April 30, 2010

By Ted Belman
What this means is that Obama has accepted that there is no diplomatic solution. As I have written many times before, he intends to impose a plan, in fact the Saudi Plan. He has already started the imposition by demanding a settlement freeze and the other things set out in this article. Negotiations are a sham. Israel will be given an erzats peace but will not get an end of conflict agreement or recognition by any Arab government that Israel is a Jewish state. We will get “normalized” relations, whatever that means.

On the other hand, Barry Rubin , The U.S.-Israel Crisis May Be Over and We Can “Celebrate” the Achievement of Nothing, believes that all that has happenned is that Obama can claim he got negotiations started, ignoring that he caused them to stop.

HaEtzni goes beyond the negotiations and concludes that it is all about imposing a plan. I agree with HaEtzni.

The Second War of Independence

By Elyakim HaEtzni

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu avoided attending the international nuclear conference in Washington in order to side step the mine that President Barack Obama had planted there for him and us.

What was the nature of that mine?

It’s not just Jerusalem or any particular clause in the document that Obama set before Netanyahu for his signature at their last meeting. At stake is the independence of the State of Israel. We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America’s leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner. Alex Fishman, in an article in “Yediot Achronot” from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his
signature:

*The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets);

*Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem;

*Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, amounting to the de facto division of the capitol.

In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there. Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.

All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months.

“What if Israel doesn’t respond to Obama’s plan or only responds partially?,” Fishman asked a senior State Department official. The man replied, “What do you mean we won’t receive full answers? Where do you think you’re going from here?”

The American commentator Barry Rubin listed three substantive breaches of agreement by the Obama administration towards Israel:

* A breach of the agreement to recognize Israel’s right to maintain settlement blocks.

* A breach of the agreement for Israel to continue building in eastern Jerusalem, given in return for Israel’s acceding to the administration’s demand for a 10-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria.

* The intention to publicize an American peace plan that will be forced on the sides if negotiations can’t get started or fail.

The subject of the third breach completes the process of Israel’s loss of sovereignty. First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American “peace plan.”

And that’s not all. There’s the Quartet’s declared intent to base the forced “peace” on foreign armies. The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel’s complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line. Their answer to this is “security guarantees” backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line. They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us. In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action. From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only. In fact, Israel will
be a protectorate under international control, led by America.

Obama masterfully stage-directed the threat of a forced solution upon us. A meeting was called of past security advisors that all shared a common attribute: hostility to Israel. The chairman was General Jim Jones who served in Israel and became known as favoring a forced solution with foreign military backing. Obama named him as his National Security Advisor. The other participants were Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Samuel Berger, men with reputations as fierce opponents of Israel. Colin Powell ­ not a great friend but a bit more neutral ­ also participated. With Powell as the sole dissenter, they all reached the conclusion that America must adopt a policy of forcing a solution. The fact of the meeting as well as its conclusions were leaked by the White House to The New York Times and The Washington Post, who were also told that the President himself had dropped in to listen in on the discussion ­ this to let us know that it wasn’t just another discussion by another committee, but a working meeting sponsored by the President. In this discussion too, the participants agreed on the need to station American or NATO armed forces along the Jordan River.

Another figure in Obama’s circle is Samantha Power, who in 2002, answering the question of how she would advise the President about the Arab-Israeli conflict, replied that instead of giving Israel three billions dollars annually, the money should go towards building a
Palestinian state and to funding “a huge army” with substantial capabilities for “forced outside intervention”. Obama appointed this woman as an advisor, a fact that says it all.

The Arabs caught on to the new rules of the game before Netanyahu, and are acting like they don’t have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them. We, the Israelis, don’t count, since we’re not considered as having any independent power of decision. Instead of talking to the puppet, the Arabs prefer to address the one who pulls the strings.

America has a rich past of coercive foreign interventions. She had a hand in the coup in Chile that overthrew and killed Salvador Allende, Chile’s democratically elected president. America orchestrated the revolt of “Solidarity” in Poland that overthrew the communist regime. She was involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in the Ukraine (since then, the Russians overturned things once again), and helped to overthrow Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in order to set up a pro-American government there. Her intervention in numerous Latin American countries coined the phrase “banana republic”.

The Americans call their hostile subversion of other countries’ governments “destabilization,” and the press is indeed reporting that the sources close to the prime minister fear that Obama intends to bring down Netanyahu’s government if he doesn’t accept American dictates. In economics, this is known as a hostile takeover.

The hostile Israeli press sides with Obama, of course. Orly Azoulay, Yediot Achronot’s Washington bureau chief, acts as a “court reporter” for Obama, as if she works for him and not for us. And Alex Fishman, quoted above, criticizes “the problematic behavior of the Prime Minister in Washington.” Obama puts Neyanyahu through a hazing in Washington, and instead of defending his prime minister and condemning the one who insulted him ­ and thereby insulted us, one of Israel’s prominent reporters throws mud on the “problematic behavior” of the victim. What was Netanyahu’s sin? That he didn’t immediately sign the decree of surrender?

Another example of the slavish and servile language of the Israeli press is the headline of Yediot Achronot from Sept. 17, 2009, which proclaims “The U.S.: Our Patience With Israel is Ending.” The paper’s editors composed this formulation, as if Israel were a stubborn child getting on the nerves of the teacher.

Israelis aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the threat of foreign military forces entering the country even though the writing has been on the wall for some time now. For example, as far back as October 2008, the newspaper A-Shark al-Aussat citing French sources reported that the European Union had offered to deploy a European “peace force” along a future Israeli-Palestinian border. The Jerusalem Post reported on November 26, 2008 about a recommendation by one of Obama’s most senior advisors to station American or NATO armed forces in the Jordan Valley. Brzezinski also spoke of an “American line” along the Jordan Valley.* Aaron Klein reported on January 12 about secret discussions in which the possibility of placing Jordanian forces in Judea and Samaria was weighed.

Another blow to Israeli sovereignty that Klein publicized (April 8, 2010), is the spy network that George Mitchell has established here. There is detailed American oversight in eastern Jerusalem and the highest echelons become involved in every tiny building or development project. Mitchell set up the operation from within the American consulate in Jerusalem that also oversees building in Judea and Samaria, including every tractor that moves in Ma’ale Adumim. David HaIvri, spokesman of the Samaria Local Council, also noted that the Americans patrol the settlements and stick their noses everywhere. According to HaIvri, they present themselves as advisors to the consul, “but we know that in fact they’re spies for the Obama administration.”

In truth, the deterioration leading to the loss of sovereignty, G-d forbid, started back in 2003, when Ariel Sharon’s government obligated itself to the Road Map. It is the Road Map that the Americans rely on when they accuse Israel of not fulfilling her obligations.

However, during the government vote on the Road Map, Netanyahu agreed to support it only on condition that 14 “reservations” were appended to it. The reservations included dismantling the terror
organizations, including Hamas, stopping the incitement, confiscating unauthorized arms, and an end to arms smuggling and arms manufacture.

These conditions, to say the least, haven’t been met ­ suffice it to mention that the Hamas state in Gaza, whose raison d’etre is to conduct a terror war against Israel until the Jewish State is destroyed, comprises almost half the Palestinian population.

Another reservation stated that as long as the Arabs fail to honor their commitments to put an end to terror and incitement, Israel is also absolved of her commitments (for example, to dismantle outposts and freeze building in the settlements).

Another reservation said that “final status issues, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the status of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, will not be dealt with.” In another reservation, Israel rejected “any reference to international or other decisions,” (referring to the Saudi-Arab Initiative).

In light of these reservations, Obama’s attack on Israel is groundless since the conditions that would obligate Israel to the Road Map haven’t been met at all. Since May 23, 2003, the date the government obligated itself to these reservations, we’ve heard nothing about them, as if they vanished into a black hole. At the time, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us: you can decide among yourselves whatever you want, but just as no one consulted you when we formed the Quartet or formulated the Road Map, no one’s cares about your “reservations” now. Today, it appears that she was right: Israel’s reservations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The Secretary of State’s position was indeed correct: the Road Map was a dictate and no one heard the Israeli poodle’s whimper of protest in the form of “reservations”.

Here, with the Road Map, was the beginning of our loss of independence: we subjugated ourselves to the Quartet, we agreed to be supervised and judged by their inspectors, we gave them the authority to convene international conventions with the power to declare Palestinian independence, and we accepted the principle that the Arabs have legitimate claims to Jerusalem and regarding the refugees — all under the umbrella of the Saudi Initiative. All this, in addition to the obligation to freeze settlements and destroy outposts.

We waged our first war of independence against the British and the Arab armies when we were very weak ­ we had a population of 650,000, which is the same as the population of Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem today. We had almost no arms, only a nascent army, and no economy — we were like a newborn baby, naked and vulnerable. Those conditions are incomparable with our situation now. And yet, despite our current strength and resources, if we aren’t now willing to undertake the risks and hardships entailed in a second war for our independence, we’re likely to loose everything we achieved in our first war of independence.

*On April 26th, Channel One’s Ehud Yaari interviewed Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen on Israeli television. There, Abu Mazen asserted that he and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had reached an agreement that Israel’s security concerns would be safeguarded in a final peace accord by stationing NATO troops under American command along the future Israeli-Palestinian border.