A new 8-minute-video: YouTube, Facebook

Synopsis:

*Israel’s control of the topographically-dominant mountain ridges of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria has enhanced Israel’s posture of deterrence, constraining regional violence, transforming Israel into a unique force-multiplier for the US.

*Top Jordanian military officers warned that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, transforming Jordan into a non-controllable terrorist heaven, generating an anti-US domino scenario in the Arabian Peninsula.

*Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria has eliminated much of the threat (to Jordan) of Judea and Samaria-based Palestinian terrorism.

*Israel’s posture of deterrence emboldens Jordan in the face of domestic and regional threats, sparing the US the need to deploy its own troops, in order to avoid an economic and national security setback.

*The proposed Palestinian state would become the Palestinian straw that would break the pro-US Hashemite back.

*The Palestinian track record of the last 100 years suggests that the proposed Palestinian state would be a rogue entity, adding fuel to the Middle East fire, undermining US interests.

Support Appreciated

Western red carpet vs. Arab shabby rug…

The two-state solution

“President Biden underscored his strong commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the best path to reach a just and lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Washington backed a two-state solution to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Would a Palestinian state resolve or exacerbate the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

Would a Palestinian state enhance or erode Middle East stability?

Would a focus on the Palestinian issue bolster or cripple the expansion of the Israel-Arab peace process?

Would a Palestinian state advance or undermine US interests?

The “two-state solution” policy is based on the following assumptions:

*The unresolved Palestinian issue is crucial for the Arab countries and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict;

*The proposed Palestinian state would adhere to peaceful-coexistence with the Jewish State, and would not join the ranks of rogue regimes;

*Land-for-peace is a prerequisite for the resolution of the Palestinian issue, requiring an Israeli retreat from land (the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria), which is the cradle of Jewish history and pivotal to Israel’s national security;

*A dramatic Israeli territorial concession, buttressed by a game-changing international financial package, would entice the Palestinians to abandon the goal to eliminate the Jewish State;

*The Palestinians are amenable to a permanent (not tactical) peaceful-coexistence with the Jewish State;

Are such assumptions consistent, or inconsistent, with the Palestinian track record?

Western red carpet vs. Arab shabby rug

Western governments are preoccupied with contemporary Palestinian diplomacy, according Palestinians red-carpet receptions. They prefer to speculate on future positive Palestinian behavior, rather than be preoccupied with the rogue intra-Arab Palestinian track record. They court the Palestinians, while pressuring Israel.

On the other hand, the history-driven Arabs – who neither forget nor forgive – are mindful of the Palestinian track record, and therefore accord Palestinians shabby rug receptions.  The Arabs have concluded that a Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, while valuing Israel as a potent force against rogue entities such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, they have expanded commercial and security cooperation with Israel, and refrain from flexing military or substantial financial muscles on behalf of the Palestinians.

In fact, no Arab-Israeli war erupted due to – or on behalf of – the Palestinians, and no Arab countries intervened militarily in Israel’s wars against Palestinian terrorism in Lebanon, Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

The intra-Arab Palestinian track record has been a role-model of subversion, terrorism and ingratitude. In the mid-1950s and mid-1960s, they were involved in terrorism in Egypt and Syria; in 1970, they triggered a civil war in Jordan, attempting to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime; and in the 1970s, they were involved in terrorism and a series of civil wars in Lebanon.  In 1990, they collaborated with – and publicly praised – Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which was the most generous Arab host of 400,000 Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat and their families. Hence, the expulsion of most Palestinians from Kuwait in the aftermath of the First Gulf War.

Notwithstanding Jordan’s Hashemite regime talk on behalf of Palestinians, Jordan’s military and security forces are aware that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the River, triggering ripple effects which could topple all pro-US regimes in the Arabian Peninsula, adversely impacting the global oil market and US national security.

In addition, the Palestinian track record features systematic close ties with enemies and adversaries of the US, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, international terrorist organizations, Iran’s Ayatollahs, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China and Russia.

Land-for-peace or land-for-terror?

The 1993 Oslo Accord showered the Palestinians with unprecedented authority, which was not accorded to them by Jordan or Egypt, when the two countries occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It established a five-year-venue to a Palestinian state. However, instead of land-for-peace, the relocation of the PLO headquarters from Tunisia, Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen to Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem introduced the concept of land-for-terror and land-for-hate-education.

Moreover, the 2005 Israeli uprooting of its civilian and military presence from Gaza has triggered four Hamas wars and a systematic wave of unprecedented Hamas terrorism.

Furthermore, in November 1947, the UN recommended the partitioning of the area west of the Jordan River between Jewish and Arab states, in violation of Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter and the September 1922 League of Nations, which were committed to establishing a Jewish National Home in the entire area. The local Arabs and the surrounding Arab states rejected the 1947 Partition Plan and launched a war to annihilate the Jewish State.

In July 1937, the British Peel Commission recommended the establishment of a Jewish state over 18% – and an Arab state over 75% – of the area west of the Jordan River. The plan was rejected by the Arabs, who escalated terrorism.

Palestinian vision documented by education curriculum

Notwithstanding Palestinian diplomatic and public relations statements, the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian worldview, vision and territorial goal has been Mahmoud Abbas’ K-12 education curriculum, which has become (since 1993) a most effective multiplier of terrorism, suicide bombing and anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-peace fanaticism.

The 2020-2021 school textbooks of the Palestinian Authority highlight antisemitism, repudiation of Jewish history, dehumanization of Jews and the Jewish State, rejection of peaceful-coexistence with Israel, inciting to martyrdom and Jihad (“holy war”) “in the service of Allah,” heralding suicide bombers and terrorism in general, glorification of women-terrorists as role models, and promoting geographic maps with Israel replaced by an Arab Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Peaceful-coexistence with Israel?

On the eve of the September 13, 1993 signing of the Oslo Accord on the White House lawn, Arafat told the Jordanian TV that the accord was an interim agreement, consistent with the PLO’s June 1974 Phased Plan. The latter legitimized the establishment of a Palestinian beachhead on any part of British Mandate Palestine, as a step to eliminate the Jewish State and takeover the whole of Palestine.

Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat reiterated the Palestinian Phased Plan on August 14, 2009, November 16, 1998, January 30, 1996 and May 10, 1994, drawing inspiration from Mohammed’s Hudaybiyya Treaty – a major precept of traditional and contemporary Islam and Arab policy-making.

The Hudaybiyya Treaty was concluded between Mohammed and his Mecca enemies in 628 AD.  However, while the treaty was perceived by Mecca as a permanent peace, Mohammed considered it as a truce (not a final peace) and a means (not a goal) to achieve the Islamic imperialistic goal. Thus, Mohammed was able to regroup, breach the treaty and overwhelm the misled and tricked enemy. It has become a tactical role model for Muslim leaders, especially when confronting the “infidel.”

Contemporarily, the Palestinian vision was codified by the charters of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and PLO in 1959 and 1964 – before Israel regained control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – highlighting the goal “to liberate the whole of Palestine.” In other words, the core issue has always been the annihilation – not the size – of the Jewish State, which is deemed illegitimate in “the abode of Islam.”

The Palestinian vision is not driven by despair, but by a pre-1967 commitment “to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

The Palestinian issue and expanding the Israel-Arab peace process

The “Palestine Firsters” – who believe in the centrality of the Palestinian issue in the Middle East – introduced a litany of peace initiatives, which were crashed against the rocks of Middle East reality.

At the same time, Israel concluded a series of peace accords with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan, which bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoided the trap of a Palestinian veto and focused on Arab – not Palestinian – interests.

In conclusion

A wide gap exists between the Palestinian track record, on the one hand, and Washington’s well-intentioned two-state-policy, on the other hand.

Contrary to the expectations of Washington’s policy-makers, Middle East reality documents that a Palestinian state would add a rogue regime to the stormy region, intensify terrorism and war, inflame regional instability, exacerbate the Israel-Palestinian conflict, undermine the expansion of the Israel-Arab peace process, generate tailwind to rogue entities and cripple US interests.

An Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 8-15-mile sliver along the Mediterranean, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would obliterate Israel’s posture of deterrence, and would transform Israel from a unique force-multiplier – to a strategic liability – for the US, depriving the US of “the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board.”

Support Appreciated

Hamas and war on terrorism

1. All pro-US Arab regimes – such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco and Sudan – have refrained from tangible support of Hamas, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter constitutes an existential threat to each pro-US Arab regime, aiming to topple every Muslim/Arab regime, in order to establish a universal Islamic society through political, social and terroristic means. Eventually, it aspires to bring non-Muslims, and especially Western democracies, to submission.
2. The pro-US Arab regimes are aware that Hamas is a proxy of Iran’s Shiite terrorism, even though it is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood Sunni terrorism, heavily assisted by Turkey’s Erdogan, who aspires to reestablish the Ottoman Empire throughout the Middle East and beyond.
3. Hamas’ patrons – Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood – are epicenters of regional and global Islamic terrorism, drug trafficking and proliferation of ballistic and nuclear technologies. They pose a major threat to the production and supply of oil and orderly global trade (e.g., Asia-Europe naval trade), and fuel instability in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and Europe. They threaten the national security, homeland security and economy of the US and other Western democracies.
4. Israel’s systematic war against Hamas terrorism – as well as against Hezbollah – constrains the maneuverability of Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s Erdogan. Pressuring Israel to limit/stop its offensive against Hamas terrorists energizes Hamas and other anti-Western terrorists, undermining the Free World’s war on Islamic terrorism.

Arabs stance on Palestinian terrorism

5. Notwithstanding the pro-Palestinian Arab talk, no Arab regime has flexed military or financial muscle on behalf of Hamas, consistent with the Arab conduct during the 2008/9, 2012 and 2014 Israel-Hamas wars, the 1987-1992 and 2000-2003 Palestinian Intifadas and the 1982-83 Israel-PLO war in Lebanon.

Since 1948, the Arabs have emanated pro-Palestinian talk – which has captured the attention of Western media and policy makers – while avoiding the pro-Palestinian walk. Thus, no Arab war against Israel was ever launched on behalf of the Palestinians.

6. The absence of tangible Arab support of the current Hamas war on Israel reflects the consistent Arab view of the Palestinian Authority (PLO) and Hamas as role models of intra-Arab terrorism, subversion and ingratitude. This Arab view has been in response to Palestinian terrorism in Egypt (1950s), Syria (1960s), Jordan (1968-70 and 1980s), Lebanon (1970s and 1980s) and Kuwait (assisting Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion).

In the history-driven Middle East, memory is long: Palestinian intra-Arab treachery is not forgotten, nor forgiven.

Root cause of Palestinian terrorism

7. While Westerners observe the Gaza War through political and diplomatic lenses, and attribute terrorism to political and economic despair and deprivation, Hamas is driven by a fanatical, deeply-rooted religious vision. Thus, the current wave of Palestinian terrorism has been accompanied by calls to resurrect the 7^th century Muhammed’s massacre of the Jewish tribes in the Arabian Peninsula, and to free Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh and Acre (in pre-1967 Israel!). On May 15, Palestinians commemorated the “Nakba” – the catastrophe of Israel’s establishment.

Moreover, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Fatah were established in 1964 and 1959, in order to “liberate” pre-1967 Israel, not “the West Bank” and East Jerusalem, as documented by Mahmoud Abbas’ hate-education curriculum.

Islam divides the world into the “abode of Islam” and those who have yet to accept – or be subordinated to – Islam as the sole legitimate religion, or be eliminated. Thus, Hamas defines Israel as an illegitimate “infidel” sovereignty in the “abode of Islam,” which must be uprooted or brought to submission.

8. As documented by anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism since the 19^th century, anti-Israel Palestinian terrorism preceded the establishment of Israel and the Six Days War.

The root cause of Palestinian terrorism is not the size – but the existence – of the Jewish State. Palestinian terrorism is driven by Israel’s existence, irrespective of Israel’s policies. For example, in 1993 (Oslo) and 2005 (disengagement from Gaza), in a self-destruct attempt to create a “new Middle East,” Israel provided the Palestinians with unprecedented self-rule and a venue to independence.  However, as expected in the real Middle East, and based on the Arab experience with Palestinians, these critical Israeli policies yielded unprecedented waves of Palestinian hate education, incitement and terrorism.

9. Palestinian terrorism is part and parcel of Arab/Islamic terrorism, which has dominated Middle East reality since the 7^th century, when three of the first four caliphs, who succeeded Muhammed, were murdered. Palestinian terrorism and Arab/Islamic terrorism have mostly targeted Arabs/Muslims. Is it logical to assume that the “infidel” Jew or Christian will be treated more moderately?!
10. There is no moral equivalence between Western-style democracies, which combat terrorism, and inadvertently hit civilians, on the one hand, and terrorists who systematically and deliberately target civilians, while abusing their own civilians as human shield, in order to increase civilian casualties, on the other hand.
11. The prerequisites for a successful battle against Arab/Islamic terrorism are the bolstering of one’s power-of-deterrence – in one of the most violently unpredictable and terror-driven regions of the world – accompanied by a realism-based policy, while avoiding appeasement and the delusion that Middle East rogue entities welcome Western norms, such as peaceful-coexistence, compliance with agreements, human rights and democracy.

Support Appreciated

Conventional wisdom assumes that the Palestinian Authority is amenable to peaceful-coexistence with Israel; that peaceful-coexistence is advanced by financial support of the Palestinian Authority; that a core concern for the Palestinian Authority is the land acquired by Israel in the 1967 War; and that land-for-peace (Israel’s retreat to the pre-1967 lines) is a prerequisite for Israel-Palestinian peaceful-coexistence.

Are these assumptions consistent with the Palestinian reality?

While the Palestinian ethos features religious, political, ideological, demographic and legal components, its core ingredient is a specific parcel of land, which pulls the rug out from under the “land-for-peace” assumption.

The centrality of the “1948 land” in the Palestinian ethos is underscored by the late Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna, who was the head of the Mossad’s Palestinian research division and a ground-breaking researcher of the Palestinian issue (Line of Furrow and Fire). This is documented by pivotal Palestinian books, such as the six-volume Al Nakbah (“The 1948 Catastrophe”), as well as the 1959 and 1964 Fatah and PLO covenants – which are the ideological and strategic core of the Palestinian Authority – and the Palestinian educational curriculum.

These foundational documents have served as a most effective generator of Palestinian terrorism since 1948, and especially since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords.  They focus on the outcome of the failed 1948 Arab military invasion – by five Arab countries and the local Arabs – of the Jewish State.

This Arab offensive was expected by the CIA, which assessed that it would be successful, yielding the destruction of the Jewish State and a second Jewish Holocaust in less than ten years!

According to Dr. Arnon-Ohanna, the aforementioned Palestinian documents shed light on the fragmentation of the Arab society west of the Jordan River.  Thus, the mountain Arabs in Judea, Samaria (West Bank) and the Galilee have demonstrated a relative cohesion, socially, ethnically, culturally, politically and historically.  On the other hand, the coastal plains Arabs have exhibited a relatively feeble social structure, recently immigrating from Muslim areas, as evidenced by the names of major clans.

For example, the al Mughrabi clan immigrated from North Africa (Algeria), al Turki from Turkey, al Ajami from Iran, al Kurdi from Kurdistan, al Iraqi from Iraq, al Hindi from India, al Masri from Egypt, Masrawi from Egypt, Abu Kishk from Egypt, Haurani from Syria, Bushnak from Bosnia, Habash from Ethiopia, Yamani from Yemen, Turkmen from Turkmenistan and the Caucasus, Hawari from north Sudan, etc.

While most of the mountain Arabs remained in their homes during the 1948/49 war, most coastal plains Arabs – the lion share of whom migrated to the area during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries – left their homes. In fact, many of the coastal Arabs left their homes before the eruption of the war and during its initial stage, when the invading Arab military forces and the local Arabs had the upper hand.

The (mostly coastal plains) Arabs who left their homes are referred to as al-Kharj (“Outside”) and the (mostly mountain) Arabs who stayed intact are referred to as al-Dakhil (“Inside”).

The coastal/outside 1948 Arabs constitute the leadership and most of the rank and file of the PLO, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They claim “the right of return” to the 1948 territory, which is the pre-1967 area of Israel.  “Cleansing the 1948 land of the Zionist presence” is the focal point of the Palestinian ethos, as highlighted by the Palestinian school curriculum, media, religious sermons and the 1959 and 1964 Fatah and PLO covenants (eight years and three years before the 1967 war).

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the core concern of the Palestinians is not the 1967 – but the 1948 – “occupation;” not peaceful coexistence with – but without – Israel; not the size – but the elimination – of Israel.

Support Appreciated

The Palestinian conflict did not erupt in 1967, nor in 1948.

In November 1917, the Balfour Declaration called for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish People” in Palestine, which was the accepted international name of the Land of Israel since the 5^th century BCE. The declaration, by the British Foreign Minister, stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities [Arabs] in Palestine.” The declaration acknowledged the ancient national Jewish roots in the Land of Israel (Palestine), and that Jews were indigenous in Palestine, returning to – not colonizing – their homeland.

In April 1920, the post-World War I San Remo Conference reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration and laid the legal foundation for the creation of 22 Arab states and one Jewish state. It was signed  in the August 1920 Treaty of Sevres between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire.

Arab terrorism erupted in Jerusalem, Jaffa and the Galilee in response to the emerging reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East, which is considered by Muslims as the abode of Islam, “divinely-ordained to believers” and off limits to “infidel” sovereignty.

In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted Britain with the Mandate for Palestine, which was authored by the San Remo Conference and signed by all 51 members of the League of Nations. The Mandate highlighted “the historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine, and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The sole purpose of the Mandate was to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine, referring to the Land of Israel. The Mandate for Palestine has been included, since 1945, in Article 80 of the UN Charter, which preserves the inherent Jewish national rights in the Land of Israel.

In September 1922, the League of Nations and Britain transferred 3/4 of Palestine to the Hashemite Emirate of Transjordan, which gained independence in 1946.

In July 1937, intimidated by an unprecedented wave of intra-Arab and anti-Jewish Arab terrorism, the Peel (British) Commission recommended the partition of Palestine. The Commission proposed to reduce the area of the Jewish state to 18% of Palestine west of the Jordan River (parts of the coastal plane, the Galilee, Jezreel Valley and Beit She’an Valley), while establishing an Arab state over 75% of the area, in addition to an international zone between Jerusalem and Jaffa.

The plan was vehemently rejected by the Arabs, who intensified anti-Jewish terrorism.

In November 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine recommended the establishment of Jewish and Arab states, joined by economic union, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem region as an international enclave.  Once again, the Jewish side accepted the UN plan, but the Arabs rejected it and launched a campaign of terror, bolstered by the military forces of five Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon). The Palestinian leadership – which collaborated with Nazi Germany and later on with the Soviet Bloc, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and North Korea – threatened to transform Palestine into a land soaked in blood and scorched by fire.

In 2020, the Western foreign policy establishment tends to accord much weight to peaceful Palestinian diplomatic talk, overlooking the centrality of the Palestinian walk.

In 2020, Western political-correctness observes the Palestinian issue through an oversimplified prism of human rights, ignoring history and the well-documented Palestinian vision, as highlighted by the (pre-1967!) 1959 and 1964 Fatah and PLO annihilationist charters,  Palestinian hate-education and well-documented Palestinian track record of intra-Arab and anti-Jewish terrorism (prior to 1967!), as well as their methodical rejection of all peace initiatives since the first part of the 20^th century.

Will the Western foreign policy establishment overcome the temptation to persist in sacrificing complex, unpredictable, intolerant and frustrating Middle East reality on the altar of a make-believe Middle East coupled with well-intentioned eagerness to achieve peace now and in a convenient manner?

Support Appreciated

According to a November 12, 2020 OpEd by Nabil Amr, a confidant of Mahmoud Abbas, published by the leading Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat : “Ballots with Biden’s name would have filled the boxes if placed in Ramallah…. [The Palestinian Authority] bets are that Biden’s victory [will] resume ties with the US Administration, pumping money into the Palestinian Authority’s virtually empty coffers, reopening the PLO’s Washington Office and the US Consulate in Jerusalem, tasked with dealing with Palestinian affairs…. The new Administration will also go back to talking about the two-state solution and repudiate unilateral actions like annexation…. Trump’s Administration took a totally different path….”

However, the “Palestine Firsters” among the future policy makers in Washington, DC, are infatuated with the Palestinian cause, assuming that the Palestinian issue is central to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the overall Arab agenda.  They have ignored the fact that Arabs viewed Palestinians as the role model for intra-Arab terrorism, subversion and ingratitude, a low level (and negative) priority on their agenda.

The “Palestine Firsters” should study the two hour October 5, 2020 TV interview by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a senior member of the Saudi royal family and a former head of the Saudi intelligence services and national security council:

“It is not surprising to see how quick are Palestinian leaders [criticizing the Israel-UAE peace accord] to use terms like ‘treason,’ betrayal’ and ‘backstabbing.’  These are their ways in dealing with each other…. They always bet on the losing side.  In the 1930s, [the top Palestinian leader] Amin al-Husseini was betting on the Nazis in Germany…. [Following WW2, the Palestinians embraced the USSR]…. [In 1970], Arafat’s headquarters were in Jordan, and he decided that it was time to liberate not Palestine, but Jordan [through a bloody civil war]…. They had only been in Lebanon a few years when they began to behave as they did in Jordan, and Lebanon became the new target.  It led to a [1975-1982] civil war…. No one can forget the image of Arafat as he visited Saddam Hussein in 1990, after the occupation of Kuwait [which was the most generous Arab host of the Palestinians]…. We saw Arafat in Baghdad, embracing Saddam, and laughing and joking with him…. We saw [Palestinian] youth in Nablus dancing joyfully in celebration of [Saddam’s] missile attack on Riyadh, holding pictures of Saddam…. We are at a stage in which rather than…serve the Palestinian cause, we have to pay attention to our national security and interests…. We are surrounded by a stormy sea [Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Turkey’s Erdogan]…. We do not allow [Palestinian] liars and those who are disloyal to impose their tradition on us…. The Palestinian leaders have come to regard Tehran and Ankara higher than they regard Riyadh, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Bahrain, Oman and Egypt….”

Contrary to the “Palestine Firsters'” state of mind, Saudi cooperation with Israel – commercially, militarily and diplomatically – has expanded unprecedentedly, notwithstanding Palestinian condemnations, pressure and threats.  Moreover, Saudi Arabia has been a chief engine behind the UAE’s, Bahrain’s and Sudan’s peace accords with Israel, which have bypassed the Palestinian issue, focusing on “what’s in it for the Arabs” in their cooperation with Israel.

The “Palestine Firsters'” litany of peace initiatives were crashed against the rocks of Middle East reality, due to their erroneous assumptions that the Palestinian issue was a core cause of Middle East turbulence, the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that the Arabs favored the establishment of a Palestinian state.

They sacrificed Middle East reality on the altar of a supposed Palestinian centrality. On the other hand, overcoming the temptation of such an overly simplistic assessment of the Palestinian issue yielded the successful conclusion of Israel’s peace treaties with Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan).

Thus, the farther are peace initiatives from the trap (veto) of the Palestinian issue, the closer they are to expanding the number of Israel-Arab peace treaties.

Moreover, the more relevant is the peace initiative to the particular Arab interest – where the threats of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Turkey, and the need to diversify the oil-based economy, dwarf the Palestinian issue – the stronger the incentive for the Arabs to conclude peace treaties with Israel.

The Palestinian track record has led all pro-US, moderate Arab regimes to conclude that the proposed Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, while Israel’s track record has played a key role in minimizing Middle East turbulence.

On October 2, 2020, Ambassador Dennis Ross – a veteran “Palestine Firster” – was asked by an i24News interviewer: “For years you were working on the assumption that peace between Israel and the Palestinians was the key, the only key, to peace between Israel and Arab countries.  A few weeks ago, this assumption was shattered by the signing of peace treaties between Israel and the UAE and Israeli and Bahrain.  Have you been wrong all these years?!”

Most “Palestine Firsters” would agree that Israel’s posture of deterrence is a bulwark against Iran’s Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism, bolstering the stability of the highly vulnerable and relatively-moderate pro-Western Arab regimes, and therefore, incentivizing Arabs to conclude peace treaties with Israel.

However, such an assessment, on the one hand, and the urging of Israel to retreat to a 9-15-mile waistline between the Mediterranean and the over-powering mountains of Judea and Samaria – which would obliterate Israel’s posture of deterrence – on the other hand, constitutes a classic oxymoron.

Donation Appreciated

“Mida Magazine“,  https://bit.ly/3lkaKHy

The 2020 Palestinian Authority’s Arabic Language, Vol 2, Grade 5, pp 51-61 and Social Studies, Vol. 1, Grade 9, p. 40 herald Dalal al-Mughrabi, who led – and participated in – the March 1978 massacre of 38 Israeli civilians (mostly passengers of two Haifa-Tel Aviv buses), including 13 children and wounding 72. The 5^th and 9^th graders are encouraged to become “martyrs” and follow in the footsteps of “the crown of the nation” and “the role model of Palestinian resistance… whose struggle portrays challenge and heroism, making her memory immortal in our hearts and minds.”

Education mirrors leadership and society

Education is the most authentic reflection of the identity, core values, culture, track record, worldview and vision of the architects of the education system and (subsequently) the society at-large.

Education plays a major role in shaping the personality of individuals and society at-large, especially in non-democratic societies, such as the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian education system has been overseen by Mahmoud Abbas since 1993, when he established it in his capacity as Arafat’s deputy. The Palestinian education system is a byproduct of the 1959 and 1964/1968 Fatah and PLO Charters and the 1974 Palestinian Phased Plan, which stipulate the Palestinian vision.

Education in non-democratic societies mirrors the worldview of its leaders much more credibly than diplomatic statements, briefings and media interviews. The latter constitute “screen savers,” aiming to conceal the real vision, which is lucidly expressed by the educational curriculum.

While free societies promote education in order to enhance enlightenment, expand information and upgrade the standard of living, rogue regimes employ education as a means to advance their brutal goals and brainwash the younger generation into full-submission, including the perpetration of terrorism.

While free societies foster education as a hothouse of tolerance, peaceful-coexistence and innovative ideas and technologies, rogue regimes exploit education as a hothouse of fanaticism and violent intolerance, as well as terrorism and suicide-bombing.

The 2020-2021 Palestinian school curriculum highlights

According to a September 2020 report on the Palestinian School Curriculum, conducted annually by IMPACT-se, the 2020-2021 school textbooks of the Palestinian Authority are more inciteful, violence-oriented and martyrdom-driven than prior years, highlighting:

*Antisemitism (e.g., Jews portrayed as corrupt and enemies of Islam);

*Demonizing and repudiating Jewish history west of the Jordan River as forgery;

*Delegitimizing and dehumanizing Israel and Israeli Jews;

*Articulating the violent annihilation of Israel and Israeli Jews;

*Rejecting peaceful-coexistence with Israel and criticizing the Israel-Egypt peace accord;

*Inciting to anti-Israel terrorism (“martyrdom”) and Jihad (“Holy War”) as a personal religious obligation, while glorifying Jihad “warriors’ (mujahid), suicide-bombing and specific Palestinian terrorists (e.g., the murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympic Games);

*Glorifying women-terrorists as role-models in the struggle against Israel;

*Islamic inducements (including virgin brides in paradise) to terrorism;

*Promoting geographic maps, which exclude Israel, that is replaced by Palestine;

*Extending the “liberation struggle” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean;

Documentation

*Islamic Education, Vol. 2, Grade 5, pp. 74-79: Girls are encouraged to kill and be killed in the battle against “Zionist occupation,” and follow in the footsteps of women, who elevated themselves as martyrs, during the early days of Islam.

*Islamic Education, Vol. 2, Grade 8, p. 93: Children are encouraged to engage in Jihad on behalf of Allah and the homeland.

*Islamic Education, Vol. 1, Grade 7, pp. 85-89: A chapter is dedicated to self-sacrifice in the service of Allah and in defiance of enemies/infidels, as the most noble sacrifice. It is rooted in Islamic history, relevant to the Palestinian reality, yielding martyrs a path to paradise.

*Islamic Education, Vol. 1, Grade 11, pp. 10-16: According to the Qur’an, Jews are corrupt and are doomed to be annihilated by Allah’s servants.  “Allah said that the Children of Israel will spread corruption through sin and arrogance…. The Children of Israel’s corruption was and will be the cause of their annihilation….”

*Islamic Education, Vol. 1, Grade 11, pp. 114-117: “In Islam, war against infidels is a legitimate necessity…. Infidels should be given an option before the battle: to embrace Islam or live under the rule of Islam [as Dhimmi – “protected” second class citizen]…. War is defined by Islam as Jihad… in order to fight those who oppose the spread of Islam to other nations.  The goals of Jihad are noble… unlike the goals of non-Muslim wars….”

*History, Vol 2, Grade 11, p. 52: “The Fedayeen [“martyrs”]… sought to strike at Zionist interests abroad, such as the Munich [Olympic Games] in 1972 [murdering 11 Israeli athletes and 1 German police officer].”

*Arabic Language, Vol. 1, Grade 5, pp. 14-15: “Khalil al-Sakakini [Nazi-supporter, who praised Hitler for revealing the weakness of Jews, a friend of the pro-Nazi Haj Amin al-Husseini, and urged the murder of Israeli civilians] has decorated the pages of history… lighting the darkness of our black nights…. The crown of the nation…. Immortalized by history….”

*Islamic Education, Vol. 1, Grade 9, p. 13: “Allah has made it clear that he is capable of annihilating the enemies [the “infidel” Christians, Jews and polytheists]…. Allah wants to take shuhada [martyrs] from among the believers and honor them by shahadah [martyrdom], to forgive their sins and raise their stature in paradise….”

*Islamic Education, Grade 12, p. 16: “Do not say that martyrs in the service of Allah are dead. They are alive. For Allah, martyrdom is a sublime status…. Martyrs live with their Lord; they were transferred from the life we know to the life, which we do not sense….”

*Social Studies, Vol. 1, Grade 6, p. 54: “The map of Palestine” [one of hundreds of similar maps in the curriculum] extends “from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to the Jordan river in the east, from Lebanon and Syria in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba and Egypt in the south, an area of approximately 27,000 square kilometers [replacing Israel].”

*Islamic Education, Vol. 2, Grade 8, pp. 49-52: Martyrdom in the battlefield is an integral element of Jihad, which is presented – by Qur’anic verses – as physical warfare, rewarding its participants. “Jihad relies on the holy Qur’an and the Sunnah [legacy] of the Prophet…. Rewards are awaiting the Jihad warrior…. Never think of martyrs as dead….”

*Arabic Language, Vol. 1, Grade 11, pp. 74-76: supported by Qur’anic verses, a poem glorifies the terrorist, who murdered 16 passengers in a Tel Aviv-Jerusalem bus, and was rewarded by happiness in paradise. Terrorists ” stand, blazing on the road, shining like stars…. Their rebirth will emerge from the depth of death and darkness….”

Peace process relevance of Palestinian curriculum

Western policy-makers have ignored the significance of the Palestinian education system, which is the most authentic mirror of the norms and vision of the Palestinian leadership and society, irrespective of Palestinian diplomacy and public relations, which serve as moderately-packaged “screen savers.”

The Palestinian curriculum (K-12) is consistent with the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, documenting the rogue profile of the proposed Palestinian state.

The Palestinian curriculum has been a most effective hothouse of terrorism, enticing almost two generations of young Palestinians to pursue the path of terrorism “in the service of Allah.”

Western policy-makers, who rightly condemn and don’t tolerate hate-education in their own societies, ignore a critical prerequisite and precondition to a constructive peace process: the uprooting of hate-education.

Therefore, hate-education, on the one hand, and a path to peaceful-coexistence, on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron.

Donations Appreciated

The centrality of Track record

Western foreign policy and national security establishments – government, media and academia – have been overwhelmingly preoccupied with assessments of future track record of the proposed Palestinian state. They have sidestepped the Palestinian past track record.

While a future track record is subjective, intangible, precarious and speculative, a past track record is objective, tangible, proven, and certain.

Major decisions – such as medical reports, investing, hiring, recruiting, buying and job application – are based, primarily, on well-documented past track records. They are not centered around hypothetical future track records.

A confirmed past track record – rather than a conjectural future track record – is critical to making well-grounded, trust-worthy decisions. This is certainly pivotal to responsible foreign policy-making, which attempts to enhance future national security by avoiding past mistakes.

Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the world’s top psychologists, considered the study of past track records as an essential undertaking for an improved future: “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”  This is as applicable to foreign policy and national security policy-making as it is to psychology.

Western conventional wisdom

Western foreign policy and national security establishments tend to assume that the issue of the proposed Palestinian state is mostly relevant to Israel and the Arabs, and marginally relevant to vital US national security interests. However, the proposed Palestinian state would generate a series of regional ripple effects, impacting the survival of the pro-US Hashemite regime in Jordan, and subsequently the continued existence of all pro-US Arab regimes in the Arabian Peninsula and throughout the Middle East, as well as the regional stature of Russia, China, Iran’s Ayatollahs, Turkey’s Erdogan, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, all of which would influence US national security interests.

Moreover, Western governments, media and academia tend to rely heavily on the Palestinian-related Arab talk, rather than the Arab walk.  Therefore, they misperceive the Palestinian issue as a primary Arab concern, a core cause of regional turbulence and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Thus, they conclude that a Palestinian state would tone down the intensity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the regional conflicts in the Middle East, and consequently advance the cause of stability, moderation, peace and possibly democracy.  Previously, they defined the 2010/11 eruption of the Arab Tsunami as an “Arab Spring,” “a march of democracy” and “Facebook and youth revolution.”

Supposedly, this is an astute, common sense and convenient approach to the Palestinian issue, which could resolve rough crises by bypassing the violent, intolerant, unpredictable, frustrating and inconvenient features of the Middle East.

But, this approach subordinates the well-documented Palestinian past track record to a presumptive Palestinian future track record.

How credible is this approach, which sacrifices inconvenient and frustrating reality on the altar of convenient assumptions and solution?

What would be the nature of the proposed Palestinian state and its impact on the region and on vital US national security interests?

Why has Arab policy-making demonstrated a sharp contradiction between a hostile/indifferent walk and an embracing talk on the Palestinian issue?

What do Arabs know about the Palestinian past and present track record, which the West still does not get?

The Palestinian past/present track record

*The most intense Arab collaborator with Nazi Germany. Mein Kampf is still a best seller on the Palestinian street.

*Close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood – the largest Islamic terror organization – since their joint collaboration with Nazi Germany and concerted perpetration of subversion and terrorism in Egypt during the 1950s.

*Systematic collaboration with the Soviet Bloc/Russia since the end of WW2. Mahmoud Abbas was trained by the KGB and his Ph.D. (“The Myth of the Jewish Holocaust”) was from Moscow University.

*Since 1966, the Palestinian leadership has maintained close ties with North Korea. The Palestinian Embassy is one of a mere 25 embassies in Pyongyang.

*Systematic alliance with the anti-US Cuba and Venezuela.

*An early supporter of Iran’s Ayatollahs – the arch threat to Saudi Arabia and all pro-US Arab regimes – during their rise to power in 1979.

*During the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinian terror organizations (led by Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and PLO) were a global epicenter of anti-US international terrorism, training terrorists from Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

*On March 1, 1973, the PLO-controlled Black September organization murdered the US Ambassador and Deputy Ambassador to the Sudan, as well as the Belgian Charge’ d’affairs to the Sudan.

*On April 18 and October 23, 1983, 260 Americans and 58 Frenchmen were murdered, when the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut were car-bombed by Islamic Jihad terrorists, assisted by Palestinian terrorists.

*Palestinian terrorists fought US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

*Palestinian terrorism (1987-1991) and control (since Oslo 1993) of the Christian enclaves in Bethlehem, Beit Jallah, Beit Sahur and Ramallah transformed these Christian communities from majority to tiny minority.

*Palestinian terrorism and hate-education intensified dramatically in response to Israel’s dramatic concessions in 1993 (the Oslo Accord), 2000 (Prime Minister Barak’s proposal to retreat to the 1949 ceasefire lines) and 2005 (disengagement from Gaza).

*Anti-Israel Palestinian terrorism was not triggered by the 1967 War. It has been an integral feature of the region since the 1920s. Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and PLO organizations were established in 1959 and 1964 with official charters and seals calling for the “liberation” of pre-1967 Israel.  The “liberation” of pre-1967 Israel has been the core theme of the Palestinian education curriculum (K-12) and mosque incitement.

*Palestinian leaders have excelled in the usage of the Islamic Taqqiyah (dissimulation), as evidenced by Arafat, who enunciated peaceful statements, which made him a frequent visitor to the White House and a recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace, while fueling unprecedented terrorism and hate-education.

*Arabs consider Palestinians to be a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude.  This is the result of Palestinian terrorism (led by Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and their colleagues) against Arab host countries, such as Egypt (mid-1950s), Syria (1966), Jordan (1970), Lebanon (1970-1982) and Kuwait (1990), as well as Palestinian collaboration with the Assad and Saddam Hussein regimes in Syria and Iraq and the Ayatollahs of Iran.

*Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other pro-US Arab regimes don’t forget and don’t forgive. They consider the proposed Palestinian state a potential rogue regime, threatening their survival.

*During the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty signing ceremony, Jordanian generals told their Israeli colleagues that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the river.

*Against the aforementioned data, a Palestinian state could expand the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Turkish and possibly North Korean foothold in the Middle East, including conceivable land, air and sea access/bases.

*The aforementioned data guarantees another anti-US vote at the UN.

Bearing in mind that leopards don’t change spots, only tactics, the proposed Palestinian state, on the one hand, and US values and national security interests, on the other hand, constitutes a classic oxymoron.

Will the US foreign and national security policy establishments adhere to Dr. Albert Ellis’ advice on the centrality of past track records: “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”?