President Clinton, knowing how difficult it would be for Congress to fire a Commander-In-Chief during a military crisis, in the midst of the Senate hearings on his impeachment pressed the national security emergency button to declare another air war on Iraq. In a strikingly similar response, some weeks ago, Israel's Barak, facing a no-confidence vote in the Knesset scheduled for Oct. 25 (a vote he might likely lose), secretly made a deal with Ariel, "The Butcher" Sharon, head of the Likud Party. Barak loaned Sharon 1200 army and security troops with the understanding that this professional killer would create a crisis with the Palestinians at the Muslim's most-vulnerable religious site, the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque. Sharon, with Barak's squad, then arrogantly defiled that Muslim Holy site and got the furious response he and Barak wanted.
Barak, ordering that his troops on high-alert shoot-to-kill, massacred over 110 Palestinian stone-throwers, including 21 children and three ambulance-drivers plus over 2500 Arab wounded. He thus presented his Jewish constituency with the crisis he needed to weather any political vote. Israeli Jews, programmed by years of dire warnings by their leaders that they would always be at terrorist risk, responded appropriately. Barak, for the time being, was home free.
This murderous melee didn't take place in a political vacuum. As the last days of his presidency ticked away, and with no resolution in sight for his failing Mideast foreign policy adventure, Clinton made a subtle and calculated political move. As columnist Martin Mann reported (Spotlight, Oct. 16), on Aug. 21, speaking at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, our Ambassador to Israel and Clinton's chosen advisor on Mideast policy, Zionist Martin Indyk, in a surprisingly direct speech, warned the Likud's militants that the US was rejecting their position of Jewish hegemony for Jerusalem. "There is no solution but to share the Holy City," Indyk proclaimed... "Jerusalem is not and cannot be the exclusive preserve of one religion or one nation."
As the Spotlight reported: Uri Landau, a member of parliament and spokesman for the Likud, furious with Indyk, demanded our US envoy be recalled. Then in September, Ariel Sharon himself flew to New York and handed Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, and longtime Likud militant, a memorandum accusing Indyk of improper and potentially criminal behavior." Indyk, according to Sharon's report has engaged in bribery, intimidation, blackmail, false promises and frequent use of unclassified State Department papers to arm-twist various Middle Eastern leaders and regional power brokers "into following Clinton's game plan." According to columnist Mann, Madeleine Albright received a copy of the report as did Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Representative Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), House International Affairs Committee Chair and Representative Jim Saxon, (R-NJ), House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Chair. These three pro-Zionists, lobbied by Zionist Klein, sat hard on Madeleine Albright who, on Sept. 22, suspended Indyk while his "alleged security violations" were being investigated by the FBI.
Clinton, convinced that Mideast peace without a shared Jerusalem was impossible, had moved behind the scenes to sacrifice, for political reasons, his friend and Mideast envoy, Indyk. With his Vice President and Democratic Party candidate Al Gore running a close race with Texas' Bush, and wife Hillary politically at risk in the New York senatorial election, our President could not chance endangering either candidate by openly angering any of New York's Zionist Jews. Thus his messenger had to be sacrificed.
As the University of Chicago's Professor of International Law, and former legal advisor to the Palestinian Delegation, Dr. Francis Boyle pointed out in a radio interview on Oct. 16 at Dartmouth College that Barak: "worked out this provocation with Sharon figuring it would promote violence and bloodshed, and thus enable the two of them to establish a national coalition government, which they are now negotiating." Professor Boyle said Barak understood Clinton could not pressure Israel before the Nov. 7 Election date, and thus seized on this "window of opportunity" to keep himself in power.
Boyle also noted the US had diluted the UN Security Council Resolution which criticized Israel for inciting this violence and killing Palestinians. The US threatened the Palestinian Ambassador, Nassar Al-Kamel with a veto if he pushed for a stronger criticism of Israel's murderous onslaught. The UN Resolution, however, did put the responsibility for violence on Ariel Sharon's visit to Haran Al-Sharif with his 1000 troops. The vote was 14/0 with the US abstaining.
Clinton's desperate Sharm el Sheik meeting, hosted by Egypt's Mubarak, ended with "mixed results" on Oct. 17. No handshakes, nothing signed, only muttered promises by Barak and Arafat to meet again. Barak said he'd move some of his tanks out of Palestinian towns if the Arabs behaved. As for any agreement between Barak and the Likud Party, Ariel Sharon on Oct. 18 rejected the Prime Minister's call for an emergency unity government, saying "he couldn't belong to a coalition pursuing a fast-track peace agenda with the Palestinians. Sharon added that concessions made on the 17th at Sharm el-Sheik constituted a "return to Camp David understandings" which he and his Likud Party strongly oppose.
Washington, in a series of damage-control measures, first delayed the Arab League meeting which Egypt's president Barak had called until, Oct. 21-22, and then side-tracked a special session of the UN Human Rights Commission which many countries were pushing for, to investigate the causes of violence. Instead, the United States will appoint this investigating body. Meanwhile, Palestinians are still being killed by Israeli gun fire.
Damage control in the US by our Israeli-controlled press continues. Ignoring the 2400 Palestinians wounded by Israeli gun fire, plus the 90 killed, including some 20 children, our papers' headlines concentrate on arresting those Arabs who, in any angry crowd, killed two Israelis.
However, Israel's press was, as usual, more realistic: In the Israeli newspaper, Ha'Aretz, on Oct. 18, Amira Hass, in an article entitled: "Israel has Failed the Test," reported: "The lynching of two IDF soldiers by a Palestinian mob... and the precise publicizing of every Palestinian volley of shots heard... are making the Israeli public relations machine's work very easy. ...This also helps the Israeli public convince itself that (the Arabs) are disgusting, that we are under attack, that every thing has been coordinated by Yasser Arafat (after carefully editing out all the broadcasts which show Palestinian casualties, one third of them children)... Us? We are only reporting and analyzing and explaining, even when we broadcast the pictures of the lynching 50 times a day... Hass continued: "The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of lying and deception, just as the Intafada was the natural outcome of direct Israeli occupation."
Could anyone have said it more clearly?