Is Blinken wrong, or ill intended?

 

 Secretary of State Antony Blinken - the leading designer of President Biden's foreign and security policy - is convinced that the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River will promote peace, reduce instability in the Middle East and contribute to US interests.

 *But - as in his policy towards the Ayatollah regime in Iran - Blinken downplays the significance of the law-breaking Palestinian behavior towards Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait, the tyranny, corruption, education of hatred and incitement to terrorism that characterize the Palestinian Authority, and the projection of these factors on the expected violent nature of a country  Palestinian, and its effect on the existence of pro-American Arab regimes such as Jordan and its neighbors in the Arabian Peninsula.

 *Unlike Blinken, the Arabs give due weight to Palestinian terrorist conduct on the international level - as they do to the terrorist conduct of the Ayatollah regime - and are therefore convinced that a Palestinian state will be more similar to the uncontrolled and terrorist Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya than to the moderate Arab states.  Therefore, the Arabs limit their support for the Palestinians to an embracing speech at the same time as an indifferent-to-negative action.

 *Contrary to Blinken's world view, Arab countries have never exercised a military muscle (and hardly a financial and political muscle) on behalf of the Palestinians, nor have they launched a military campaign against Israel due to the Palestinian issue.

 *Unlike Blinken, the Arabs are aware of the Palestinian tendency - as well as the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan - to bite the hand that helps them, as Egypt felt in the 1950s, Syria in the 1960s, Jordan in 1968-1970, Lebanon in  1970-1982 and Kuwait in 1990.  Israel felt this firsthand after the dramatic gestures in 1993 (Oslo) and 2005 (disengagement).

 *Contrary to Blinken, who sees the Palestinian issue as a major factor in the Middle East, the Arabs make it clear in their actions (even if not in words) that the Palestinian issue is not the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not in an Arab eye and not a focus of regional shocks.

 *Contrary to Lincoln's policy, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan did not see the establishment of a Palestinian state as a condition for peace agreements with Israel.  Even Saudi Arabia - the main engine behind the "Abraham Accords" - does not allow the Palestinian issue to disrupt its unprecedented ties with Israel.

 *Contrary to Blinken's worldview, the Arab priorities do not emphasize the Palestinian issue, but rather Arab interests such as confronting the deadly threats of the Ayatollah regime and "Muslim Brotherhood" terrorism, Israel's military deterrent power and its security and civilian technological capabilities and their contribution to the security and economy of the Sunni Arab countries.

 *Contrary to the systematic failure of all the peace plans of Blinken and his predecessors in the State Department and the White House (excluding the "Abraham Accords" which are contrary to the conduct of the State Department) - which focused on the Palestinian issue - the six peace agreements were signed because they focused on Arab interests, bypassed the Palestinian issue and denied the Palestinians the ability to veto  .

 *Contrary to Blinken who believes that the Palestinians - and the same applies to the Ayatollahs - may have agreements and adopt a peaceful coexistence, the Arabs see the Palestinians as a prototype for subversion, terrorism, treachery and coercion.

 *In contrast to Blinken, who is anchored in the present and the future and a stick in the past, the Arabs give great weight to the long-standing tradition of close relations of the Palestinians with law-breaking entities such as Nazi Germany, the USSR and the Soviet bloc, the regime of the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea  , the "Muslim Brotherhood", and terrorist organizations in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America.

* Blinken pressures Israel to sacrifice the complex, bloody and frustrating reality of the Middle East and the Arab experience on the altar of simple, easy-to-understand and peaceful reflections.

 * Blinken pressures Israel to conduct itself according to the word - and not the action - of the Arabs in the Palestinian context.

 *Blinken is trying to convince Israel to ignore 120 years of terror, education for Palestinian hatred and incitement, as well as the art of Fatah and PLO (which came into the world before 1967!) and act as if the Palestinians are focused on the size - and not the destruction - of Israel.

 *Unlike Blinken who rolls out a "red carpet" for Palestinian leaders, the Arabs roll out a "torn carpet" for them.

 *State Department policy, represented by Blinken, has systematically failed in the Middle East.  For example, stabbing a knife in the back of the Persian shah and giving the Ayatollahs the power to support them;  referring to Saddam Hussein as "the enemy of my enemy is a friend" until the day of the invasion of Kuwait;  paving the way for Arafat to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;  The overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, which turned Libya into a center of global Islamic terrorism and a scene of civil wars;  Welcoming the "Arab Tsunami" - which has been shaking the Middle East since 2010 - as if it were an "Arab Spring";  Strong opposition to the establishment of the Jewish state, and exerting heavy pressure for Israel's withdrawal to the "1947 lines";  and more.

 * Will the Secretary of State Blinken adapt his policy to the Middle East reality, or will he continue with a policy disconnected from the Middle East?  The continuation of the current policy will add fuel to the fire in the Middle East, will exacerbate the deadly threats against all pro-American Arab leaders, and will worsen the damage to the economic and security interests of the United States and the chance for peace.
 

by Ambassador Yoram Ettinger