Jacob's Soap Box

18 March, 2010

God, please safeguard me from my friends and leave me to take care of my enemies on my own.

(Anon)

Have no mistake, the recent diplomatic rift between Washington and Jerusalem is not about peace, it is not about settlements, and it certainly not about Jo Biden being “insulted” — it is about  Obama! the Obama Middle East Doctrine.

Firstly, let us dispose of some disinformation perpetrated by the Obama administration and his shrieking liberal media.

On or about 9 March 2010, the District Planning Committee of the Municipality of Jerusalem, not the government of Israel, approved the construction of 1,600 new residential units in Ramat Shlomo, an existing northern Jewish suburb of Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo IS NOT in East Jerusalem as we know it, a term normally used describe the old city of Jerusalem and its immediately surrounding villages, it far from it, albeit it is about 1 km. (0.5 mile) north of the green line.

The Prime Minister of Israel, does not need to be notified, approve or disapprove such decision any more than the President of the United States needs to be notified, approve, or otherwise, of construction of a new mall in Washington DC, let alone getting an approval from a foreign county.

What is it that makes every tin-pot liberal, thinks that he or she has the right to trash Israel’s sovereignty over its capital and within the same breath (or stroke of a keyboard) lecture us about interfering in the internal affairs of some failed rogue country in Africa or the Middle East?

It is clear, that the approval by the district planning committee of Jerusalem municipality has nothing to do with Jo Biden’s visit to Israel, dignitaries visits are not part of the consideration for issuing building licences. Jo has been reported to have accepted it but apparently, but that was not enough for the “don’t let a crisis go to waste” White House and the PC pro-Arab brigade of State Department who went on a massive unprecedented disinformation anti-Israel campaign, you would normally expect from the Huffington Post, not from an ally.

This crisis represents a fundamental shift from the American bi-partisan policy on Israel in general and on Jerusalem in particular which had largely supported the Israeli position. For those fools who had thought that Obama is a friend of Israel, here is your answer!

This rift is not between the people of America and the people of Israel, American public support for Israel viz-a-viz the Palestinians runs 8:1 in Israel’s favour and traverses the partisan political lines, but since when American public opinion counts when it comes to White House ideology?

The Obama doctrine of peace in Middle East is one of appeasement and recapitulation,  appeasement of Islam, recapitulation of the United State policies and a literal recapitulation of Israel, there is no other way to describe it.

The Obama doctrine is based on the debunked assumption that Muslim terrorism can be defeated by addressing the stated grievance of Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Had that been the case, there would have been no Al-Qaida today. Al-Qaida was founded by the “Afghan Arabs” who had come to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion. Having defeated the Soviets, the core cause of their “grievances” the Afghan Arab did not go home, instead they decided to take on the world in general and America in particular.

The same applied to the Middle East. Every gesture of goodwill towards brought a wave of violence, Israel unilateral evacuations of South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are a mere two examples among many.

Obama was and remains a “community organiser”, he thinks about the Middle East in terms of Saul Alinsky’s (another product of the Chicago left) of “the haves and have nots” whereas the “have nots”, in this case the Palestinians who need to be “organised” against the evil “haves”, Israel.

The failure of the peace process initiatives between Israel and the Palestinians were not due to lack of goodwill by successive American administrations or the intransigence of Israel on one issue or another, the blame lays squarely within the Palestinian camp.

The Palestinians do not want a state, they just want to fight for one! If you think that this is exaggeration, just read today’s paper and watch today’s news. It is Sept 2000 (second intifada) all over again, de ja vu.

Twice in the past 62 years, the Arabs of Palestine chose war instead of having their own state, the first time was in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan of Palestine and the second time in September 2000 when they violently repudiated the Oslo Accord, AFTER over 90% of their grievances had been addressed.

Although the Oslo Accord has been nullified by the Palestinians, it remain the only viable basis for a comprehensive peace in Middle East. The negotiations between Israel and Palestinians are now about what parts of the Oslo Accord are salvageable, not about wiping the slate clean and starting it again.

From Israel point of view, having failed in their attempt to destroy the Oslo Accord by brutal violence all across Israel (proper), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians cannot expect a reward for their action, thus Israel needs much more convincing that indeed, this time the Palestinians actually want to live in peace side by side with Israel — unfortunately the last few days, once more prove the rule that they do not want a state.

Traditionally there were no disagreement between Israel and USA on this point … until Obama was elected, that is.

In his Cairo pandering speech last June (2009), Obama not only supported the Palestinians cherry-picking the Oslo Accord, but he handed them some cherries of his own, cherries that they had not have and had not asked for as a condition for negotiation.

In a typical moral-equivalent carefully crafted address he spoke in front invitees only audience, including representatives of the “Muslim Brotherhood”, the parent organisation of the Hamas, and he said (among other things):

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop

[Emphasis and highlights are mine]

Oh, really Mr. President? “violates previous agreements”? let see what THE previous agreement really says about settlements.

Article V (3) of The Declaration Of Principles (aka The Oslo Accord) say that:

It is understood that [the permanent status] negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

[square brackets and Emphasis added]

The teleprompter was not yet turned off as the Palestinians announced a new “pre-condition” for the resumption of the direct talks, indeed why not? Even the president of the United State agrees. The fact that they had agreed to put that issue aside for the interim period in the Oslo Accord became irrelevant. But, hey, this is the Middle East.

I want to make it clear that I have never supported the Jewish Settlement in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip (which is no longer relevant), I oppose it! but this is not the issue right now.

However,  Jerusalem is not the West Bank! Jerusalem is not a “settlement”, Jerusalem is Israel and Israel is Jerusalem!

* * * * *

Was the Obama Cairo speech, just a stupid comment by an inexperienced president, or was it part of the Obama Doctrine on the Middle East?

Events suggest the later. Although, clearly, Obama was absolutely wrong in his facts, he nevertheless  continue to pressure Israel to accept Obama’s created pre-condition for the resumption of the talks, and to cease construction in the West Bank settlements.

The Israeli government largely acceded to the American pressure albeit temporarily. Whether Israel agreed to halt construction in West Bank to help the president save face or for other reasons, I don’t really know, but what follows was taken straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals.

In his book, Alinsky has a chapter on “Tactics” (of the Organiser) in which he lists “rules”, in Rule Thirteen Alinsky says that:

The Price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

[Page 130 in paperback edition]

He goes on to explain:

You [the organiser] cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand saying “you are right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now tell us”

[brackets added]

Such tactic is also known as the “salami tactic” or “moving the goal posts”.

Having got an agreement to partially freeze construction in the West Bank, rather than go back to the Palestinians with “now, what about you mate?” the administration jumped on the “opportunity” and in order to avoid being “trapped by the enemy” moved to the next slice of the salami, Jerusalem.

Read on Mr. President, Alinsky continues:

The fourteen Rule: Pick the target, freeze, it personalise it, and polarize it.

The target, Alinsky explains, is picked on a basis of vulnerability, you don’t necessarily attack the party who is responsible for your grievance, you attack the most vulnerable to such attack.

In this context, you do not attack the District Planning Committee or the Municipality of Jerusalem, the body that approve construction, you attack the “right wing” Israeli government. You further personalise your attack with words such as “insult”, and use emotive terms such  “Jewish settlements”, “occupied territory”, “illegal occupation” and, most of all, you attack, attack, attack!

The Palestinians, whilst have a claim on part of Jerusalem, (which they did not have during the Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem), areas such as Ramat Shlomo have never been an issue, not until now when the administration created it.

Instead of trying to bridge over differences, the administration is in fact putting the sides further apart, but that is not all.

What followed the administration attacks on Israel (“addressing” Palestinians grievances) is an EXPECTED wave of incitement and violence by Palestinians, not much dissimilar to those we saw in September 2000, except that the current violence is totally White House driven.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The armed wing of Fatah, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, on Tuesday called on the Palestinian Authority to give back the weapons it had confiscated from the group’s gunmen so that they could participate in the “Jerusalem Intifada.” The call came as both the PA and Hamas continued to accuse Israel of planning to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

De ja vu!

What we see is typical Arab reaction to what they rightly see as a weakening of American support of Israel, thus a weakness of Israel — anyone who knows anything about the Middle East mentality could have foreseen it coming. I have no doubt that Israel will stop this madness but, no doubt, with the usual accusation “disproportionate force”.

Welcome to the Obama Intifada (God forbid), to borrow a term from Melanie Phillips of the Spectator. The same old story; Palestinians attack Jews, Jews protect themselves, Palestinians play victims, UN condemns Israel,  De ja vu!

What left now for Israeli government to do is give Obama a bit of his own medicine, to take a page from Alinsky book too and put the president “outside his experience”, as Alinsky repeats through his book,  or as Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post who does not mince her words this time when she says in her latest article:

Bibi can tell Obama to stick it where the sun don’t shine and rally the Israeli public and Israel’s many  friends in America to his side and so make it impossible for Obama to carry on doing this with immunity. Or he can lick Obama’s boots and set the clock ticking faster towards the destruction of this country.

Caroline! this is not a ladylike talk, but you succinctly expressed my sentiments. Butt out Mr. President before you have your name ingratiating an intifada.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, all rights reserved.