Political Observation - The Deep State in America Lays Siege to Donald Trump

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation

The Deep State in America Lays Siege to Donald Trump


It seems the deep state and the de facto decision makers in America are racing against time ahead of Donald Trump's accession to the White House on 20 January 2017. A host of executive decisions have been undertaken and some international policies related to America's interests and her vision of world affairs have been corroborated through the Obama administration. Perhaps the most remarkable decisions and policies in this context are those related to the file of the Palestinian issue, the relationship with Russia and the Syrian file.

During his electoral campaign, and even after winning the race to the White House, president-elect, Donald Trump, had been threatening to stage a comprehensive turnabout in Barack Obama's domestic and foreign policies and achievements soon after taking office. According to his statements, he intends to issue a host of presidential resolutions which would transform America's domestic and foreign policies. 

For instance, on the domestic plane, Donald Trump intends to abolish the healthcare plan known as "Obamacare". He has also pledged to reduce all types of taxes from the current rate of 35% to 15% maximum. Unlike his predecessors, he has also pledged to build a wall on the border with Mexico and deport 11 million illegal immigrants; and after he had demanded the restriction to the immigration of Muslims to America, he called for subjecting them to scrutinised checks before admitting them into the country. As for foreign policy, Trump announced he would freeze the normalising of ties with Cuba and would either dismantle the nuclear agreement with Iran or at least restructure it. He also expressed his aversion to the proposed agreement on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and he even called for a review of the US's commitment towards her European partners in NATO. This prompted Obama to go on a European tour to reassure the European leaders. In fact, Trump reiterated his stance vis-à-vis NATO a few days ago, describing it as "obsolete" and accusing some member states of failing to pay their share for the common defence operation and depending on the US. As Trump called for stronger and closer ties with Russia, he also called for fundamental changes to the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico. He also announced that he intended to engage in a trade war with China by imposing a host of economic sanctions and import duties on Chinese goods at the rate of 45%.

These changes in domestic and foreign policies that Trump has vowed to make once he takes office have led an army of retired US diplomats to cast doubt on his ability to run a country the size of America.

 In a statement issued on 22 September 2016, they mentioned: "Donald J. Trump -- is entirely unqualified to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief. He is ignorant of the complex nature of the challenges facing our country, from Russia to China to ISIS to nuclear proliferation to refugees to drugs, but he has expressed no interest in being educated." The retired diplomats added: "He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends." This was in reference to what Trump had mentioned about president Vladimir  Putin being "a leader far more than our president [Obama] has been", in addition to his racist remarks about the Muslims.

Based on the aforementioned, we conclude that the Obama administration has taken a host of measures in anticipation of what Trump had vowed to carry out during his electoral campaign; should this happen, the compass of US policy could take a direction that may undermine US interests as envisaged by the de facto rulers in America. Hence, the decisions and measures have come to besiege Trump with a pre-emptive agenda making it hard for Trump to sidestep once he has taken office.

One of the decisions and measures the Obama administration has recently effectuated ahead of Donald Trump's accession to power is the Palestinian issue; this is expounded as follows:

1 - The UNESCO Resolution

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) passed a resolution on 14 October 2016 deeming al-Aqsa Mosque in the city of al-Quds as an exclusive Islamic heritage and refuting any historical link to the Jews with the holy al-Aqsa Mosque. The resolution urged "Israel" to refrain its violations against al-Aqsa and stressed to need to restore the historical status quo that prevailed before the occupation. This resolution came in anticipation of any executive decisions Donald Trump could undertake after taking office in the US. The Republican candidate had pledged to recognise the city of al-Quds as the capital of "Israel";  during his meeting on 25 September 2016 with "Israeli" prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu he stated: "Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish People for over 3000 years." Since the pledge of Donald Trump clashed with the official policy of the US, the de facto decision-makers have either generated, thanks to the UNESCO resolution, a get-out clause for Trump to retract or transmitted a message stipulating their intention to prevent Trump from going ahead with his pledge. It is true that Trump pledged to attribute al-Quds to the Jews during his electoral campaign in order to gain access to the funds and the votes of American Jews, what makes the issue more serious, however, is the statement made by one of Trump's senior advisors, Kellyanne Conway, who told a US radio on 12 December 2016 that Donald Trump was determined to move the US embassy in "Israel" from Tel Aviv to al-Quds after taking office on 20 January 2016 and that the issue was at the top of the president-elect agenda.   

UNESCO's resolution does not commit "Israel" to anything since its resolutions are not binding; they do not fall under chapters 7 and 9 of the UN Charter. And although the resolution will not have any knock-on effect in respect of al-Aqsa Mosque, it will, however, remain a political and legal obstacle for the Trump administration's attempt to move the US embassy to al-Quds; it will also remain a sword to be brandished in the face of "Israel" in the international arena, especially if the PLO decided to lodge international lawsuits against the "Jewishisation" perpetrated by "Israel" in the holy precinct of al-Quds.

The "Israeli" rulers tend to forget that their state is merely an American military base and a bridgehead for Western civilisation in the heart of the Islamic world. Hence, America, represented by her de facto rulers, has reacted to protect her vital interests and to remind the "Israelis" from time to time of their real size and their functional role in serving Western colonialism. Besides, the status of al-Aqsa Mosque is still earmarked within the project of internationalisation, though the issue is hardly raised nowadays, but America wants to keep the status of al-Quds open to all international initiatives.

2 - Resolution 2334

On 23 December 2016, the Security Council adopted the draft resolution 2334 which condemned the Israeli settlements in "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967." The draft was presented by Venezuela, Senegal, New Zealand and Malaysia, instead of Egypt who had withdrawn it earlier. 14 states voted in favour of the resolution and the US abstained without using the right to veto. The resolution adopted by the Security Council does not carry any immediate ramifications for "Israel" since it does not fall under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and since it does not include the means of implementation or sanctions on the parties that fail to implement it. The resolutions were acknowledged under Chapter VI of the UN Charter; thus, it is merely a non-binding recommendation, and yet Donald Trump slammed the resolution by saying: "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect." He then addressed the "Israeli" rulers by saying: "Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!" Donald Trump went even further and threatened the UN after the Security Council had condemned the "Israeli" settlements in the Palestinian occupied lands by stating: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.” He also tweeted: "They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore." Trump also cast doubt on the usefulness of the UN's role in the world and said mockingly: "The international body is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

Prior to all those tweets, Donald Trump had called on the Obama administration to use the right of veto against the draft resolution when Egypt presented it the first time around; he even telephoned Egyptian president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and ordered him to withdraw the draft resolution before it was presented again by the four other states for a Security Council vote at the behest of the Obama administration which Benyamin Netanyahu accused of being behind the Security Council resolution. During a statement he made to the "Israeli" cabinet on 25 December 2016, Netanyahu stated: "We have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.” The vote in favour of resolution 2334 condemning the settlements in the Palestinian lands with an overwhelming majority and America's abstention was unprecedented; it has never happened during the Barack Obama tenure. The resolution would not have been passed with this ease and this unanimity had the Obama administration not been behind it to achieve a host of aims, the most important of which are as follows:

          I.            Besieging Trump

During his electoral campaign, Trump announced his support for Jewish settlements in Palestinian lands and his intention to move the US embassy from Tal al-Rabi' (Tel Aviv) to al-Quds which he deemed as the unified capital of the state of "Israel". These two issues clash with the adopted policy of the US, irrespective of who occupies the White House. The deep state governing America fears that if Donald Trump were to encourage "Jewish settlements" and moving the US embassy to al-Quds, this could jeopardise the major interests of the US in the Middle East.

Although the administration of the president-elect Donald Trump is theoretically capable of rescinding this resolution once it has taken power, the issue, however, is practically extremely difficult. Before he could succeed in reversing this resolution, Trump would have to first approve an opposite resolution stipulating that the settlements are legal and not an obstacle in the face of the peace process. Trump would need the support of no less than eight Security Council members in addition to the US and he would need a guarantee that Russia,  China, Britain and France would not veto the opposite resolution; this obviously is a far-fetched probability.

        II.            Resuming the Peace Talks:

It is true that resolution 2334 is not binding on "Israel" but it represents an impetus for the negotiations aimed at averting its fallouts at international level. Hence, it paves the way for the talks under a new American administration, especially if this resolution were linked to the speech of US secretary of state John Kerry which we will address later. This resolution does not mean the issue has been resolved; it is rather a pretext for the talks and for rekindling the peace process to achieve the two-state solution, specifically a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East al-Quds as its capital. This resolution was explicit as later confirmed by John Kerry's speech and it exonerated the Palestinians before the world public opinion from any responsibility for the forestalling of the negotiations. As much as America had wanted it to be a gain for the Palestinians, this resolution turned out to be a moral blow to "Israel" who had always preferred to keep the Palestinians isolated, contrary to the agenda of the US who wants to turn the Palestinian issue and even the "Israeli" issue an international concern but according to the American interests. America stands behind the Palestinian Authority's refusal to engage in direct talks with the Jews until the international community's dictates to "Israel" are made.

     III.            Containing "Israel"

The resolution has come in the shape of a political message from the de facto rulers of the US stipulating that Jewish settlements are internationally rejected and they would isolate "Israel" in the international forums; also, that it would not be enough for Trump to slam the resolution to have the "Israeli" settlements internationally accepted. This is because the policy of settlements pursued by "Israel" impinges on the US interests since it curtails the two-state solution and the peace process itself, as we will deduce this later from the speech of US Secretary of State John Kerry.  

What "Israel" dreads most is international isolation especially by America and Europe who represent the umbilical cord of its survival now that the rope of Allah (swt) has been severed. International isolation increases the possibilities of lawsuits being lodged at the International Criminal Court in The Hague against "Israeli" politicians and army officers; it would also intensify the dynamics of the international boycott of "Israel" as well as the movement aimed at stripping “Israel” of political, economic and legal legitimacy. This explains the scathing attack "Israel" had launched against the Paris Peace Conference of 15 January 2017. "Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, lambasted the conference on 26 December 2016 labeling it a “scheme” designed to hurt Israel’s reputation. As for "Israeli" prime minister Netanyahu, he described the conference as "useless"; he said it was designed to "force terms on Israel" and that it was "among the last twitches of yesterday's world."


3 - John Kerry's Speech:


In a press conference held on 28 December 2016 at the Harry Truman Building in Washington, the US Secretary of State talked frankly about America's interests in her relationship with "Israel" by listing a comprehensive vision for the wobbly peace process between the "Israelis" and the Palestinians. John Kerry began by saying: "We have consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself by itself, including during actions Gaza that sparked great controversy.In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global foreign military financing goes to Israel. But remember, it's important to note that every United States administration, Republican and Democratic, has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace."

John Kerry confirmed to the rulers of "Israel" that their state, whose continuance depended on US support, should not undermine the American interests in the region. He said:  "The two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state."He added: "The two-state solution are now in serious jeopardy. The truth is that trends on the ground, violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation, they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one state reality that most people do not actually want....Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles, even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect. And we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes." John Kerry went on to defend resolution 2334 in which the Security Council condemned "Israeli" settlements by saying: "I am compelled to respond today that the United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us."

 John Kerry added: "The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown.….The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution. But his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israel history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements..."


After linking the presence of settlements to the impossibility of establishing a "Palestinian state" by saying: "Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel's own laws", John Kerry sent a message to the "Israeli" rulers stipulating that the normalisation process with Arab states would not take place before a Palestinian state is established first. He clearly stated: "No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace. But the problem obviously goes well beyond settlements.The Arab countries have made clear that they will not make peace with Israel without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." And this is also a clear message to the Arab rulers urging them to refrain from rushing into normalising their ties with "Israel" since this does not serve the American interests at this stage. Once he laid down all those red lines in respect of America's opinion on the issue of settlements, al-Quds, the two-state solution and the peace process, Kerry said: "I know that the incoming administration has signalled that they may take a different path. And even suggested breaking from the long-standing U.S. policies on settlements -- Jerusalem and the possibility of a two-state solution. That is for them to decide, that's how we work." This statement is also directed at the incoming administration who should place the interests of the US ahead of pleasing "Israel" or any other party in the region. What Donald Trump should perceive is that the Palestinian issue and the "Israeli" issue are among the major issues America exploits in the region to concentrate her influence and tighten her grip on the people of the region and their riches. And although John Kerry claimed that determining these policies was down to the Trump administration, he, however, presented for the forthcoming talks between the "Israelis" and the Palestinians a comprehensive vision based on six principles:

Principle 1- provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps. Resolution 242, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders.


Principle 2- fulfill the vision of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.


Principle 3- provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.


Principle 4- provide an agreed solution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states and protect and ensure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.


Principle 5- , satisfy Israel's security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation. While ensuring Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.


Principle 6- End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisioned by the Arab peace initiative.


In harmony with the guidelines of John Kerry, Mahmoud Abbas announced immediately after Kerry's speech that the Palestinian Authority was ready to resume the peace talks with "Israel" provided it agreed to halt the settlements' activities and implement the signed agreements. This came in the shape of a press release read out by PLO Executive Committee Secretary Saeb Erikat at the Palestinian presidential compound in Ramallah. Erikat said: "President Mahmoud Abbas followed with great interest Secretary Kerry's speech and reiterated his commitment to a just and lasting peace as a strategic option." Erikat added, quoting Abbas: "The minute the Israeli government agrees to cease all settlement activities... and agrees to implement the signed agreements on the basis of mutual reciprocity, the Palestinian leadership stands ready to resume permanent status negotiations on the basis of international law and relevant international legality resolutions... under a specified timeframe."



4 - The Peace Process:


The timing of the Security Council resolution and the speech of John Kerry was in anticipation of the blurred tendencies of the Trump administration vis-à-vis the peace process and the statements it had made about its intention to introduce a host of major changes in America's strategy in the Middle East. Hence, Kerry's speech and the international resolution (2334) have come as a warning from the "Establishment" (the deep state) to the Trump administration against being dragged by "Israel" who wishes to destroy the two-state solution and annex the whole of the West Bank.  The "Israeli" Knesset has voted recently on a preliminary ballot in favour of an initiative aimed at lending "legitimacy" on around 4000 settlements' homes built on Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank. "Israeli" education minister commented by saying: “Today, the Israeli Knesset moved from heading toward establishing a Palestinian state to heading toward sovereignty in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank].”This is when America sought the help of the Security Council and the so-called "international law", one of her diplomatic tools, to besiege "Israel" and to settle the Palestinian issue, especially now that Donald Trump has appointed David Freedman, known to support Jewish settlements and oppose the two-state solution, as US ambassador. The Paris peace conference was also held in this context after the US had heralded it with resolution 2334 and Kerry's speech in order to establish a framework for negotiations between the Jews and the Palestinians within a host of specific conditions and an unambiguous roadmap for a future peace process under the incoming Trump administration. 


It is true America does not seem serious in rejuvenating the peace process, and this was more evident during the tenure of Barack Obama, but this does not mean she would allow for her interests to come under threat due to the "Israeli" intransigence. It is also true that America's priority in the region is consolidating her influence, plundering the riches and attempting to shape the region and its people according to her aims, especially in terms of changing the thoughts and emotions so that they may be built on the principle of separating life and politics from Islam and she also exploits the Palestinian issue as one of her major tools in achieving this. The evidence for this is that the Palestinian issue does not lack international resolutions, thus America does not need to raise the issue of settlements to justify the lack of progress in the negotiations and the peace process. In fact, the recent international resolutions, be it those related to the UNESCO resolution, or resolution 2334 or Kerry's speech, or the ramifications of the Paris peace conference are all related to dealing with the American influence in the region and executing her vision for the Greater Middle East Initiative.


Hence, it should be made clear, in order to have the political perception upright and to perfect the pursuance of infolding events, that America is only concerned about kick-starting the peace process in the Palestinian issue when she needs to shore up her influence and shape the region according to her plans, and not the other way round as many people may imagine due to what America herself has been propagating. America makes people believe that a peace process between "Israel" and the Palestinians is ongoing though this process is nonexistent in a consistent or even independent manner save for the measure that serves the consolidating of her dominion and the shaping of the region and its people.  WikiLeaks has recently leaked a letter that former presidential candidate Hilary Clinton sent to president Barack Obama on 23 March 2015 in which she wrote:  “A Potemkin process is better than nothing.” America has made the world believe, especially the Muslims, that the Palestinian issue and the peace process is at the top of the agenda in her foreign policy of the Middle East; and this is designed to divert the attention of the Muslims away from their essential issue, namely establishing their state on the basis of Islam, and to squander their efforts away from the enemy number one who stands behind the Jewish entity in the region, namely America herself.


It seems that many Muslims, including those who attend to politics under the banner of Islam, have taken the bait and set about perceiving the events and addressing the Ummah according to this American deception. In fact, America exploits the Palestinian issue and the issue of "Israel" as a tool to consolidate her influence and her colonialism and a means to reshape the countries and the masses in a manner that entrenches her unilateral management of world affairs and her undisputed dominion over the international situation.


18 Rabi' al-Awwal 1438h


17 January 2017