Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer--NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Street Juice

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
707
Reaction score
145
Points
80
Location
Baltimore
In the John Podesta Wikileaks dump, Julian Assange exposed the collusion, dirty quid pro quo, and meddling of Israel in US politics.

We just spent 2.5 years on the absurd (from the outset) Russian collusion investigation, Julian Assange is in jail for divulging state secrets to the enemy (the American people), the Jewish controlled press completely ignored this irrefutable evidence of foreign meddling.

George Soros and Haim Saban each gave tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and feature prominently in policy discussions Wikileaks exposed. Then there is this

From:seizenstat@cov.com
To: Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com
CC: John.Podesta@gmail.com, huma@hrcoffice.com
Date: 2015-07-02 21:08

Subject: Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer--NOT FOR CIRCULATION


Dear Jake,

I met with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer just now to brief him on our JPPI (Jewish People Policy Institute) meeting with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet this past Sunday in Jerusalem, and on another matter.

Let me premise this summary by telling you that we are so personally close to him that my late wife Fran and I went to his Bar Mitzvah in Miami (tragically, his father, the Mayor of Miami Beach died of a heart attack two weeks before the event). We have been close ever since, although our politics are far apart.

Also, I am fully and painfully aware of his role in the Romney-Obama election.

Let that sink in. The role in our election of the official representative of Israel in the United States. We just spent two and a half years investigating Russia's non-existent role in our 2016 election, while this open admission of Israel's role is ignored by our Jewish-controlled press. Traitors.

That having been said, what he said to me after I briefed him on the report Dennis Ross and I gave to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the JPPI Annual Assessment of the State of the Jewish People, is worth considering.

1. IRAN

He told me the following:

(1) He understands that Hillary will have to support the Iran nuclear deal. He is concerned that for the balance of Obama's term, Iran could "blackmail" the Administration by threatening to withdraw from the agreement if the U.S. contends they have violated some provision of the agreement.

(2) It is important that even as Hillary endorses the agreement, and says she would vote for it if she was in the Senate, she "should not get too invested in it".

(3) She should "list the concerns "she has with it, while saying that "it is better than no deal".

(4) In addition, she should commit:

(a) That as President she will confront Iran's challenges in other areas (terrorism, Syria, Iraq);
(b) That she will maintain all the non-nuclear sanctions on Iran (human rights, terrorism, etc.);
(c) Join her support for the nuclear deal with a "strong statement that as President she would strengthen all of the US allies in the region, starting with Israel", and will "redouble efforts to work closely with Israel".
(d) Oppose the UN Resolution.

(5) He is "worried that things will get off the rails" when an agreement is reached. He noted with greater concern, saying "it was embarrassing" that Jack Lew was booed during a recent speech at a Jerusalem Post forum, when he was defending a nuclear deal. Hillary should avoid being put in that position. He is concerned the coming Iran battle will "shift downward the American-Israel" relationship.

(6) The Administration is "tone deaf" about the "existential threat" to Israel from Iran. Hillary should recognize and empathize with Israel's concerns with the Iran deal.

(7) He thought three weeks ago that there was only a 10% chance of a congressional veto override; now he feels there is a 30% chance, as opposition is building and the gaps in the agreement are becoming clearer.

2. BDS

(1) They will shortly expose the funding base for the main BDS group on campus, Students for Justice in Palestine, which tie it with terrorist funding.

(2) He agrees there should be a "big tent" to combat BDS of all pro-Israel, anti-BDS groups. But he distinguishes between liberal groups like Peace Now, which he supports, and JStreet, which he does not. The reason, he said, is that although they are officially anti-BDS, they actively lobby against Israeli positions supported by a democratically elected government in Israel, and are constantly critical of Israel, rather than the Palestinians. By lobbying Congress and the Administration against Israeli positions they are "denying Israel's right to self-determination." They are lobbying to change what the popularly elected government of Israel supports.
Israel, of course, lobbies similarly in the US, but far more aggressively.

(3) He is doubtful the position Dennis and I took before the Cabinet, that not expanding settlements outside the established blocs would have much effect on BDS followers.

(4) The key is to expose BDS as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. There is no other country where there is a BDS campaign to change their policy.
Liar, the other apartheid regime in our lifetimes, South Africa, received precisely the same attention, only stronger. E'erbody always pickin' on po' po' Israel.

Israel is being held to a double standard. If those who supported BDS also supported against other countries (Saudi Arabia, China, et al) then at least there is some consistent principle. But by singling out Israel, it exposes an anti-Semitic basis for their efforts. Perhaps some of this will be helpful.

Please do not circulate this beyond the immediate people I have copied.

Best wishes,

Stu Eizenstat
 

Kat

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
45,447
Reaction score
20,647
Points
2,645
You need some sort of link with this. The OP is way too long. Will give you time to fix it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top