For the past seven years, Israel has consistently suffered under the unswerving anti-Israel policies of the Obama administration. If the next US president is a Democrat, then Israel can expect its relations with America to remain in crisis mode for the foreseeable future.
Obama, from the beginning of his administration, stated his willingness to talk to Iran “without preconditions,” willing to ignore U.S. property claims against Iran, and Iran’s funding, providing equipment, weapons, training and giving sanctuary to terrorists. He offered Iran economic inducements and a promise not to seek “regime change”.
Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran enables Iran to become a nuclear weapon capable power, allows Iran to reach anywhere in the world with its missiles, and got the ayatollahs $150 billion. The nuclear deal with Iran and the Obama administration’s decision to embrace Iran as an ally place Israel in jeopardy.
Recently, the administration warned various Israeli government ministers that any construction of housing for Jews in Jerusalem will be viewed with hostility by the administration. In contrast, the administration is pressuring Israel to permit construction of homes for Arabs in its capital city and harshly opposes all moves by the government to destroy illegal construction in Arab neighborhoods and in Area C. The administration demanded that Israel should deny Jews civil and property rights and should not assert its sovereignty over non-Jews.
If Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton were to be elected as the next president, Obama’s anti-Israel policies would survive him.
There is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. She has held a most important job as the Secretary of State, heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign affairs; the American government’s equivalent of a Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, under her watch as Secretary of State, American foreign policy had one setback after another, separated by disasters.
The accusation that Barack Obama was not born in America began with Hillary Clinton. In April 2008, during the Democratic primaries, an email started by a Hillary ally and circulated by her supporters thrust a new allegation into spotlight — that he had not been born in America. It said his “mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy…She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth.”
During Hillary’s four years as Obama’s Secretary of State, she was a full partner in Obama’s hostile policies toward Israel. Moreover, as her internal emails have shown, all her close advisers are hostile to Israel.
Barack Obama made his administration’s foreign policy; he chose to transform America’s foreign policy fundamentally. Hillary Clinton implemented the foreign policy because she agreed with it. They shared the same flawed vision of the world when they were both in the Senate. They both opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, which defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it.
The historic catastrophe permitting Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, and making it difficult for Israel to stop them happened on Hillary’s watch as secretary of state. The Obama administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran allowed Iran time to multiply, bury, and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton generated thousands of emails that were not archived as official government records because she used a private email account to conduct government business, putting her own interests before that of the United States.
One of the things that Hillary was trying to cover up was the utter disaster of the Obama administration’s foreign policy that she carried out in Libya.
In September 11, 2012, on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, terrorists stormed the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him. Meanwhile, there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Obama was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated al-Qaeda and suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East.
Emails about Ambassador Stevens’ travel and security plans got on a private server… and Ambassador Stevens ended up dead.
The truth about this attack could have undermined the image that Obama was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the White House. So a lie was concocted instead. The lie was that the attack was not by terrorists — who supposedly had been suppressed by Obama — but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control.
Now that Hillary Clinton’s emails have finally been recovered and revealed, after three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed that she knew from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation. Nevertheless, Hillary, along with Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video, not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya thanks to the Obama policy implemented by Hillary that got rid of the Qaddafi government.
America’s allies knew Hillary’s system was insecure and tried to work around it. One can assume America’s enemies also knew, and tried to burrow within it. Emails about Ambassador Stevens’ travel and security plans got on a private server in a Colorado toilet, and Ambassador Stevens ended up dead.
A few weeks after the assault on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration used slain Ambassador Stevens as a political prop for the 2012 elections. Obama and Hillary referred to Stevens as a “friend”, which helped to get Obama reelected. Hillary stood next to the coffin of her “friend” Chris and went on about a video that she knew had nothing to do with the attack that killed him.
Obama and Hillary justified their decision to overthrow Qaddafi by falsely insisting that Qaddafi was about to carry out a slaughter of his opponents that rose to the level of genocide. They also falsely insinuated that a post-Qaddafi Libya would be a pro-American democracy. At the same time, they refused to notice evidence that al-Qaeda was a major force in the anti-Qaddafi rebellion and was well positioned to take control over large swathes of the country if he were overthrown.
ISIS now controls Libya ports that are gateway to Europe for anybody from the Middle East and beyond. Libya is the reason Italy is now being destabilized by tens of thousands of “refugees” landing on its shores, because ports on the Libyan coast are now in the hands of ISIS and other jihadists that are running people into Italy.
Obama’s sympathies lie with Islam, so he is relaxed about jihadist attacks. He kept on jollying with Raoul Castro as jihadists attacked Brussels, sending a picture of himself laughing, while people had just been blown up at a level that is the equivalent of September 11 to one of America’s allies.
The underlying assumption of his administration’s campaign in Libya was that what happens in Libya stays in Libya. As it turned out, this was the most disastrous assumption of its decision-making process.
Every perceived victory for jihadist forces impacts jihadists throughout the world. The impact is massively escalated when jihadists gain territory – as was the case in Libya. The implications regarding the administration’s demand that Israel should withdraw from territory gained in the Six Day War and effectively end its sovereign rule over Jerusalem are dire. Every time Israel withdraws from territory, jihadists proclaim victory and are perceived as victors.
Hillary would be able to deflect her email scandal if she had a policy. If she had a vision. If she was running on anything other than that she feels entitled to be president because Bill Clinton cheated on her in the most public way twenty years ago. If it were found that she violated the law in the way she handled emails when she was secretary of state, the Obama administration would likely not prosecute her. Obama could even pardon her, so that future administrations could not prosecute her as well.
It is preposterous that Donald Trump is considered a non-serious candidate for president, and that the serious, substantial candidate is Hillary Clinton, who as the chief foreign affairs official of the United States kept America’s confidential business on a server in the bathroom of somebody’s apartment. If that is what serious people do, voters would rather hand over the White House to the “non-serious” candidate.
In his campaign, Trump asserted that he would close the U.S. border to Muslims “until we figure out what’s going on.” He also mentioned that Brussels used to be such a safe place before becoming jihadi central. A few months later, on March 21, 2016, Islamic terrorists murdered over thirty people in a series of bombings in Brussels. This is a testimony to Trump’s acute political instincts. He is alone among the presidential candidates in addressing Americans’ anxiety that if their leaders are not careful, America could end up like Western Europe, facing repeated attacks from a deadly internal enemy. This is important to voters these days since the Democrats intimate that they will import enough foreigners to make America a permanent one-party state.
In November 2015, Hillary, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, asserted categorically: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” When conventional politicians respond to terrorism with platitudes and even outright lies, it is no wonder that someone like Donald Trump can thrive as he senses and responds to legitimate public fears. That is what is going on in the U.S. election. Trump is a formidable candidate. Somebody with his instincts and a degree of intellectual seriousness would be a formidable leader.
Hillary Clinton has been deleting herself. Donald Trump could be the next president of the United States.
Dr. Sheyin-Stevens is a Registered Patent Attorney based in Florida, USA. He earned his Doctorate in Law from the University of Miami.