Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, exposed worrisome aspects of President Obama’s policy toward Jerusalem in particular and toward Israel in general, during her March 22, 2010 AIPAC speech.  Clinton ignored the Texas colloquialism: “The first thing to do, if you find yourself in a deep hole, is stop digging.” The former Senator and aspiring presidential candidate is, apparently, determined to learn from mistakes by repeating – rather than avoiding – them.

For instance, while Prime Minister Netanyahu declares that construction shall persist throughout Jerusalem, Secretary Clinton reiterates President Obama policy, which leads to the repartitioning of Jerusalem, in contrast with the position of most Americans and most members of the House and Senate: “New construction in Jerusalem… undermines that mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks….It exposes daylight between Israel and the US… [and] undermines America’s unique ability to play a role in the peace process….”

Clinton has become the spearhead of the psychological war against Netanyahu, which aims to perpetuate the ten-month construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, to expand the freeze to Jerusalem and to roll the Jewish State back to the pre-1967 lines on all fronts. Hillary Clinton believes that the feeble Israeli response to Vice President Biden’s rebuke of construction in eastern Jerusalem – Israel’s line in the sand – vindicates the use of psychological pressure and begs for its intensification.

Clinton‘s AIPAC speech revealed that President Obama insists that Jerusalem – the core of Jewish aspirations – and “the claim of return” by the 1948 Arab refugees – the core of the threat to the survival of the Jewish State – are negotiable. She condemns Jewish construction in the Jewish capital and cautions against “unilateral statements and actions that undermine the process or prejudice the outcome of talks.” Pressuring Israel to repartition Jerusalem, Clinton defines legal Jewish construction as an obstacle to peace, while condoning Arab construction and attempting to stop the demolition of illegal Arab construction.

Clinton ignores Jerusalem’s unique role in shaping Jewish history during the last 3,000 years.  Thus, she applies an immoral moral-equivalence to the Jewish State and to the Palestinian Authority, which underlines Obama’s policy: “The US recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply, profoundly important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, for Jews, Muslims and Christians.” 

Inadvertently, Clinton radicalizes Arab expectations, demands and terrorism.  Why would Arabs be less extreme than Clinton when it comes to Jerusalem?!  Why would Arabs demonstrate flexibility, while Clinton represents their demands aggressively and ably?!  Why would Arabs consider any compromise when Clinton accepts their position and attempts to prejudge the outcome (e.g., opposing Jewish construction and supporting Arab construction)?!  Why would Arabs refrain from terrorism, when sweeping concessions by Israel to the PLO/PA – the role model of hate education, violation of commitments, hijacking, murder of US diplomats and international terrorism – prove that terrorists can get away with – and be rewarded for – murder?!

The Secretary of State recycles Obama’s world view – which leads him to focus on the Palestinian issue and to exert psychological pressure on the Jewish State – that the resolution of the Palestinian issue would supposedly be the panacea to Middle East turbulence and the Arab-Israeli conflict. She overlooks the possibility – which is based on the PLO track record – that the establishment of a Palestinian State would constitute fuel – and not water – for the fire of terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. For example, the proposed Palestinian State would constitute a death sentence to the pro-US Hashemite regime, would generate a tailwind to pro-Saddam Iraqis,  would provide a logistic and operational base to terrorist organizations, which threaten pro-US Persian Gulf regimes, would accord a strategic foothold to Iran, Russia, China, North Korea and other rivals and enemies of the US, etc.  Clinton fails to realize that Arab countries consider the PLO a lethal subversive organization.  Therefore, Arabs shower the PLO and the PA with much rhetoric, but refrain from sharing with the PLO their military and financial potential.

Clinton is certain that the Arab-Israeli conflict is over territory, in defiance of the last 100 years, which prove that the conflict is over the existence – and not over the size – of the Jewish State. Therefore, she has embraced the Land-for-Peace formula, which has been employed since Oslo, in spite of the fact that it has produced unprecedented hate-education and terrorism, has distanced us from peace and has brought us closer to war. Erroneous assumptions lead toward erroneous – and even bloody – policies, as has been the case since Oslo 1993. 

Toward the end of her AIPAC speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed much respect toward the coming Passover holiday and to the voyage to the Promised Land.  These were events which have defined the American ethos since the 17^th century.  These were critical events, which define the Jewish ethos, underlining the centrality of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the Cradle of Jewish History. These events highlight the gap between Obama’s policy on one hand and the American and the Jewish ethos on the other hand.