as to be able to differentiate targets very well.   If they try to comply there will be a lot of “oops” moments for sure.

 

Third, Jordan’s foreign minister also paid a visit to Tehran this week, the first time there has been such a high-level Jordanian in Iran in twenty years.   His purpose in going there was to make it clear to the Iranians that Jordan will not permit Iran to use its air space in order to attack another country (read:  Israel).  Given that the biggest physical obstacle between Iran and Israel’s eastern border is Jordan, that would make it impossible for Iran to lob missiles directly at Israel from the east, unless they go via Saudi Arabia but…….

 

Fourth, not to be outdone, shortly after Jordan made its point to the Iranians, the Saudis said “us too,” and took the same position as the Jordanians, warning Iran that Saudi air space is also closed to Iranian missiles aimed at a third country (again, read:  Israel).

 

A cursory look at the map of the Middle East will show that once you eliminate the possibility of launching missiles at Israel via Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the only border left is the northern border with Lebanon whose access is only possible via Iraq and Syria.   That provides a very narrow geographical window of opportunity and it is not 100% clear that Hezbollah, although it is a proxy of Iran, would be able to convince the Government of Lebanon to permit this. While their government is not very strong the people of Lebanon as a whole are not happy with the presence there of Hezbollah so this kind of permission cannot be assumed.

 

As a result, my guess is we will see a very very muted response from the Iranians, in spite of all their bluster over the last ten days.  They will try something for sure but it may be simply a series of drones launched from Lebanon or even a missile or two that they will apologize to the Jordans about and which will be neutralized enroute.  

 

This does, of course, still leave us with the issues on our northern border with which we have been dealing since October 8th.  It is not clear where that will end up but it would be good to be able to limit the fronts where we are fighting to two rather than the present seven.

 

Let’s hope that the Iranians are as smart and strategic as people give them credit for.  They won’t walk away from this loving us, but defanged enemies are much easier to deal with than those who actually mean what they say and have the wherewithal to act out their threats without any restraints.  And if it works out this way, once again us believers will have seen the hand of the Lord in all its glory.

++++

President Herzog's message to world Jewry as Israel is threatened by Iran


As Israel faces threat of attack, President Herzog sends a message to Jewish communities around the world

 


President Isaac Herzog today, Wednesday, sent a message to Jewish communities around the world, as Israel continues to face the ongoing threat of imminent attack from the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies across the region.


In his message, President Herzog spoke of the importance of the resilience of the Israeli people, of the great capabilities of the defense and security services, and of the centrality of the steadfast alliance with Israel’s allies – especially, the United States of America. The President said that the Israeli people and Jewish communities shared in the tensions and anxieties surrounding the threats of today, and noted that the concern and care between Israel and Jews around the world was mutual and deep.


Herzog began, “Dear Jewish sisters and brothers from around the world, these are difficult moments for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. These very days, we mark 10 months since the brutal massacre of October 7. It coincides with another heartbreaking moment in time, the fifth anniversary of Ariel Bibas, the little red-headed boy from Kibbutz Nir Oz who was abducted from his home by Hamas terrorists on that dark day, along with his mother, Shiri, his father, Yarden, and his baby brother, Kfir."


He contonued, “At the same time, our enemies, poisoned by hatred, blinded by radicalism and antisemitism, have vowed to attack us again. We all feel the tension, the anxiety, and the vulnerability of these moments. These feelings are natural. But my friends, rest assured. I want to state clearly, we have the capacity to confront our enemies and to defeat them. The State of Israel is blessed with many resources, most importantly incredible human resources. We have an excellent and highly motivated military, air force, intelligence services, and others. We have advanced air-defense systems. We have strong and enduring alliances that are committed to protecting not only Israel but the rules-based world ord

++++er we are fighting for, and we are so grateful to them – especially to our closest ally and friend, the United States of America, which is leading the coalition actively defending the values of life and liberty."


“But beyond all of that, we carry another most precious resource, the remarkable resilience of our people. A resilience which is rooted in the deep sense of connection and shared destiny that we have shared all across the ages. It is what has enabled us to get back up and rebuild after even the worst tragedies, and it is what we lean into right now," Herzog said.


“I want to say to our sisters and brothers everywhere that the depth of our connection and our caring is mutual. We in Israel also see the anxieties, concerns and vulnerability of Jewish communities around the world. And just as you carry us in your hearts, we carry you in our hearts too.


“Dear friends, Am Yisrael Chai,” Herzog concluded.

++++

Veterans Will Not Be Fooled by Tim Walz

 

Monday, December 12, 2022

Biden's Sham Meeting? Many Articles. Save Me From Experts And "Do Gooders!"





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

 More Proof Biden's White House Antisemitism Round Table Was a Sham - He Nominates Another Jew-Hater, This Time for U.S. Amb. to Brazil

Months ago, President Biden nominated longtime Democrat donor Elizabeth Frawley Bagley to serve as ambassador to Brazil. At her confirmation hearing in May, she faced bipartisan condemnation for a 1998 interview in which she claimed that Democrats entertained “stupid” pro-Israel viewpoints because of “the Jewish factor” and echoed old antisemitic tropes, saying, “There is always the influence of the Jewish lobby because there is major money involved.”

The ZOA opposed her nomination and noted that Bagley was among “a long list of President Biden’s antisemitic and Israelophobic nominees and appointees,” which ZOA has documented. Her nomination was tabled at the time, but now, the same week as the performative White House roundtable on antisemitism, her nomination has been returned to the Senate calendar so Senate leaders can bring it up for a vote, before the end of the year.

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein stated, “The ZOA calls on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer not to put this nomination forward. In June I said, ‘Bagley’s antisemitic tirade, language and attitude was horrifying,’ and that hasn’t changed. Putting this nomination back on the calendar shows exactly how fraudulent the White House roundtable was. President Biden can’t condemn antisemitism one day then seek to put anti-Israel Jew-haters in positions of power the next.

“For example,” Klein continued, “President Biden recently elevated Special Envoy to the Palestinians Hady Amr, a man who wrote that he ‘was inspired by the Palestinian intifada,’ the terror wars in which Palestinian Arab terrorists murdered or maimed 10,000 Jews. Deputy Director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs Reema Dodin has explained away suicide bombings including the September 11 attacks. White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre has written that ‘Israel may have committed war crimes,’ and previously worked for Moveon.org, an organization that supports vicious Jew-haters Linda Sarsour, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, as well as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. Biden’s Senior Director for Intelligence on the National Security Council, Maher Bitar, also supports BDS and he hosted a conference where speakers endorsed Islamic terrorism. President Biden can tweet against antisemitism, but his hostile-to-the Jewish State appointments tell a different story.”

ZOA Director of Government Relations Dan Pollak added, “The need to reject Jew-hating nominees is even more pressing than it was when ZOA first opposed Ms. Bagley in May. Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Cardin (D-MD) both raised concerns about her antisemitic words at her hearing. All members of the Senate have a responsibility equal to the President’s to keep Jew-haters out of positions of responsibility. There are already too many people with appalling histories of hatred against Jews and Israel in the Biden administration. The ZOA urges every Senator to oppose this nomination in committee as well as on the floor. Excusing Jew-hating comments should never be a partisan exercise.”

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

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-invites-drag-queen-to-attend-bill-signing-at-the-white-house

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

  • Biden’s Foreign Policy on China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran -
  • Why The Left Must Destroy Free Speech... Or Be Destroyed - LEW ROCKWELL
  • New Muslim Voices Express Support for Israel - ISRAEL TODAY
  • ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  • I have been writing about nuclear (hydrogen) fusion for about a year and today The Livermore Lab announced they created more clean power than they used. My friend, Dan Brunner and his two MIT associates, have  proved their concept works  and are now building a facility in Mass.  As I have noted in previous memo's this is going to make what the Green's are doing basically obsolete, over priced and a waste of expenditures. You can seldom get liberals to be rational because when they believe or say it, it becomes so.
  • ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fauci Next?
+++
Is Fauci Next? Elon Musk Teases Next Topic of Twitter Files | By Bobby Eberle Ep. 496

Dr. Anthony Fauci and Covid appear to be the next focus for Elon Musk and the Twitter Files. Musk said information about Twitter's role in suppressing information regarding Covid vaccines, lockdowns, and masks is coming soon, eve tweeting the words "Prosecute Fauci."

The collusion among big tech, media, and the Democrats appears clear from the previous release of the Twitter Files, but the next round involving Covid and Fauci could be huge! Twitter users were blocked and posts were flagged for not adhering to the leftwing narrative.

++++++++++++++++++
Once the experts in our State Department were removed from the scene and their biases against Israel were no longer evident things happened tat were rational and logical.  Save me from the "do gooders" and experts.
+++
The Triumph of Trump’s Amateurs
The Abraham Accords happened because the foreign-policy grandees weren’t in charge

by Jonathan S. Tobin


The list of memoirs by those involved in American Middle East diplomacy during the five and a half decades since the Six-Day War features a diverse array of officials who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Their books reflect the fact that every American president during that time, from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump, attempted at one point or another to cut the Gordian knot of the Arab–Israeli conflict. And the publishing industry has over the years shown an insatiable appetite for books written by these figures in which they recount their almost always unsuccessful endeavors—with only a few limited exceptions, such as Henry Kissinger’s negotiation of cease-fire and forced-separation agreements after the Yom Kippur War or the Carter administration’s subsequent role in finalizing the peace between Israel and Egypt.

The four memoirs published this year by former Trump-administration officials involved in Middle East diplomacy might be glibly dismissed as just another bunch to be added to the remainder pile. But these books—by Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and Friedman aide Aryeh Lightstone—are different from their predecessors.1 They reflect the fact that, although none of these men had any Middle East expertise before being tapped by Trump to serve him, they can all claim to be part of a genuine foreign-policy triumph of a kind that eluded more experienced and far more celebrated foreign-policy grandees.

Their signature achievement is the 2020 Abraham Accords. The accords began with an agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel to normalize relations and led to three more countries—Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—joining the deal. This broke a decades-long logjam during which the countries in the region were held hostage by Palestinian intransigence and a Western fixation about how to create peace.

Even Kissinger’s and Carter’s successes were, at least in the minds of those involved, essentially limited, since they fell short of achieving a wider peace that would eliminate what they seemed to think was America’s biggest problem in the region: the Arab and Muslim world’s resentment over U.S. support for Israel, and its anger about the lack of a Palestinian Arab state. The American foreign-policy establishment called the shots on Middle East issues in every White House and State Department up until January 2017. And its members believed that the conflict between Jews and Arabs over possession of the tiny strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was the key to getting Arabs and Muslims to drop their hostility to the United States.

The Middle East experts who served in each of those administrations, as well as those who filled Washington’s think tanks and mainstream and elite media, shared the belief that there was only one way to achieve that goal. They pushed a policy that would exert the right amount of pressure on Israel to cede the land it had won in a defensive war in 1967. This, they said, would result in a Palestinian state that would make everyone in the region happy.

That was particularly true of those in the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in the period following the 1993 Oslo Accords, which provided a framework for the establishment of such a state. The American officials involved in the efforts to bring those agreements to fruition held varying estimations of how much pressure to put on Israel—along with some guarantees for its security—to attain that goal. But they did not differ on the question of whether sovereignty for the Palestinians was crucial to advancing U.S. interests in the region. And they were equally united in thinking that the land-for-peace formula that was the conceit of the Oslo mindset was the only way to make it happen.

And they all failed. In their memoirs, none of these leading lights—former secretaries of state Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, as well as numerous lesser officials tasked with fixing the Middle East, such as Aaron David Miller, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and Daniel Kurtzer—display any doubt about their investment in the basic Oslo formula. Like almost all of the experts who produced literature about Middle East diplomacy in the past three decades, these notable figures worshipped at the altar of land-for-peace, and they never took a moment to wonder whether they might have been idolators kneeling before a false god.

That is the context in which the books by Kushner, Friedman, Greenblatt, and Lightstone must be read. Though these works were greeted with either silence or mockery by those who habitually review books about the Middle East—the New York Times books section ignored three of them and skewered Kushner’s—historians will find them startlingly useful as they try to decipher why the “peace process” failed while the Abraham Accords process succeeded.

Donald Trump’s election campaign and unlikely Electoral College victory had already broken numerous precedents. That continued once he took office, as he chose relatives and personal associates for major policy jobs. Son-in-law Kushner, bankruptcy lawyer Friedman, and personal legal counsel Greenblatt all fell into this category. From the moment they were anointed, Kushner and Friedman became the subjects of controversy and the recipients of a blizzard of abusive criticism. And all three were Orthodox Jews.

While Jews had previously filled important roles in the State Department and the National Security Council and had even served as ambassadors to Israel (as was the case with Indyk and Kurtzer), they had all been ardent believers in the myth of land for peace and the necessity of “saving Israel from itself.” Trump’s personal circle came from a different sector of American Jewry: pro-Israel activists who believed that the foreign-policy establishment had wronged Israel and had led the Palestinians to believe they could continue to cling to their delusions about destroying the Jewish state without facing significant pushback or penalties from Washington. A key part of the narratives of the Trump deputies is the story of how they struggled to overcome not just the more conventional appointees to the administration’s policy team—such as the first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and the first secretary of defense, James Mattis—but the vast army of permanent foreign-service officers and bureaucrats who regarded them as hopeless amateurs. Or worse, as Zionist ideologues with dual loyalties who should have no place working in the federal government.

Kushner’s Breaking History is largely a defense of his role in Trump’s administration, and it’s not always persuasive. But the parts about the Middle East have the ring of truth. Greenblatt’s In the Path of Abraham is intensely personal and has a pleasing sincerity regarding his struggles, occasional victories against the bureaucracy and Palestinian intransigence, and breakthroughs with Arab states. But it suffers from the fact that Greenblatt left the administration at the end of 2019 before the Trump peace plan was unveiled and the Abraham Accords came into being.

Friedman’s Sledgehammer is the best-written and most cogent analysis of the problems faced by Trump’s amateurs. His deputy, Lightstone, a rabbi and Jewish-outreach professional, can’t tell us much about Trump, but in Let My People Know, he gives readers a useful behind-the-scenes look at the difficulties that he and Friedman had in trying to serve the United States at an embassy where everyone else on staff was unsympathetic to their goals and supportive attitude toward the host state.

Like most memoirists, Kushner is the hero of his recollections. He boasts about his achievements in getting criminal-justice reform passed, implementing Covid emergency measures, achieving a trade deal with Mexico, and making gains toward Middle East peace. Those accounts are mixed with copious score-settling with those who cynically promoted the Russia-collusion hoax and with figures such as the convicted felon Steve Bannon and the White House Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, both of whom feuded with the son-in-law/senior adviser.

Friedman and Greenblatt came to Trump through his business dealings. Friedman was one of New York’s most successful bankruptcy attorneys and had served the real-estate mogul in various cases. Greenblatt was an in-house Trump Organization attorney. Both had earned Trump’s trust and, like Kushner, his respect for sticking to their Orthodox beliefs even when it meant stopping in the middle of crucial business negotiations to observe the Sabbath or holidays. The three men tell stories about how the famously callous and imperious Trump supported their religious observances and came to understand Israel and Zionism through them. Even discounting their desire to portray their boss in a good light, the portraiture here contradicts the liberal narrative of Trump as a boorish anti-Semite. Seeing the former president through the prism of this coterie of Jewish associates, and considering that he saw American Jews through their perspective as well, helps explain Trump’s inability to understand why most American Jews are politically liberal and don’t make support for Israel their overriding concern.

All wound up in struggles with Tillerson and to a lesser extent with Mattis over control of foreign policy in the Middle East. It turned out these were fights that those seemingly more important figures were doomed to lose—not so much because of their inability to shake off establishment conventional wisdom but because they didn’t understand Trump as well as their amateur opponents did.

What is often forgotten in the praise for the Abraham Accords is that Trump came into office ready to chase the white whale of peace with the Palestinians, just like every other president. His belief in his skill as a dealmaker knew no bounds, and he thought that the age-old problem of Palestinians and Israelis would yield to his prowess as if it were a Manhattan real-estate transaction. He could, he thought, produce what he called the “ultimate deal.”

The difference between this vain ambition and that of previous presidents was not so much Trump’s ego or his general lack of knowledge about the situation. It was that his Middle East team had a far more realistic understanding of the situation than the experts who had preceded them.

Kushner, Greenblatt, and Friedman did not all see the problem exactly in the same light. All were pro-Israel. Kushner’s views were more centrist. Though he writes about Benjamin Netanyahu staying in his room when his family hosted him on a visit to New Jersey, he was more in tune with the prime minister’s chief rival, Benny Gantz. For their part, Greenblatt and especially Friedman had strong sympathies for Netanyahu and the Israeli right. Yet, as they all write, each understood that the problem with past peace attempts was the Oslo mindset and a failure to understand that the Palestinians were still acting on the conviction that sooner or later the international community and the Americans would ditch Israel and hand them complete victory. It wouldn’t take them long to help educate Trump about the Palestinians.

Prior to joining the administration, Friedman had helped raise funds for West Bank settlements and had nearly had his appointment blocked because of the incendiary language he used to describe American Jews who are highly critical of Israel (he called the left-wing lobby group J Street “kapos”—a reference to Jewish collaborators with the Nazis, an attack he had to retract and apologize for). And as this history might suggest, he was a U.S. ambassador to Israel like no other.

Every previous envoy sent to the Tel Aviv embassy regarded himself as an American pro-consul whose job was to give orders to the leaders of a client state. Friedman had other ideas. He was determined to right what he saw as the wrongs of past U.S. policies toward Israelis. And he knew, with the help of those such as Kushner and Greenblatt working in the White House, how to do it.

As president, Trump was initially fooled into believing that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s claims that he wanted peace were genuine. But Friedman, who was the key player in every one of Trump’s historic pro-Israel decisions, helped disabuse him by breaking protocol and ensuring that his former client watched a video, compiled by Israelis, of Abbas’s statements fomenting anti-Israel and anti-Semitic violence. He also made Trump aware of the Palestinian Authority’s “pay for slay” scheme, by which terrorists who injured or killed Israelis received salaries and pensions paid to their families based on the level of violence committed. Friedman’s educational efforts infuriated the State Department but largely dislodged Trump’s illusions about Palestinian intentions.

This was best illustrated with Trump’s startling decision to authorize the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, with the implicit recognition of Israel’s capital that it signaled. Every other president and his aides had bought into the conventional wisdom that such a decision would set the region on fire—which meant the embassy had remained in Tel Aviv despite a law passed by Congress in November 1995 and signed by Bill Clinton mandating its relocation to Jerusalem.

In the White House, Kushner and Greenblatt were quick to advance an argument that Netanyahu had been trying to make to the Americans for years: Much of the Arab world was far more interested in the threat from Iran than the complaints and ambitions of the Palestinians. The vast experience of Kushner, Greenblatt, and Friedman in real estate helped them understand the position of the Palestinians in a way their predecessors could not. They saw the Palestinian position as the moral equivalent to that of an owner of a depressed property that had been intentionally run down and whose value was declining.

If the Palestinians wanted a deal with Israel—and there was little reason to think they did—they’d have to take less than what had been offered under the more generous terms of Israeli and American governments in the past. What the Palestinians needed was a cold dose of reality, and Trump’s amateurs were ready to serve it up with respect to Jerusalem even if Tillerson and Mattis were not.

Friedman’s dramatic account of the meeting in the White House Situation Room on November 27, 2017, in which the issue of Jerusalem was finally decided, provides a sense of the difficulties involved for Trump’s amateurs. Tillerson’s and Mattis’s objections carried weight with Trump, and White House Chief of Staff Kelly ensured that only Friedman would be there to oppose them. Kushner and Greenblatt were not invited so as to make clear that the decision would not be made at “the behest of three Orthodox Jews.”

Yet if the “adults” thought the odds were stacked in their favor, they were wrong. After Tillerson had read a briefing paper prepared for him by staff, Friedman embarrassed the secretary by pointing out that Tillerson mistakenly claimed Jerusalem was reunited in 1996 rather than in the 1967 Six-Day War and had also omitted the fact that a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1995 had already declared the city to be the undivided capital of Israel. For his part, Mattis claimed that Israel’s capital had to be Tel Aviv because that is where its defense ministry is located; Friedman’s brilliant riposte was that by Mattis’s logic, America’s capital should be in Virginia with the Pentagon.

More important, Friedman played Trump perfectly, telling him that if he was the tough and unique leader he claimed to be rather than a typical politician who breaks his promises as every previous president had done with respect to Jerusalem, he’d have to agree to the move. The gambit worked perfectly. Trump made the fateful decision and approved other actions that led to the establishment of a new permanent embassy in Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The title of Friedman’s book is a reference to the sledgehammer he used to help inaugurate an archeological park in Jerusalem’s City of David—but it also serves as a useful metaphor for Friedman’s effective work in helping to secure American support for Jewish rights in Israel’s capital.

The embassy move set the tone for Trump’s tilt toward Israel, but, at least until the fall of 2020, the end goal of all these efforts was to prepare the way for a peace plan with the Palestinians and not with Arab nations. The Abraham Accords happened in no small measure because the Trump team believed in an “outside-in” approach in which pressure from the Arab world would cause the Palestinians to see reason.

When not battling with the permanent foreign-policy bureaucracy, Kushner and Greenblatt were establishing relationships with the Gulf States. Their diplomats made it clear that these countries regarded Israel as a tacit ally against Iran rather than an enemy, as well as a potential First World economic trading partner.

Trump’s team played on this sentiment, even as they thought that simple pragmatism might compel the Palestinians to abandon revanchist fantasies and seek avenues for international investment. That was the basis of a “Peace Through Prosperity” plan that the amateurs worked on for a large part of their first years in the administration.

Abbas never seriously considered the proposal. He refused to accept that time was actually on Israel’s side. The Jewish state was growing wealthier and starting to be seen by the Arab world as a strategic asset against Iran. There were also the facts on the ground, which is to say, Jewish communities in the West Bank had become so large that their removal was no longer feasible or politically possible. Abbas ignored that Kushner and Greenblatt’s plan involved the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state and Israeli surrender of some territory in the West Bank (though not nearly so much as the Palestinians had been offered in proposals in 2000, 2001, and 2008).

Though the plan for a Palestinian state was ready in the spring of 2019, the successive stalemates in Israel’s Knesset elections meant that it had to be put on hold until January 2020. It was then that the key conflict between Trump’s amateurs erupted.

Friedman and Netanyahu believed that the plan allowed Israel to extend its law over the parts of the West Bank designated as “Area C” by the Oslo Accords—a region where Jewish settlements existed and relatively few Arabs lived. Kushner, who had by this time grown weary of the Israeli prime minister’s hard-bargaining tactics, was outraged by what he thought was a breach of the terms the two countries had agreed to. Kushner believed that the annexation of Area C could happen only much later, with specific American approval in the context of a final agreement.

Friedman writes of this as a misunderstanding while Kushner still considers it to be evidence of Netanyahu’s untrustworthiness. With his son-in-law egging him on, Trump expressed outrage about Netanyahu’s willingness to exploit the situation for his country’s advantage. Ultimately, Netanyahu had to back down; Friedman was also bruised by the dispute.

And yet the conflict served an unexpectedly creative purpose. It provided the leverage the United Arab Emirates needed to justify its decision to normalize relations with Israel. In the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador to the United Nations, published an op-ed blasting the annexation idea. But while ostensibly critical of Israel, the column offered the possibility that the Arab world would open its arms to the Jewish state—because putting off annexation indefinitely would provide a rationale for normalization by Arab nations that were eager for an excuse to ditch the Palestinians.

Kushner and his chief aide, Avi Berkowitz, with the enthusiastic support of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who had replaced Tillerson in 2018), went to work securing what would become the Abraham Accords. The UAE went first, but the Kushner-Berkowitz team also got Bahrain and then Morocco (at the cost of American recognition for its occupation of the former Spanish Sahara) to join in.

The establishment of Israeli diplomatic relations with these countries was by any objective standard a historic achievement. It added to the total of Arab nations that recognized Israel after more than seven decades of the Jewish state’s existence; only Egypt and Jordan, both former direct combatants in the wars against Israel, had normalized relations before this point. Even more important, as Kushner’s book makes clear, the normalization was also done with the acquiescence of Saudi Arabia. The accords demolished the claims that peace with the Arab world could only follow a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians.

Trump’s amateurs proved that John Kerry’s notorious 2015 answer of “no, no, no, no,” when he was asked about the possibility of a wider peace, had been a function of the foreign-policy establishment’s tunnel vision and not a reflection of diplomatic reality. It provided the template for future peace agreements along the same lines with other Arab nations and could, in theory, prod a new generation of Palestinian leaders to seek an agreement with Israel and the United States that would be similar to the Peace Through Prosperity formula._

That the amateurs had arrived at this point by an indirect route, and only after years of struggle both inside the U.S. government and in futile attempts to engage the Palestinians, doesn’t detract from their achievement. But so deep is the contempt for Trump and Netanyahu within the ranks of the Washington establishment, and so entrenched are their preconceived notions about the Middle East, that not even the reality of the Abraham Accords and  their significance are enough to change minds.

With the same cast of characters who so conspicuously failed in the Middle East under Bill Clinton and especially Barack Obama now back in control of American foreign policy, the familiar refrains about Israel needing to make concessions to encourage the Palestinians are once again in vogue. Though the Palestinian reputation for intransigence has made it difficult for even President Joe Biden’s team to find any meaningful way to appease Abbas and Company, Trump’s successor has failed to follow up on the Abraham Accords, thus squandering the opportunity for more peace deals and a united front against Iranian aggression and nuclear threats.

That is why the four books by Trump’s amateurs deserve to be read—and, despite their pedestrian renderings of everyday diplomacy (and Kushner’s deeply unattractive efforts at revenge and score-settling), understood as a useful guide to how Washington can break its addiction to policies that have been tried and proven to fail. Their authors may suffer from the opprobrium that the educated classes attach to anyone connected to Trump. But their successes deserve to be remembered and honored, and they stand as a lesson to all who will follow in their footsteps.

1 Breaking History: A White House Memoir, by Jared Kushner (Broadside Books); Sledgehammer: How Breaking with the Past Brought Peace to the Middle East, by David Friedman (Broadside Books); In the Path of Abraham: How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East—and How to Stop Joe Biden from Unmaking It, by Jason D. Greenblatt (Wicked Son); Let My People Know: The Incredible Story of Middle East Peace and What Lies Ahead, by Aryeh Lightstone (Encounter Books)

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS.org and a columnist for Newsweek.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++