The debates are over and the election is just about two weeks away. Never before has the American public been bombarded with more defamatory information on the candidates – in Clinton’s case, truthful revelations from both unscrupulous (e.g.WikiLeaks) and appropriate (e.g. Freedom of Information Act) sources, and in Trump’s case, mostly unproven speculation from what once were reliable sources (e.g. The Washington Post).
The Clinton machine has done a spectacular job manipulating the liberal media against Donald Trump. While the revelation of Mr. Trump’s demeaning comments caught on tape some 11 years ago brought him, as one would expect, widespread negative attention, The New York Times ran with the story with all the journalistic integrity of the worst gossip rag. If only the Times had reported on the Nazi death camps with the same fervor as its failed last-minute attempt to conjure up alleged victims of Donald Trump, imagine how many lives could have been saved. But the Times has never been committed to the unvarnished truth and its priorities have never included causes important to Israel or the Jewish people.
I focus on the Times not because of my disgust for this publication nor because it threatens the very core of American democracy – which is entirely dependent upon an informed electorate – but rather because if Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will have prevailed because of the efforts by the Times and others to conceal, and where concealment was impossible, to justify, her criminal activity, conflicts of interest, failed policies, and support for our enemies.
If elected, Hillary Clinton will owe her office to the New York Times. And the Times has made no secret of what it sees as the path forward toward its vision of peace in the Middle East: As it revealed just two weeks ago, the Times favors convening a session of the United Nations Security Council to impose upon Israel the world’s “resolution” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United Nations, as advocated by the Times, should set the borders of the two states, determine how many “refugees” may flood into Israel, and proceed to divide Jerusalem into an Israeli capital and a Palestinian one.
Hillary Clinton undoubtedly will adopt this path in the unfortunate circumstance of her attaining the presidency. And not just because she owes her political life to the New York Times. Forcing a deal against Israel’s will (and against the interests of justice, fairness and international law) would be the culmination of her lengthy career of anti-Israel advocacy and policy.
Early in her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton jump-started the Obama administration’s hostility toward Israel by foolishly demanding that Israel undertake a unilateral construction freeze in Judea and Samaria without requiring any Palestinian concessions in return. Just weeks later, she ripped up the “Bush Letter” given to Israel in exchange for its withdrawal from Gaza which recognized the obsolescence of the indefensible 1949 armistice boundaries. She embraced Suha Arafat immediately after Mrs. Arafat accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian children, she noted with favor the hysterical anti-Israel rants of Max Blumenthal, the son of her closest confidant, she relies extensively upon Huma Abedin, who grew up in Saudi Arabia and has well-established ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and she selected as her running mate an Israel-basher (and as obnoxious a debater as America has ever seen) who led the walkout of eight US senators boycotting Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. Emails released just this week show Mrs. Clinton making the affirmative decision not to campaign as a strong Israel supporter for fear that it would alienate her left-wing base. And, perhaps most distressing, is her acceptance of tens of millions of dollars from the most repressive, misogynistic and anti-Semitic regimes on earth.
I have written in this paper and others about the stark differences between Trump and Clinton on matters of Israel policy. I have pointed out the dramatic contrast between the Republican National Platform – the most pro-Israel platform by either party in American history – and the Democratic one. I have highlighted Mr. Trump’s support for an undivided Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, compared with Mrs. Clinton’s desire to split the city. Indeed, just last week Mr. Trump personally condemned the UNESCO resolution which absurdly denied any connection between Israel and the Temple Mount or Western Wall, and strongly criticized the State Department’s removal of the word “Israel” from President Obama’s prepared eulogy of Shimon Peres from “Jerusalem.” On the UNESCO matter, in response to a press inquiry a Clinton staffer sent an email which opposed the resolution as one-sided but otherwise made no commitment to an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. As to Mrs. Clinton herself, the silence was deafening.
I have also noted, on numerous occasions, that president Trump will trust Israel to seek peace as best it can, and will not attempt to impose a “twostate solution,” or any other “solution,” against the wishes of the democratically elected Israeli government.
Mr. Trump will do all he can to strengthen America’s partnership with Israel in combating the global war against Islamic terrorism.
Perhaps my observations have been too theoretical, insofar as there remain many Jews, presumably a good deal of Israel supporters among them, who have indicated that they will vote for Hillary. But now is not the time for theories. We need to get very serious and practical about what the first 100 days will look like in a Clinton administration. Those who intend to vote for Hillary need to give serious thought about whether they have the stomach for what will come next.
If Hillary is elected, we reasonably can expect, in short order, the following interdependent events (and I hope to God I am wrong here, but that would be wishful thinking):
• The United States will demand that Israel immediately and unilaterally suspend all settlement construction, knowing that compliance with such demand is not supported by the Israeli electorate and has failed in the past to achieve progress in negotiations;
• The Israeli government will properly reject that demand – indeed if that demand were accepted by the prime minister, the governing coalition would likely dissolve;
• Feigning offense to her rejection by the Israelis, president Clinton will follow the lead of the New York Times and convene the Security Council to impose a “settlement” of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict;
• As pre-orchestrated by the Clinton administration, the president’s UN gambit will garner praise from the liberal media, as well as from left-wing Jewish organizations such as J Street, the ADL, and the Union for Reform Judaism; • When more traditional American Jewish organizations condemn the president’s initiative, she will counter by observing that she received more than 70% of the Jewish vote and has broad support from the US Jewish community;
• Once a Security Council resolution is imposed against Israel, new life will be infused into all of the worst anti-Israel and anti-Semitic movements: The BDS crowd will reemerge with great force and justification, US college campuses will redouble their efforts to portray Israel as a racist and pariah state and the Black Lives Matter protesters will rally against Israel. The State Department will freeze all military and financial assistance to the Jewish state unless it agrees with the world’s judgment;
• Sensing that Israel is losing the support of its most important ally, all of the rogue nations within the Muslim world, as well as Israel’s European critics, will be reinvigorated to accuse, threaten and castigate the Jewish state with breathtaking hypocrisy that will go unchallenged;
• In such an unstable and threatening environment, the Israeli military will be forced to remain at an extraordinary level of readiness as risks will emerge from traditional and non-traditional enemies;
• Many of Israel’s trading partners will give in to pressure from anti-Israel governments and NGOs to discontinue business with the Jewish state. The Israeli economy will suffer;
• Israel will seek assistance from the US Congress, which will pass resolutions supporting Israel and criticizing the State Department. As was the case with the Iran deal, Congress will prove to be impotent and will be out-maneuvered by Clinton, Abedin and State;
• While all this is happening, America’s borders will be flooded with Syrian and other refugees who profess undying loyalty to their savior, Hillary Clinton. It is likely, unfortunately, that some will turn to domestic terrorism; and
• The pro-Israel community in the United States will be accused, in numerous liberal media sources, of disloyalty to its host country and conflicting allegiance to Israel – a nation in defiance of international law. It will become uncomfortable.
If you are an American Jew who is thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton, I have the following suggestion: Spend a week in France, a country which has all but succumbed to uncontrolled Muslim immigration and failed left-wing policies. Speak with representatives of the Jewish community of that country, and develop an understanding of their fears and insecurities living in their host nation. BECAUSE IF HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED, THE PRO-ISRAEL AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY IS GOING TO START TO FEEL A LOT LIKE THE JEWS OF FRANCE.
Now maybe the future under a Clinton administration does not play out exactly as I have predicted. But there is a reasonable chance that it will. In contrast, there is virtually zero risk that the foregoing parade of horribles will occur under a Trump administration.
Quite the contrary, under president Trump, Israel will feel no pressure to make self-defeating concessions, America and Israel will enjoy unprecedented military and strategic cooperation, and there will be no daylight between the two countries.
Our great-grandparents (and in some cases our grandparents and parents) used to arise every morning and pray that their eyes might witness a “return to Zion” – a rebirth of the State of Israel and the holy city of Jerusalem. Most of them could not have imagined the incredible country that is Israel today nor the vibrancy and sanctity of Jerusalem, which meticulously maintains the religious sites of Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.
As American Jews numbering some six million souls, we are the second-largest Jewish community in the world (after Israel). We have been given an opportunity that our ancestors could not have dreamed of. Instead of having to confront the challenges of murderous enemies, dangerous transportation and corrupt governments, today a visit to Israel is as easy as an online reservation and a 10-hour flight. But with that privilege comes a responsibility.
We have been entrusted a legacy by the greatest of generations that preceded us to ensure that Israel survives and flourishes as a light unto the nations and a permanent home for the Jewish people.
This election places our commitment to the State of Israel front and center. Just as our ancestors did for us, let us do all we can to make Israel safe and secure. Let us not, God forbid, fail our children and grandchildren and those who will follow. There is too much at stake.
The author is a senior adviser to Donald J. Trump on US-Israel relations.
Caroline B. Glick’s Column One will return next week.
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>