hotline header

An e-newsletter delivering updates and analysis on current issues about Israel and the Middle East conflict

March 23, 2010

Please write President Obama: Stop the war on Israel!
It's not the settlements, not Jerusalem, not Israel blocking peace—it's the Palestinians.

Dear Friend of FLAME:

When you read Caroline Glick's article below, I think you'll be as outraged as I was.  President Obama is trying to change to rules on Israel---putting pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to, among other things, stop building any more housing in the eastern part of Jerusalem, Israel's capital.  Obama also treated Netanyahu shabbily last week when the prime minister was in Washington, ending a late afternoon meeting perfunctorily and refusing to invite Netanyahu to dinner, as diplomacy would have dictated.

But this isn't about dinner-invitation niceties.  It's about the very existence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.  As you know, Israel has made numerous overtures over the decades to the Palestinians in efforts to achieve peace.  Most recently Prime Ministers Ehud Barack in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008 offered some 98 percent of Gaza and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Both times they were turned down.

Netanyahu has also offered to take part in direct peace talks with the Palestinians and as a gesture of goodwill has offered to halt new building in the disputed territories.  Yet the Palestinians have responded by agreeing only to indirect "proximity talks" mediated by the United States.

Here's the huge question: Why have the Palestinians refused all these offers?

The answer becomes clear in a hurry when you look at history, and when you listen to the Palestinians themselves---instead of pretending that what they say about their intentions and motivations are not true: The Palestinians don't want peace with Israel.  They want Israel.  They won't settle for less, and they won't stop fighting until they conquer the Jewish state.

How do we know this?  Look at the first, easiest case, which is Hamas in Gaza: Hamas makes no bones about its indefatigable desire to eliminate Israel "from the river to the sea."  Indeed the very first paragraph of the Hamas charter quotes Islamic scripture, stating "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."  No wonder that when Israel abandoned Gaza to the Palestinians, Hamas responded by attacking Israel with some 10,000 rockets directed at civilian centers in Israel.

As for Fatah, the ruling party of Mahmoud Abbas in the disputed territories, it has not only refused a handful of U.S.-mediated "two-state" peace treaties, but to this day it teaches its school children that Israel does not exist: Maps in Palestinian schools show only one state---Palestine.  What's more, Rafik Natsheh, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, the ruling faction of the Palestinian Authority, recently stated: "Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist, nor have we ever asked others to do so."  When asked in the same interview about the possibility of dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh replied: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen."

What part of Palestinian policy and aspirations does President Obama not understand?  Why does he focus on and pressure Israel?  How can Israel make peace with people who avowedly, violently don't want peace with her?

More importantly, as Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick asks in her article below: Why is Obama waging war on Israel?  (You must read the four demands Obama has leveled at Israel, which are outlined in this article.)

If last week's FLAME Hotline didn't motivate you to rise to Israel's defense, I hope you'll do so now.  We can make a difference.  Please read the Glick article.  Then use the link in the P.S. of this letter to write an email to President Obama.

I urge you to tell him (and your friends and your local newspaper) that the President needs to exert pressure on the Palestinians.  Let them know your support of Israel's right to build anywhere in Jerusalem.  Let them know your feelings about the importance of the United States' relationship with our most loyal ally in the entire world---Israel.   

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Director, FLAME


President Obama has asked for input from U.S. citizens on his Middle East policies.  To give him your opinion about his unfair demands on Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the "peace process," please write the President---immediately.

P.P.S. For more background on Jewish rights to Jerusalem, I refer you to a "classic" FLAME publication that was published nearly five years ago, but whose truth remains solid: "Jerusalem: Whose City---Whose "Holy City"---Is It"? This piece was published in newspapers and magazines with more than 5 million circulation, and it debunks the myth that the Palestinians have inalienable rights to Jerusalem or that their ownership of parts of Jerusalem is fundamental to a peace deal with Israel. I hope you'll review this message and pass it on to friends. If you agree that FLAME's outspoken brand of public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support us. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

Obama's War on Israel
By Caroline Glick, March 19, 2010, Jerusalem Post

Why has President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel?

Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel's fault. As they tell it, the news that Israel has not banned Jewish construction in Jerusalem—after repeatedly refusing to ban such construction drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage from which he has yet to recover.

While popular, this claim makes no sense. Obama didn't come to be called "No drama Obama" for nothing. It is not credible to argue that Jerusalem's local planning board's decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo drove cool Obama into a fit of wild rage at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny.

On Friday, Obama ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum.

First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.

Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called "right of return," in the course of indirect, Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

If Israel does not accept all four US demands, then the Obama administration will boycott Netanyahu and his senior ministers. In the first instance, this means that if Netanyahu comes to Washington next week for the AIPAC conference, no senior administration official will meet with him. [Editor's note: President Obama did meet with the Prime Minister several times last week, but the meetings were reportedly brief, cool and unproductive.]

Obama's ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.

Obama's new demands follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession.

Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu's concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary.

With the US president treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate. Indeed, they have no choice but to declare war.

And so, in the wake of Obama's onslaught on Israel's right to Jerusalem, Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews has risen to levels not seen since the outbreak of the last terror war in September 2000. And just as night follows day, that incitement has led to violence. This week's Arab riots from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and the renewed rocket offensive from Gaza are directly related to Obama's malicious attacks on Israel.

But if his campaign against Israel wasn't driven by a presidential temper tantrum, and it isn't aimed at promoting peace, what explains it? What is Obama trying to accomplish?

There are five explanations for Obama's behavior. And they are not mutually exclusive.

First, Obama's assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. Over the past week, senior administration officials including Gen. David Petraeus have made viciously defamatory attacks on Israel, insinuating that the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem is a primary cause for bad behavior on the part of Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. By this line of thinking, if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran's centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares.

Second, even more important than its usefulness as a tool to divert the public's attention away from the failure of his Iran policy, Obama's assault against Israel may well be aimed at maintaining that failed policy. Specifically, he may be attacking Israel in a bid to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to give Obama veto power over any Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations. That is, the anti-Israel campaign may be a means to force Israel to stand by as Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

For the past several months, an endless line of senior administration officials have descended on Jerusalem with the expressed aim of convincing Netanyahu to relinquish Israel's right to independently strike Iran's nuclear installations. All of these officials have returned to Washington empty-handed. Perhaps Obama has decided that since quiet pressure has failed to cow Netanyahu, it is time to launch a frontal attack against him.

This brings us to the third explanation for why Obama has decided to go to war with the democratically elected Israeli government. Obama's advisers told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu's government. By making demands Netanyahu and his coalition partners cannot accept, Obama hopes to either bring down the government and replace Netanyahu and Likud with the far-leftist Tzipi Livni and Kadima, or force Israel Beiteinu and Shas to bolt the coalition and compel Netanyahu to accept Livni as a co-prime minister. Livni, of course, won Obama's heart when in 2008 she opted for an election rather than accept Shas's demand that she protect the unity of Jerusalem.

The fourth explanation for Obama's behavior is that he seeks to realign US foreign policy away from Israel. Obama's constant attempts to cultivate relations with Iran's unelected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad's Arab lackey Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, and Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan make clear that he views developing US relations with these anti-American regimes as a primary foreign policy goal.

Given that all of these leaders have demanded that in exchange for better relations Obama abandon Israel as a US ally, and in light of the professed anti-Israel positions of several of his senior foreign policy advisers, it is possible that Obama is seeking to downgrade US relations with Israel. His consistent castigation of Israel as obstructionist and defiant has led some surveys to claim that over the past year US popular support for Israel has dropped from 77 to 58 percent.

The more Obama fills newspaper headlines with allegations that Israel is responsible for everything from US combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran's nuclear program, the lower those numbers can be expected to fall. And the more popular American support for Israel falls, the easier it will be for Obama to engineer an open breach with the Jewish state.

The final explanation for Obama's behavior is that he is using his manufactured crisis to justify adopting an overtly anti-Israel position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that administration officials are considering having Obama present his own "peace plan." Given the administration's denial of Israel's right to Jerusalem, an "Obama plan," would doubtless require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel some 700,000 Jews from their homes.

Likewise, the crisis Obama has manufactured with Israel could pave the way for him to recognize a Palestinian state if the Palestinians follow through on their threat to unilaterally declare statehood next year regardless of the status of negotiations with Israel. Such a US move could in turn lead to the deployment of US forces in Judea and Samaria to "protect" the unilaterally declared Palestinian state from Israel.

Both Obama's behavior and the policy goals it indicates make it clear that Netanyahu's current policy of trying to appease Obama by making concrete concessions is no longer justified. Obama is not interested in being won over. The question is, what should Netanyahu do?

One front in the war Obama has started is at home. Netanyahu must ensure that he maintains popular domestic support for his government to scuttle Obama's plan to overthrow his government. So far, in large part due to Obama's unprecedented nastiness, Netanyahu's domestic support has held steady. A poll conducted for IMRA news service this week by Maagar Mohot shows that fully 75% of Israeli Jews believe Obama's behavior toward Israel is unjustified. As for Netanyahu, 71% of Israeli Jews believe his refusal to accept Obama's demand to ban Jewish building in Jerusalem proves he is a strong leader. Similarly, a Shvakim Panorama poll for Israel Radio shows public support for Kadima has dropped by more than 30% since last year's election.

The other front in Obama's war is the American public. By blaming Israel for the state of the Middle East and launching personal barbs against Netanyahu, Obama seeks to drive down popular American support for Israel. In building a strategy to counter Obama's moves, Netanyahu has to keep two issues in mind.

First, no foreign leader can win a popularity contest against a sitting US president. Therefore, Netanyahu must continue to avoid any personal attacks on Obama. He must limit his counter-offensive to a defense of Israel's interests and his government's policies.

Second, Netanyahu must remember that Obama's hostility toward Israel is not shared by the majority of Americans. Netanyahu's goal must be to strengthen and increase the majority of Americans who support Israel. To this end, Netanyahu must go to Washington next week and speak at the annual AIPAC conference as planned, despite the administration's threat to boycott him.

While in Washington, Netanyahu should meet with every Congressman and Senator who wishes to meet with him as well as every administration member who seeks him out. Moreover, he should give interviews to as many television networks, newspapers and major radio programs as possible in order to bring his message directly to the American people.

Obama has made clear that he is not Israel's ally. And for the remainder of his term, he will do everything he can to downgrade US relations with Israel while maintaining his constant genuflection to the likes of Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and Turkey.

But like Israel, the US is a free country. And as long as popular support for Israel holds steady, Obama's options will be limited. Netanyahu's task is to maintain that support in the face of administration hostility as he implements policies toward Iran and the Arabs alike that are necessary to ensure Israel's long-term survival and prosperity.


How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn’t have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world’s most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation.


If you know of a friend or colleague who would appreciate learning more Facts and Logic About the Middle East, please forward this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE to them here .


If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please click here.

Our Ads and Positions | Donate | Our Letters to Editors | Our Acquisition Letters | FLAME’s Purpose | Subscribe to Hotline Alerts | Home

©2010 FLAME. All rights reserved. | Site Credits | Contact Us