October 24, 2008

By Ted Belman

Senator Biden recently warned about an upcoming generated crises and asked for political support for Obama’s reaction.

“Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

I know what he is referring to. At least I believe I do. Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah will attack Israel in a big way to get Israel to attack them back and the UNSC will then pass a Chapter VII resolution, without an American veto, demanding that Israel withdraw to the greenline and abandon all settlements. The UN sends a force consisting of soldiers from Jordan, Egypt and Syria to enforce it and establish “peace”. Here’s my reasoning.

In May of this year I wrote J-Street and Obama are in full agreement. It included J-Streets Statement of Principles

J Street brings together Americans who seek a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and broader public and policy debate in the U.S. about ways to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

We support:

* Consistent and concerted diplomatic engagement by the United States to achieve Israeli-Arab peace. A negotiated end to the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts serves both U.S. and Israeli strategic and security interests. Achieving it must be a priority for any future U.S. administration; (They insist that Israel be forced to capitulate.)

* An enduring relationship between the US and Israel that promotes their common interests. We recognize and support Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, a democratic country that promises equal rights for all its citizens and that has the right to defend itself against external threats; (But not a a Jewish state.There is a difference.

* The creation of a viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps. The future Palestinian state will require unprecedented levels of international economic and political support to succeed, including a resolution of the refugee issue within the new Palestinian state and in current host countries; (These borders would require the transfer of at least 150,000 Israelis.)

* An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement based on the land-for-peace formula, security guarantees, and details outlined in previous negotiations; (Of what value are security guarantees?)

* A comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Initiative, leading to recognition of Israel by all its neighbors in the Middle East and the creation of a new regional approach to cooperation and security; (Pie in the sky.)

* An American policy in the Middle East more broadly based on diplomacy, multilateralism and real partnership with the European Union, the Quartet and others. We support dialogue with a broad range of countries and actors, including Iran, over confrontation in order to find solutions to the region’s conflicts. (They want to appease them rather than confront them.)

Essentially they support the Saudi Plan. I believe they pay lip service to a negotiated settlement and understand that a settlement must be imposed.

Of the utmost importance is the fact that both Obama and J-Street are supported by George Soros if not created by him. The prosecution of AIPAC’s Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman was the first public move, followed by Mearsheimer and Walt’s book The Israel Lobby, in order to undermine the power of AIPAC. Then J-Street was created to replace it.

Thomas Friedman lent a hand by Redefining “What it means to be pro-Israel”

Biden’s remark suggests Pres Obama is going to administer tough love.

Thus the ground work has been laid for “tough love” and now a “generated crises” is needed to set the plan in motion.

I expect that Intifadah III will soon break out which will spiral out of control with Hezbollah and Hamas joining in. Just this week Haaretz reported Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel. and DEBKA reported that Iran has developed a series of optional plans for pre-emptively attacking Israel. The “floating dirty bomb.” was intended for this purpose.

And who would complain? Certainly not Olmert, the EU, J-Street or Obama’s foreign policy team.

In an interview in 2002, Samantha Power, who is expected to be in Obama’s cabinet, was asked,

Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power gave an astonishing answer:

What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention…. Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

Now you more fully understand Biden’s remarks. He is concerned about the “fierce criticism” of the intervention.

In a 1992 Jerusalem Post story, reference was made to a Biden conversation with Begin ten years earlier,in which Biden threatened to cut off all aid to Israel unless all settlement activity was stopped. John Podhoretz discussed this conversation in his recent Commentary article Did Biden Call for a Cut-Off in Aid to Israel?

We already have witnessed UN efforts to demand Israel withdraw and efforts to establish an Arab force to keep the peace in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. Egypt is hosting discussions between Hamas and Fatah. What could they be discussing.

Remember, every time there is an Arab/Israeli war, the UN intervenes to stop it.

[See: Cloward-Piven Strategy - the generated crisis]