Saturday, March 28, 2015

Managing Obama’s War Against Israel - Caroline Glick



by Caroline Glick

As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.



815195486984b07a948ab7bd17c273a6Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood. Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed.

Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama.

But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.

To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening.

First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.

As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.

Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.

Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.

Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.

And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.

In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this week. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.

The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.

Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.

Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.

In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.

Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.

Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.

First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.

As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.

The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.

If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.

To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.

Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.

Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.

He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.

Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.

Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.

With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.

As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”

By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.

Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.

No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.

The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.

Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.

We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.

Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole – as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.

Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.

Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.

Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.

The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.

Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage.


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.


Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/caroline-glick/managing-obamas-war-against-israel/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

4 comments:

Chris Rettenmoser said...

Mullah Hussein Obama is a clear and present danger for the WHOLE of the civilised world.
His prime target is to support his dear Iranian buddies and to make them a nuclear terror entity...THIS IS A POLITICAL NIGHTMARE come trough !
As John Bolton just made it cristal clear, ONLY a military attack on it's key nuclear installations can keep the Iranian nuclear drive in check.
Israel can do it alone and the Saudis will LOVE it !!!!
The 2 state solution is DEAD...there must NEVER be an Arab terror entity in Judea and Samaria.
Israel MUST NEVER allow the establishment of a sovereign Arab state on the soil of it's ancient heartland !
In some months, the American election campaign will go into full swing and Obama will become the lamest of all ducks ever, he will be forced to stand on the political sidelines...

Anonymous said...

March 29, 2014

One of the foundations of Barack Hussein's policies is the doctrine of "Core demographic voters".That's Orwellian 'Newspeak' for unbridled favouritism toward the ethnic/racial/& other "communities of natural entitlement" that are most likely to vote left-liberal Democrat. Most of these groups are considered to be either neutral or borderline hostile to such issues as: Prudent financial, monetary & fiscal policies that would limit government largesse, reject open door immigration policies; Adoption of a steady-state grovelling apologetic foreign policy, a cold neutrality toward American & Israel -Jewish interests in the Muslim Orient, America's roots in European/Western civilization. Including the "Judeo/Christian" aspect, arms-length relationships with other European peoples like Britain, France et al, neutering America's armed forces. None of this should be surprising, considering Obama's scarcely concealed hostility to traditional American values and cultural foundations. The foregoing is merely scratching the surface.
It's reached the point of "So foul a sky clears not without a storm". No wonder the crumbling madhouses of the Muslim Orient [partial list,nuke-toting Pakistan, quasi-nuke toting Iran, ISIS} feel so empowered. At this stage, both Pakistan & Iran would have to be taken out simultaneously. From more than one direction and by at least two {or more}willing & able nations. Not to mention the presence of overtly hostile, dysfunctional and economically burdensome Muslim masses in Europe, North America and elsewhere.
We brought it on ourselves.

Norman L. Roth, Toronto Canada

Anonymous said...

April 03 2015

One of the most disappointing aspects of the debating society mentality that characterizes the behaviour of our verbose "scholarly" diaspora communities, is that it inhibits the development of tactical action on the ground,and audacious strategic thinking. The kind that hurts our adversaries at the most personal & local levels.
[Hint: It's IMAGES that count. Not blah-blah-blah. And THEY have supplied uncountable horrific imagery of THEMSELVES "on the job"]
How many times can we repeat a la nausee, the same "exposure" of our enemies' taqqiya ? Not to mention more than half a century of attempts to "reason" with THEM, and present the real 'facts' and 'figures' and the true sequence of events that goes with them. And all that non-stop pleading with our natural enemies to convince THEM just what "nice" folks WE really are ! Why don't WE just buy lots of voice synthesizers in as many languages required,and for all occasions. Cheap & impersonal.
No wonder THEY are laughing at US. Especially when THEY openly celebrate in their own closed neighbourhoods, every mass murder & grande guignole they perpetrate on an almost daily basis. Like the horrific one in Kenya yesterday. Which many of THEM are applauding as a great 'model' for emulation. As WE "relax": Just before celebrating Pesach. Whose core message is utterly alien to THEIR irredeemable sado-maochistic slave culture.
And here's another reminder. Is there any hoax more successful than the "palestinian" one ? From all aspects: Demographic, propaganda, Financial, Open nomadic parasitism , Stratospheric corruption of mind and soul: You've got to give THEM the hoax-meisters' grande prix for that one! Not to mention the preposterous lib-left myth that there exists a huge majority of "moderate" Muslims; Who have been "hi-jacked" by all those "extremists, jihadists, and religious fanatics". Whose actions in no way 'have anything to do' with the truly "peaceful & honourable" spirit of Islam. And who can be negotiated with in "good faith".
It is WE, in the Diaspora who have reached a crisis in OUR behavioural patterns. A shameful "Point of No Return". And yet it is WE who have an abundance of "the right stuff"
to teach our enemies that WE are not the "permitted blood" . {Consult Zeev Jabotinsky & Orde Wingate about what that means.} And how WE can mobilize ourselves to apply it at OUR local levels in the DIASPORA. Only thus will WE redeem our lost opportunities; And honour,
Norman L. Roth, Toronto, Canada.
Please GOOGLE {1} Norman L. Roth {{2} Roth, Economics of Technos {3} Norman Roth, Economic theory {4} Origins of Markets, Norman L. Roth

Anonymous said...

July 26, 2015

There's only one direction to go from Barack Hussein Obama's & John so-called "Kerry's" death-wish {"we can control 'em"} capitulation to Iran's perfectly mainstream Muslim leadership.. Which stinks to high-heaven from its Carter /Brzezinski 1979 precedent. The "diktat" which imposed {for the third time since 1949} an Israeli withdrawal from ALL of Sinai. Once again rewarding the Arab-Muslim loser/attackers for "doin' a what comes naturally"... to them. Against all rational moral, legal & political concepts of how to settle the outcome of a war which the aggressors initiated & lost.
The language directed by the Carter /Brzezinski duo at the Israeli leaders at that time, still lies {in both senses of the word} buried in the State Department's archives. Israel knows what has to be done A.S.A.P. But it will not necessarily be Iran that takes the first round of righteous retribution, And it will not necessarily come from the direction anticipated by the diplomats, politicians and pundits who knowingly aid and abet the 'primal material of the negative' from outside the Muslim orient.

Norman L. Roth {Google it} Toronto Canada

Post a Comment