http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/glick051311.php3
May 13, 2011 / 9 Iyar, 5771
Obama's newest ambush
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It is hard to believe, but it appears that
in the wake of the Palestinian unity deal that brings the genocidal, al
Qaida-aligned, local franchise of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Hamas into a
partnership with Fatah, US President Barack Obama has decided to open a new
round of pressure on Israel to give away its land and national rights to the
Palestinians. It is hard to believe that this is the case. But apparently it
is.
On Wednesday The Wall Street Journal reported that while Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu is in Washington next week, and before the premier has a
chance to give his scheduled address to a joint session of Congress, Obama will
give a new speech to the Arab world. In that speech, Obama will praise the
populist movements that have risen up against Arab tyrannies and embrace them
as the model for the future. As for Israel, the report claimed that the Obama
administration is still trying to decide whether the time is right to put the
screws on Israel once more.
On the one hand, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told the Journal
that Arab leaders are clamoring for a new US initiative to force Israel to make
new concessions. Joining this supposed clamor are the administration-allied
pro-Palestinian lobby J-Street, and the administration-allied New York Times.
On the other hand, the Netanyahu government and the US Congress are calling for
a US aid cut-off to the Palestinian Authority. With Hamas, a foreign terrorist
organization now partnering with Fatah in governing the PA, it is illegal for
the US government to continue to have anything to do with the PA. Both the
Netanyahu government and senior members of the House and Senate are arguing
forcefully that there is no way for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians
now and that the US must abandon its efforts to force the sides to sign an
agreement.
The Israeli and Congressional arguments are certainly compelling. But the
signals emanating from the White House and its allied media indicate that Obama
is ready to plough forward in spite of them. With the new international
security credibility he earned by overseeing the successful assassination of
Osama Bin Laden, Obama apparently believes that he can withstand Congressional
pressure and make the case for demanding that Israel surrender Jerusalem, Judea
and Samaria to Hamas and its partners in Fatah.
The signals that Obama is setting his sights on coercing Israel into agreeing
to surrender its capital and heartland to Hamas and its partners in Fatah came
in three forms this week. First, administration officials are trying to lower
the bar that Hamas needs to pass in order to be considered a legitimate
political force.
After Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal in March 2007, the US and
its colleagues in the so-called Middle East Quartet - Russia, the EU and the UN
- set three conditions that Hamas needed to meet in order to be accepted by
them as legitimate. It needed to recognize Israel's right to exist, agree to
respect existing agreements with Israel and renounce terrorism.
These are not difficult conditions. Fatah is perceived as having met them even
though it is still a terrorist organization and its leaders refuse to accept
Israel's right to exist and refuse to abide by any of the major commitments
they took upon themselves in precious agreements with Israel. Hamas could
easily follow Fatah's lead.
But Hamas refuses. So speaking to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius two
weeks ago, administration officials lowered the bar. They said Hamas had made
major concessions to Fatah in the agreement because it agreed to accept
provisions of the 2009 unity deal drafted by the Mubarak government that it
rejected two year ago and because Hamas agreed that the unity government will
be manned by "technocrats" rather than terrorists.
Even if these contentions are true, they are completely ridiculous. In point of
fact, all the 2009 agreement says is that Hamas will refrain from demanding to
join the US-trained and funded Fatah army in Judea and Samaria. As for the
"technocratic" government, who does the Obama administration think will control
these "technocrats"?
And as to the truth of these contentions, in an interview last week with the
New York Times, Hamas terror-master Khaled Mashal denied that he had agreed to
the terms of the 2009 agreement. Indeed, he said that Fatah agreed to add
annexes to the agreement reflecting Hamas's positions.
The second pitch the administration and its friends have adopted ahead of
Obama's address next week is that Hamas has become more moderate or may become
more moderate. Robert Malley, who in the past advised Obama's presidential
campaign made this argument last week in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Malley claimed that by joining the government, Hamas will be more moved by US
pressure. A New York Times editorial last Saturday argued that Hamas may have
moderated, and even if it hasn't, "Washington needs to press Mr. Netanyahu back
to the peace table."
Adding their voices to the din, Middle Eastern leaders like Amr Mussa, the
frontrunner to serve as Egypt's next president and Turkish Prime Minister Recip
Erdogan have given interviews to the US media this week in which they denied
that Hamas is even a terrorist organization.
Here it is important to note that none of the administration's statements about
the Hamas-Fatah deal and none of the media coverage related to it have included
any mention of the fact that has deliberately murders entire families and
targets children specifically. No one mentions last month's Hamas guided rocket
attack which deliberately targeted an Israeli school bus. Hamas murdered
16-year-old Daniel Viflic in that attack. No one has mentioned the caf�
massacres, the bus bombings, the university campus massacres, the breaking into
homes massacres, the Passover seder massacres Hamas has carried out and bragged
about in recent years. No one has mentioned that when seen as a portion of the
population, Hamas has killed far more Israelis than al Qaida has killed
Americans.
The final pitch the administration and its surrogates are making is that the
deal needs to be seen as part of the overall regional shift towards popular
rule. This pitch too is difficult to make. After all, the first casualty of the
Arab world's shift towards popular rule is the 30-year old Camp David peace
treaty between Israel and Egypt. Now that Egypt's citizens have gotten rid of
US-ally Hosni Mubarak, they have committed themselves to getting rid of the
peace he upheld with Israel throughout his long reign.
Again, despite the difficulties, the Obama administration is clearly willing to
make the case. Regarding Egypt, they argue that the Muslim Brotherhood's rise
to power is a good. This was the point of Obama's Passover and Israel
Independence Day messages.
As for the regional shift, the fact that Obama reportedly intends to place the
so-called Palestinian-Israeli peace process into the regional context signals
that he sees potential for an agreement between Israel and Syria as well. His
advisors telegraphed this view to Ignatius. Obama's advisors made the unlikely
argument that if Syrian leader Bashar Assad survives the popular demonstrations
calling for his overthrow, he will feel compelled to distance his regime from
Iran because his Sunni-majority population has been critical of his alliance
with the Shiite mullocracy.
This argument is unlikely given that the same officials recognize that if Assad
survives, his will owe his regime's survival to Iran. As they reminded
Ignatius, US intelligence officials reported last month that Iran has "secretly
supplied Assad with tear gas, anti-riot gear and other tools of suppression."
What is perhaps most remarkable about Obama's apparent plan to use the rise of
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as an excuse for a new round of diplomatic
warfare against Israel is how poorly coordinated his steps have been with the
PLO-Fatah. Abbas and his predecessor Yassir Arafat always viewed the US
obsession with getting the Arabs and Israel to sign peace treaties as a
strategic asset. Anytime they wanted to weaken Israel, they just needed to
sound the fake peace drum loudly enough to get the White House's attention. US
presidents looking for the opportunity to "make history" were always ready to
take their bait.
Unlike his predecessors, Obama's interest in the Palestinians is not
opportunistic. He is a true believer. And because of his deep-seated commitment
to the Palestinians, his policies are even more radically anti-Israel than the
PLO-Fatah's. It was Obama, not Abbas who demanded that Jews be barred from
building anything in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. It is the Obama
administration, not the PLO-Fatah that is leading the charge to embrace the
Muslim Brotherhood.
Like his belated move to demand a permanent abrogation of Jewish property
rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Abbas arguably embraced Hamas because
Obama left him no choice. He has no interest in making peace with Israel, so
the only thing he can do under the circumstances Obama has created is embrace
Hamas. He can't be less pro-Islamic than the US President.
All of this brings us to Netanyahu and his trip to Washington next week.
Obviously Obama's decision to upstage the premier with his new
outreach-to-the-Arab-world speech will make Netanyahu's visit more challenging
than it was already going to be.
Obama is clearly betting that by moving first, he will be able to coerce
Netanyahu to make still more concessions of land and principles. Certainly,
Netanyahu's earlier decisions to cave to Obama's pressure with his acceptance
of Palestinian statehood and his subsequent acceptance of a Jewish building
freeze give Obama good reason to believe he can back Netanyahu into a corner.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak's hysterical warnings about a diplomatic "tsunami"
at the UN in September if Israel fails to capitulate to Obama today no doubt
add to Obama's sense that he can expect Netanyahu to dance to his drums, no
matter how hostile the beat.
But Netanyahu doesn't have to give in. He can stick to his guns and defend the
country. He can continue on the correct path he has forged of repeating the
truth about Hamas. He can warn about the growing threat of Egypt. He can
describe the Iranian-supported butchery Assad is carrying out against his own
people and note that a regime that murders its own will not make peace with the
Jewish state. And he can point out the fact that as a capitalist, liberal
democracy which protects the lives and property of its citizens, Israel is the
only stable country in the region and the US's only reliable regional ally.
True, if Netanyahu does these things, he will not win himself any friends in
the White House. But he never had a chance of winning Obama and his advisors
over anyway. He will empower Israel's allies in Congress though. And more
importantly, whether he is loved or hated in Washington, if Netanyahu does
these things, he will be able to return home to Jerusalem with the sure
knowledge that he earned his salary this month.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list,
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
