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.
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.”
Hamas and war on terrorism
Arabs stance on Palestinian terrorism
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.
In the history-driven Middle East, memory is long: Palestinian intra-Arab treachery is not forgotten, nor forgiven.
Root cause of Palestinian terrorism
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.
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.
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 19th and early 20th 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.
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 5th 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 20th 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?
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.
“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 5th and 9th 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;
*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.
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”?
Is the vision of the Palestinian Authority limited to the establishment of a state in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)? Is the vision of the Palestinian Authority amenable to alteration through financial inducements? Shouldn’t the pursuit of peace be based on a realization of the de facto – rather than hopeful – vision of the Palestinian Authority?
The Middle East context
In the Arab/Muslim Middle East – contrary to Western democracies – regimes are authoritarian, suppressing the majority. They are not scrutinized by legislators and constituents, unconstrained by checks and balances, unchallenged by election cycles, and highly motivated by long-term visions. These visions quash constituents’ preference, and supersede tempting Western financial packages.
Therefore, unlike the relatively short-term, election-driven strategy pursued by Western policy-makers, Arab policy-makers are driven by long-term strategy and vision, supported by short term tactics, which frequently aim to mislead, while camouflaging the actual vision.
The de facto, pre-1967 Palestinian vision
According to the de facto Palestinian vision – as documented by the current K-12 Palestinian hate curriculum – Palestine extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, erasing the “infidel” Jewish State (The term Palaistine was coined by the Greeks in the 5th century BCE, referring to the Land of Israel).
The de facto Palestinian vision was determined before the 1967 Six Day War; before the Jewish State reunited Jerusalem and regained control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (which was renamed the West Bank during the 1950 Jordanian occupation).
The Palestinian de facto vision was articulated by the 1964 charter of the PLO, which is the source of power of the Palestinian Authority, hence Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, leaders of the PLO, and therefore of the Palestinian Authority. The 33 articles of the PLO charter envision a multi-generational struggle for “the liberation” of the whole of British Mandate Palestine and the destruction of “Zionist occupation,” focusing on Tel Aviv, Haifa and the entire pre-1967 Israel.
The 1964 PLO charter did not refer to Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza – which were occupied by Jordan and Egypt – only to pre-1967 Israel.
The 1968 edition of the PLO charter – which is still in effect, in defiance of a 1993 (Oslo) PLO commitment to amend it and desist from terrorism and hate education – refers to the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. It can be amended only by a 2/3 majority of the Palestinian National Council.
The boundaries of “liberated Palestine” are delineated by the PLO emblem, highlighting the pre-1967 area of Israel. It demonstrates that the crux of the conflict is not the size – but the existence – of the Jewish State.
Moreover, the largest organization within the PLO, Fatah – headed by Mahmoud Abbas – was established in 1959, eight years before the 1967 War, proclaiming the aim “to liberate Palestine,” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, as displayed by the Fatah emblem.
The Palestinian ‘Phased Plan”
On September 13, 1993, a few hours before signing the Israel-Palestinian Oslo Accord on the White House lawn, Arafat told the Jordanian TV that the accord is an interim agreement – the first phase of the PLO’s June 1974 “Phased Plan.” The latter legitimizes the establishment of a Palestinian Authority over any part of British Mandate Palestine, as a beachhead for vanquishing the enemy, and establishing a Palestinian state over the whole of Palestine.
The August 14, 2009 and November 16, 1998, January 30, 1996 and May 10, 1994 speeches by Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat reiterated the step-by-step Palestinian tactic toward the attainment of the de facto Palestinian vision, drawing inspiration from Mohammed’s Hudaybiyya Treaty – a major precept of traditional and contemporary Islam and Arab policy-making.
The 628 AD Hudaybiyya Treaty – when Mohammed signed an agreement, regrouped, breached the agreement and vanquished his enemy in Mecca – has been a role model for agreements between Muslims and “infidel” entities. These agreements do not constitute a goal, but rather a means. They are merely a truce, not a final peace – merely a stepping stone to victory over the “infidel.”
The Western challenge
In 2020, the Palestinian hate curriculum; the popularity of the anti-Semitic Mein Kampf and The Elders of Zion on the Palestinian street; the glorification of suicide bombers; the systematic incitement by the Palestinian clergy; the monthly subsidies to families of terrorists, and the bolstering of the terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza, underscore the de facto Palestinian vision.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned documentation – which is reflected by unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, hate education and violation of commitments – most Western democracies experience suspension of disbelief, overlooking the Palestinian walk. They embrace the “screen-saving,” misleading Palestinian talk, and delude themselves that financial benefits might divert the Palestinian leadership from its real goal.
They ignore the fact that financial benefits have failed to produce intra-Arab peaceful coexistence during the last 1,400 years, and have not altered the de facto Palestinian vision despite unprecedented economic and political benefits extended by the 1993 Oslo Accord and by Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza.
As expected, each Israeli concession added fuel – not water – to the fire of Palestinian terrorism, which has not modified the pro-Palestinian Western policy.
The Western tendency to sacrifice reality on the altar of wishful-thinking and oversimplification has generated major blows to regional and global stability. This was demonstrated when Western democracies facilitated the 1978/79 emergence of Iran’s Ayatollahs, embraced Saddam Hussein until his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and welcomed the Arab Tsunami (since 2010) as if it were really an “Arab Spring” and ‘Facebook Revolution.” This bolstered Iran’s pursuit of conventional, ballistic and nuclear capabilities (2015), and crowned Arafat with a Nobel Prize for Peace (1994).
When it comes to the de facto Palestinian vision, will Western democracies learn from past, self-destructive mistakes by avoiding – or repeating – them?!
The Palestinian track record
In the Arab Middle East, unlike Western democracies, historical memory is very long. Nothing is forgotten, nothing is forgiven.
Therefore, Arabs are aware of the direct correlation between the scope of Palestinian freedom of action in Arab countries, on the one hand, and the level of anti-Arab Palestinian terrorism, on the other hand.
This harsh correlation was demonstrated in Egypt and Syria during the mid-1950s and mid-1960s, as well as in Jordan. The latter experienced the 1970 civil war as a result of the unprecedented self-rule provided to Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO in Jordan. It was manifested in Lebanon, which was plagued by a series of civil wars during the 1970s and early 1980s, ignited by the extraordinary autonomy accorded to Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO in Lebanon.
Also, in 1993/94, the establishment of a ground-breaking Palestinian Authority in Judea & Samaria triggered a massive Christian flight from Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Beit Sahour. Consequently, this Christian dominated area was transformed into a tiny enclave of a 12% Christian minority.
Simultaneously, notwithstanding Palestinian verbal commitments to desist from incitement and violence, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority embarked on an unprecedented wave of anti-Jewish hate education and terrorism.
The intra-Arab Palestinian terroristic track record was highlighted by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, when the Mahmoud Abbas-aligned Palestinian community in Kuwait assisted in the plunder of their host country.
Until the invasion, Kuwait had absorbed over 400,000 Palestinians – a 20% minority – the second largest Palestinian migrant community in the Arab world. Kuwait was the most generous Arab host of Palestinian migrants, provided them with a high level of social, economic and political freedom, facilitating their rise to senior managerial, civil service, media and professional positions, including the top administration of the Central Bank of Kuwait.
Kuwait’s Palestinian migrants were Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ relatives and loyalists, evolving into the wealthiest Palestinian migrant community. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah – the largest PLO organization – was established in Kuwait in 1959. The oil producing sheikdom levied a 5% excise tax on all Palestinian earnings, and transferred it to the stashed accounts of the two PLO leaders. It also extended $65MN of annual aid to the PLO, in addition to an equal amount transferred by Palestinian workers, in Kuwait, to their relatives in Judea and Samaria.
Palestinians’ violent ingratitude
Kuwait’s generosity intended to reduce the threat of Palestinian terrorism, and constrain the explosive potential of Palestinian migrants, who had been identified as a likely fifth column on behalf of Saddam Hussein. Like the rest of the Arab Gulf States, Kuwait was aware of the incitement, by PLO leaders, against all traditional pro-US Arab regimes.
In return for Kuwait’s hospitality and generosity, PLO leaders displayed deep sympathy towards Saddam Hussein. They spent much time in Baghdad during the months leading up to the August 1990 invasion, which was facilitated by three PLO battalions stationed in Iraq, and vital intelligence that was provided by Palestinians in Kuwait. The PLO heralded the plunder of Kuwait, lobbying – along Iraq and Libya – against an Arab League resolution which called for military action for the liberation of Kuwait. The PLO warned that a US military intervention would result in many American fatalities.
Palestinians, Arabs and US interests
Before, and since, the invasion of Kuwait, Palestinian violence has always been in collaboration with adversaries and enemies of the US, such as: Nazi Germany, the USSR, international terrorism, Saddam Hussein, Turkey’s Erdogan, North Korea and Iran’s Ayatollahs, haunting all pro-US Arab regimes.
Therefore, contrary to Western conventional wisdom, there has been an unbridgeable gap between the gloating pro-Palestinian Arab talk and the reserved and adverse Arab walk. Arab leaders have mustered the fundamental Middle East notions of dissolution and “on words one does not pay custom.”
Thus, irrespective of the ultra-generous pro-Palestinian Arab talk, no Arab country has ever fought Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. On the other hand, Arabs are determined to exert their military capabilities to abort Palestinian violence in Arab countries.
Furthermore, financial support of the Palestinian cause was never a top priority for the Arab oil-producing countries, which have been less generous than the US, Japan and other developed countries.
Thus, in April 1950, following the 1948 Arab war against Israel, Jordan and Egypt occupied Judea and Samaria (naming it the West Bank) and Gaza, but did not transfer these regions to the Palestinians. Realizing the Palestinian subversive and terroristic potential, they prohibited Palestinian political assertion in these two regions.
In 2020, the pro-US Arab regimes are concerned about the possible Palestinian collaboration with domestic and external threats such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. These concerns are intensified against the backdrop of the still raging Arab Tsunami (superficially defined as “Arab Spring”) and the imminent threat posed by Iran’s Ayatollahs.
In 2020, the pro-US Arab regimes – especially Jordan and the Gulf States – consider the Palestinian betrayal of Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait as an accurate indicator of the disruptive potential of the proposed Palestinian state, which they view as a deadly threat, especially to Jordan’s Hashemite regime, and subsequently to every pro-US regime in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Arab world is endowed with long memory. Their walk – contrary to their talk – demonstrates that they don’t forget Palestinian ingratitude, unreliability and terrorism; and they don’t forgive.
They are preoccupied with their top threats, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Arab Tsunami, the Moslem Brotherhood and ISIS, which are unrelated to the Palestinian issue.
Are Western democracies aware of the costly Palestinian terroristic track record? Do they intend to learn from past mistakes by avoiding – rather than repeating – them? Are they aware that forgetfulness maximizes – while memory minimizes – costly errors?
*The Deal of the Century (DoC) demonstrates the US independence of diplomatic action rather than subordinating its interests to the whims of the UN, Europe and the 3rd World.
*The DoC proves that the US is not trapped in the fallacy of moral equivalence and distorting neutrality, which misrepresent reality, undermining US interests.
*The DoC may reveal that the US has realized that the Palestinian issue is not a core cause of Middle East turbulence, is not a crown jewel of Arab regimes, nor the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
*The DoC confirms that the US recognizes Israel as a unique ally, a battle-tested laboratory for the US armed forces and defense industries, and a force multiplier in the face of the threats posed by Islamic Sunni terrorism and Iran’s Ayatollahs’ ballistic, nuclear and terrorist capabilities.
*All prior US peace plans crashed against the rocks of the Middle East. Is the DoC consistent with the ruthlessly uncontrollable and unpredictable Middle East?
Middle East reality:
*In pursuing the DoC, one should be aware that Western values – including democracy, negotiation, adherence to agreements and peaceful coexistence – do not apply to the Arab/Muslim Middle East, which is characterized by the following 14-century-old intra-Muslim features: no intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence, unpredictability, instability, religious and ethnic fragmentation, violent intolerance, terrorism and subversion, Islam-driven goals and values (including the unacceptance of an “infidel” entity in the “abode of Islam”).
*Middle East regimes are tenuous as are their policies and accords.
*Accords with the “infidel” are non-binding ceasefires (sulh, hudna) until the opportunity arises to overcome the “infidel.” “Believers” are advised to dissimulate (Taqiyya) in order to mislead and overcome “infidels.”
*In the Middle East – where on words one does not pay custom – realistic policies and accords should be based on the bad/worst case scenario, not on a Western-driven good/best case scenario.
*Most of the Middle East is not driven by a desire to improve standard of living, but by religious/ideological visions.
*Concession, appeasement and gestures to rogue elements have added fuel – not water – to the fire of aggression and terrorism.
*Ensuring national security in the tectonic Middle East, requires extra precaution and tangible security, which would withstand future violation of agreements and volcanic eruptions.
Palestinian state (minus):
*The assumption that a Palestinian state could be effectively demilitarized and de-terrorized should be assessed against the track record of the Palestinians. Thus, the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement were supposed to demilitarize and de-terrorize the Palestinians in return for dramatically enhanced political and economic benefits. Instead, both events intensified terrorism in a dramatic manner.
*A direct correlation exists between the degree of Palestinian sovereignty and the level of Palestinian terrorism. For example, in 1968-70, Jordan provided the Palestinians with an unprecedented platform of operation. Consequently, they triggered a civil war, attempting to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime. During the 1970s, they initiated a series of civil wars in Lebanon. In August 1990, the Palestinians collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of their host county (Kuwait), which triggered the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars.
*The Middle East erratic reality, on the one hand, and the assumption that a Palestinian entity could be demilitarized and de-terrorized, on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron.
*The Palestinians have been agitated by the existence – not the size – of the Jewish State, as documented by the Palestinian education curriculum and the 1959 and 1964 covenants of the Fatah and PLO, which supersede the Palestinian Authority. They call for the “liberation” of the pre-1967 area of Israel.
*Arabs shower the Palestinians with generous talk, but no effective walk, due to their terrorist track record in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait.
*In October 1994 Jordan’s military commanders advised their Israeli counterparts: “That which the Palestinians sign in the morning they tend to violate by the evening.” They added that “A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River.”
*Former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011): “Jordan’s King Hussein does not want a Palestinian state; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not concerned about the Palestinians….”
Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (1970-1981): “Do I want a Palestinian state? Why should I want another Soviet base and another member of the Rejectionist Front?”
(“No More War”, Israel’s first Ambassador to Cairo, Elihu Ben Elissar, 1995, pp. 196, 207, 209).
*In 1948/49, Israel’s first Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, unilaterally applied sovereignty to West Jerusalem and large parts of the Negev and the Galilee, in spite of US and global opposition. Ben Gurion’s defiance established the foundation for the most capable, reliable and systematic strategic ally of the US.
*In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol united the city of Jerusalem, notwithstanding rough US and global opposition.
*In December 1981, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin asserted the Israeli law in the Golan Heights despite brutal pressure by the US, including the suspension of a major strategic pact. Begin’s decisive action bolstered the national security of the pro-US Hashemite regime of Jordan, which was lethally threatened by the pro-USSR Syria.
*In June 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, notwithstanding brutal US opposition. Begin’s unilateral action spared the US a nuclear confrontation in January 1991.
*Israel must maintain independent national security action. A unilateral application of Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley, and additional parts of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would reinforce Israel’s posture of deterrence. It would, therefore, enhance Israel’s position as a major force-multiplier for the US and the most reliable “life insurance agent” of all pro-US Arab regimes, who face the lethal threats of Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS. Such a step does not have to be part of a package, which includes a Palestinian state.
Official Palestinian demographic numbers are highly-inflated, as documented by a study, which has audited the Palestinian data since 2004:
*500,000 overseas residents, who have been away for over a year, are included in the Palestinian census, contrary to international regulations. 325,000 were included in the 1997 census, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and 400,000 in 2005, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. The number grows steadily due to births.
*350,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted – by Israel and by the Palestinian Authority. The number grows daily due to births.
*Over 150,000 Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly-counted. The number expands daily due to births.
*A 390,000 Arab net-emigration from Judea & Samaria is excluded from the Palestinian census, notwithstanding the annual net-emigration since 1950. For example, 15,466 in 2022, 26,357 – 2019, 15,173 – 2017 and 24,244 – 2014, as documented by Israel’s Population and Migration Authority (exits and entries) in all the land, air and sea international passages.
*A 32% artificial inflation of Palestinian births was documented by the World Bank (page 8, item 6) in a 2006 audit.
*The Judea & Samaria Arab fertility rate has been westernized: from 9 births per woman in the 1960s to 3.02 births in 2021, as documented by the CIA World Factbook. It reflects the sweeping urbanization, growing enrollment of women in higher education, rising marriage age and the use of contraceptives.
*The number of Arab deaths in Judea & Samaria has been under-reported (since the days of the British Mandate) for political and financial reasons.
*The aforementioned data documents 1.4 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when deducting the aforementioned documented-data from the official Palestinian number (3 million).
In 2023: a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel. In 1947 and 1897: a 39% and 9% Jewish minority. In 2023, a 69% Jewish majority benefiting from fertility tailwind and net-immigration. Arab fertility is Westernized, and Arab net-emigration from Judea and Samaria. No Arab demographic time bomb. A Jewish demographic momentum.
More data in this article and this short video.
Jewish Policy Center’s inFOCUS, Spring, 2023
Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations
*Riyadh does not allow the resumption of the Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties to befog the reality of the tenuous and shifty Middle East regimes, policies and agreements, and the inherently subversive, terroristic, anti-Sunni and imperialistic track record of Iran’s Ayatollahs.
*Saudi Arabia is cognizant of the 1,400-year-old fanatic, religious vision of the Ayatollahs, including their most critical strategic goal – since their February 1979 violent ascension to power – of exporting the Shiite Revolution and toppling all “apostate” Sunni Arab regimes, especially the House of Saud. They are aware that neither diplomatic, nor financial, short term benefits transcend the deeply-rooted, long term Ayatollahs’ anti-Sunni vision.
*Irrespective of its recent agreement with Iran – and the accompanying moderate diplomatic rhetoric – Saudi Arabia does not subscribe to the “New Middle East” and “end of interstate wars” Pollyannaish state of mind. The Saudis adhere to the 1,400-year-old reality of the unpredictably intolerant and violent inter-Arab/Muslim reality (as well as the Russia-Ukraine reality).
*This is not the first resumption of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties, which were previously severed in 1988 and 2016 and followed by the Ayatollahs-induced domestic and regional violence.
*The China-brokered March 2023 resumption of diplomatic ties is a derivative of Saudi Arabia’s national security interests, and its growing frustration with the US’ eroded posture as a reliable diplomatic and military protector against lethal threats.
*The resumption of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations constitute a major geo-strategic gain for China and a major setback for the US in a region which, until recently, was perceived as a US domain.
*The US posture of deterrence has been severely undermined by the 2015 nuclear accord (the JCPOA), the 2021 withdrawal/flight from Afghanistan, the systematic courting of three real, clear and lethal threats to the Saudi regime – Iran’s Ayatollahs, the “Muslim Brotherhood” and Yemen’s Houthi terrorists –- while exerting diplomatic and military pressure on the pro-US Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt.
*US policy has driven Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE and Egypt) closer to China and Russia, commercially and militarily, including the potential Chinese construction of civilian nuclear power plants and a hard rock uranium mill in Saudi Arabia, which would advance Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s “Vision 2030.”
Saudi “Vision 2030”
*Effective Israel-Saudi Arabia cooperation is a derivative of Saudi Arabia’s national security and economic interests, most notably “Vision 2030.”
*The unprecedented Saudi-Israeli security, technological and commercial cooperation, and the central role played by Saudi Arabia in inducing the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan to conclude peace treaties with Israel, are driven by the Saudi assessment that Israel is an essential ally in the face of real, clear, lethal security threats, as well as a vital partner in the pursuit of economic, technological and diplomatic goals.
*The Saudi-Israel cooperation constitutes a win-win proposition.
*The Saudi-Israel cooperation is driven by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’ (MBS’) “Vision 2030.” He aspires to catapult the kingdom to a regional and global powerhouse of trade and investment, leveraging its geo-strategic position along crucial naval routes between the Far East and Europe (the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Arab Sea and the Red Sea).
*”Vision 2030″ has introduced ground-breaking cultural, social, economic, diplomatic and national security reforms and upgrades, leveraging the unique added-value of Israel’s technological and military capabilities.
*Saudi Arabia, just like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy. They consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.
*”Vision 2030″ defies traditional Saudi religious, cultural and social norms. Its future, as well as the future of Saudi-Israel cooperation, depend on Saudi domestic stability and the legitimacy of MBS. The latter is determined to overcome and de-sanctify the fundamentalist Wahhabis in central and southwestern Saudi Arabia, who were perceived until recently as the Islamic authority in Saudi Arabia, and an essential ally of the House of Saud since 1744.
“Vision 2030”, the Middle East and Israel’s added-value
*MBS’ ambitious strategy is preconditioned upon reducing regional instability and minimizing domestic and regional threats. These threats include the Ayatollahs regime of Iran, “Muslim Brotherhood” terrorists, Iran-supported domestic Shiite subversion (in the oil-rich Eastern Province), Iran-based Al Qaeda, Iran-supported Houthis in Yemen, Iran-supported Hezbollah, the proposed Palestinian state (which features a rogue intra-Arab track record), and Erdogan’ aspirations to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, which controlled large parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Currently, Erdogan maintains close security and political ties with the “Muslim Brotherhood” and the pro-Iran and pro-“Muslim Brotherhood” Qatar, while confronting Saudi Arabia in Libya, where they are both involved in a series of civil wars.
*Notwithstanding the March 2023 resumption of diplomatic ties with Iran, Saudi Arabia is aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which frequently releases explosive lava – domestically and regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2010 and is still raging on the Arab Street.
*The survival of the Saudi regime, and the implementation of “Vision 2030,” depend upon Riyadh’s ability to form an effective coalition against rogue regimes. However, Saudi Arabia is frustrated by the recent erosion of the US’ posture of deterrence, as demonstrated by the 43-year-old US addiction to the diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs; the US’ limited reaction to Iranian aggression against US and Saudi targets; the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood; and the US’ appeasement of the Ayatollahs-backed Houthi terrorists. In addition, the Saudis are alarmed by the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), European vacillation in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the vulnerability of the Arab regimes. This geo-strategic reality has driven the Saudis (reluctantly) closer to China and Russia, militarily and commercially.
*Against this regional and global backdrop, Israel stands out as the most reliable “life insurance agent” and an essential strategic ally, irrespective of past conflicts and the Palestinian issue. The latter is considered by the Saudi Crown Prince as a secondary or tertiary issue.
*In addition, the Saudis face economic and diplomatic challenges – which could benefit from Israel’s cooperation and can-do mentality – such as economic diversification, innovative technology, agriculture, irrigation and enhanced access to advanced US military systems, which may be advanced via Israel’s stature on Capitol Hill.
*The Saudi interest in expanding military, training, intelligence, counter-terrorism and commercial cooperation with Israel has been a byproduct of its high regard for Israel’s posture of deterrence and muscle-flexing in the face of Iran’s Ayatollahs (in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself); and Israel’s systematic war on Palestinian and Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, the Saudis respect Israel’s occasional defiance of US pressure, including Israel’s high-profiled opposition to the 2015 JCPOA and Israel’s 1981 and 2007 bombing of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors, which spared the Saudis (and the US) the devastating wrath of a nuclear Saddam Hussein and a nuclear Assad.
*A deterring and defiant Israel is a cardinal force-multiplier for Saudi Arabia (as it is for the US). On the other hand, an appeasing and retreating Israel would be irrelevant to Saudi Arabia’s national security (as it would be for the US).
*On a rainy day, MBS (just like the US) prefers a deterring and defiant Israel on his side.
Saudi interests and the Palestinian issue
*As documented by the aforementioned data, Saudi Arabia’s top national security priorities transcend – and are independent of – the Palestinian issue.
*The expanding Saudi-Israel cooperation, and the key role played by Riyadh in accomplishing the Abraham Accords, have contradicted the Western conventional wisdom. The latter assumes that the Palestinian issue is central to Arab policy makers, and that the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is preconditioned upon substantial Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, including the establishment of a Palestinian state.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, MBS is aware that the Palestinian issue is not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, neither a crown-jewel of Arab policy-making, nor a core cause of regional turbulence.
*Independent of the pro-Palestinian Saudi talk, Riyadh (just like the Arabs in general) has demonstrated an indifferent-to-negative walk toward the Palestinians. Arabs know that – in the Middle East – one does not pay custom on words. Therefore, the Arabs have never flexed a military (and barely financial and diplomatic) muscle on behalf of the Palestinians. They have acted in accordance with their own – not Palestinian – interests, and certainly not in accordance with Western misperceptions of the Middle East.
*Unlike the Western establishment, MBS accords critical weight to the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, which is top heavy on subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude. For instance, the Saudis don’t forget and don’t forgive the Palestinian collaboration with Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was the most generous Arab host for Palestinians. The Saudis are also cognizant of the deeply-rooted Palestinian collaboration with Islamic, Asian, African, European and Latin American terror organizations, including “Muslim Brotherhood” terrorists and Iran’s Ayatollahs (whose machetes are at the throat of the House of Saud), North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The Saudis are convinced that the proposed Palestinian state cannot be different than the Palestinian rogue track record, which would add fuel to the Middle East fire, threatening the relatively-moderate Arab regimes.
Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords
*Saudi Arabia has served as the primary engine behind Israel’s peace treaties with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan, and has forged unprecedented defense and commercial cooperation with Israel, consistent with the Saudi order of national priorities.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, the Saudis do not sacrifice Middle East reality and their national security interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue.
*The success of the Saudi-supported Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by Western policy makers, which produced a litany of failed Israeli-Arab peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue. Learning from prior mistakes, the Abraham accords focused on Arab interests, bypassing the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto.
*Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.
*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries which signed the Abraham Accords. Their stability is threatened by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East.
*The tenuous nature of most Arab/Muslim regimes in the Middle East yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969) and Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.
*Bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record, regional instability, the national security of Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be severely undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transform Jordan into a chaotic state in the vein of the uncontrollable Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; and produce another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, which would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs, in order to tighten their encirclement of Saudi Arabia. This would trigger a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula, jeopardizing the supply of Persian Gulf oil; threaten global trade; and yield a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US and its Arab Sunni allies, headed by Saudi Arabia.
*Why would Saudi Arabia and the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Why would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces?
The well-documented fact that Arabs have never flexed a military muscle (and hardly a significant financial and diplomatic muscles) on behalf of the Palestinians, provides a resounding answer!
Israel-Saudi cooperation and Israel’s national security interests
*Notwithstanding the importance of Israel’s cooperation with Saudi Arabia, it takes a back seat to Israel’s critical need to safeguard/control the geographic cradle of its history, religion and culture, which coincides with its minimal security requirements in the volcanic Middle East: the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), which dominate the 8-15-mile-sliver of pre-1967 Israel.
*The tenuously unpredictable Middle East reality defines peace accords as variable components of national security, unlike topography and geography (e.g., the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights) which are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the non-Western-like Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.
*An Israel-Saudi Arabia peace treaty would be rendered impractical if it required Israel to concede the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which would relegate Israel from a terror and war-deterring force multiplier for the US to a terror and war-inducing burden upon the US.
*Contrary to the Western (mis)perception of Israel-Arab peace treaties as pillars of national security, the unpredictably-violent Middle East features a 1,400-year-old reality of transient (non-democratic, one-bullet, not one-ballot) Arab regimes, policies and accords. Thus, as desirable as Israel-Arab peace treaties are, they must not entail the sacrifice of Israel’s most critical national security feature: the permanent topography of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which dominate 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructure.
*In June and December of 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor and applied its law to the Golan Heights, in defiance of the Western foreign policy establishment. The latter warned that such actions would force Egypt to abandon its 1979 peace treaty with Israel. However, Egypt adhered to its national security priorities, sustaining the peace treaty. Routinely, Western policy makers warn that construction in Jerusalem (beyond the “Green Line”) and in Judea and Samaria would trigger a terroristic volcano and push the Arabs away from their peace treaties with Israel.
*None of the warnings materialized, since Arabs act in accordance with their own interests; not in accordance with Western misperceptions and the rogue Palestinian agenda.
US departure from the recognition of a United Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of the Jewish State, and the site of the US Embassy to Israel, would be consistent with the track record of the State Department, which has been systematically wrong on Middle East issues, such as its opposition to the establishment of the Jewish State; stabbing the back of the pro-US Shah of Iran and Mubarak of Egypt, and pressuring the pro-US Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, while courting the anti-US Ayatollahs of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the Houthis of Yemen; transforming Libya into a platform of global Islamic terrorism and civil wars; etc..
However, such departure would violate US law, defy a 3,000 year old reality – documented by a litany of archeological sites and a multitude of documents from Biblical time until today – spurn US history and geography, and undermine US national and homeland security.
United Jerusalem and the US law
Establishing a US Consulate General in Jerusalem – which would be a de facto US Embassy to the Palestinian Authority – would violate the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which became US law on November 8, 1995 with substantially more than a veto-override majority on Capitol Hill.
According to the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which enjoys massive support among the US population and, therefore, in both chambers of Congress:
“Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….
“Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem….
“In 1990, Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that Congress ‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….’
“In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113… to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming Congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city….
“In 1996, the state of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry….
“The term ‘United States Embassy’ means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.”
United Jerusalem and the legacy of the Founding Fathers
The US Early Pilgrims and Founding Fathers were inspired – in their unification of the 13 colonies – by King David’s unification of the 12 Jewish tribes into a united political entity, and establishing Jerusalem as the capital city, which did not belong to any of the tribes (hence, Washington, DC does not belong to any state). King David entered Jerusalem 3,000 years before modern day US presidents entered the White House and 2,755 years before the US gained its independence.
The impact of Jerusalem on the US founders of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist system and overall civic life is reflected by the existence, in the US, of 18 Jerusalems (4 in Maryland; 2 in Vermont, Georgia and New York; and 1 in Ohio, Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, Utah, Rhode Island and Tennessee), 32 Salems (the original Biblical name of Jerusalem) and many Zions (a Biblical synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel). Moreover, in the US there are thousands of cities, towns, mountains, cliffs, deserts, national parks and streets bearing Biblical names.
The Jerusalem reality and US interests
Recognizing the Jerusalem reality and adherence to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act – and the subsequent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the site of the US Embassy to Israel – bolstered the US posture of deterrence in defiance of Arab/Islamic pressure and threats.
Contrary to the doomsday assessments by the State Department and the “elite” US media – which have been wrong on most Middle East issues – the May 2018 implementation of the 1995 law did not intensify Palestinian, Arab and Islamic terrorism. State Department “wise men” were equally wrong when they warned that Israel’s 1967 reunification of Jerusalem would ignite a worldwide anti-Israel and anti-US Islamic volcanic eruption.
Adherence to the 1995 law distinguishes the US President, Congress and most Americans from the state of mind of rogue regimes and terror organizations, the anti-US UN, the vacillating Europe, and the cosmopolitan worldview of the State Department, which has systematically played-down the US’ unilateral, independent and (sometimes) defiant national security action.
On the other hand, US procrastination on the implementation of the 1995 law – by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – eroded the US posture of deterrence, since it was rightly perceived by the world as appeasement in the face of pressure and threats from Arab/Muslim regimes and terrorists. As expected, it radicalized Arab expectations and demands, failed to advance the cause of Israel-Arab peace, fueled Islamic terrorism, and severely undermined US national and homeland security. For example, blowing up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and murdering 224 persons in August 1998; blowing up the USS Cole destroyer in the port of Aden and murdering 17 US sailors in October 2000; the 9/11 Twin Towers massacre, etc.
Jerusalem and Israel’s defiance of US pressure
In 1949, President Truman followed Secretary of State Marshall’s policy, pressuring Israel to refrain from annexing West Jerusalem and to accept the internationalization of the ancient capital of the Jewish people.
in 1950, in defiance of brutal US and global pressure to internationalize Jerusalem, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion reacted constructively by proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State, relocating government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and settling tens of thousands of Olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) in Jerusalem. He upgraded the transportation infrastructure to Jerusalem, erected new Jewish neighborhoods along the 1949 cease fire lines in Jerusalem, and provided the city land reserves for long-term growth.
In 1953, Ben Gurion rebuffed President Eisenhower’s pressure – inspired by Secretary of State Dulles – to refrain from relocating Israel’s Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In 1967, President Johnson followed the advice of Secretary of State Rusk – who opposed Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence – highlighting the international status of Jerusalem, and warned Israel against the reunification of Jerusalem and construction in its eastern section. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol adopted Ben Gurion’s statesmanship, fended off the US pressure, reunited Jerusalem, built the first Jerusalem neighborhood beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines, Ramat Eshkol, in addition to the first wave of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.
In 1970, President Nixon collaborated with Secretary of State Rogers, attempting to repartition Jerusalem, pressuring Israel to relinquish control of Jerusalem’s Holy Basin, and to stop Israel’s plans to construct additional neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. However, Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to rescind the reunification of Jerusalem, and proceeded to lay the foundation for additional Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines: Gilo, Ramot Alon, French Hill and Neve’ Yaakov, currently home to 150,000 people.
In 1977-1992, Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir defied US and global pressure, expanding construction in Jerusalem, sending a clear message: “Jerusalem is the exclusive and non-negotiable capital of Israel!”
“[In 1978], at the very end of [Prime Minister Begin’s] successful Camp David talks with President Jimmy Carter and President Anwar Sadat, literally minutes before the signing ceremony, the American president had approached [Begin] with ‘Just one final formal item.’ Sadat, said the president, was asking that Begin put his signature to a simple letter committing him to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table of the final peace accord. ‘I refused to accept the letter, let alone sign it,’ rumbled Begin. ‘If I forgot thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning,’ said [Begin] to the president of the United States of America, ‘and may my tongue cleave to my mouth’ (The Prime Ministers – An Intimate Portrait of Leaders of Israel, 2010)”
In 2021, Prime Minister Bennett should follow in the footsteps of Israel’s Founding Father, Ben Gurion, who stated: “Jerusalem is equal to the whole of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem is not just a central Jewish settlement. Jerusalem is an invaluable global historical symbol. The Jewish People and the entire world shall judge us in accordance with our steadfastness on Jerusalem (“We and Our Neighbors,” p. 175. 1929).”
More in Amazon, Smashwords
The goal of Passover’s liberty was not the subjugation of the Egyptian people, but the defeat of the tyrannical Pharaoh and the veneration of liberty throughout the globe, including in Egypt.
Moses received the Torah – which includes 50 gates of wisdom – 50 days following the Exodus, as celebrated by the Shavou’ot/Pentecost Holiday, 50 days following Passover. Moreover, there are 50 States in the United States, whose Hebrew name is “The States of the Covenant” (Artzot Habreet -ארצות הברית).
Passover aims at coalescing the fabrics of the Jewish family and the Jewish people, commemorating and strengthening Jewish roots, and refreshing and enhancing core values such as faith, humility, education, optimism, defiance of odds and can-do mentality, which are prerequisites to a free and vibrant society.
Passover is an annual reminder that liberty must not be taken for granted.
Jerusalem has been the exclusive capital of the Jewish people since King David established it as his capital, 3,000 years ago.
More: Jewish Holidays Guide for the Perplexed – Amazon, Smashwords
A new 8-minute-video: YouTube, Facebook
*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.
Israel’s and the US’ counter-terrorism
*Islamic and Palestinian terrorism consider Israel as a critical beachhead – and a proxy – of the US in the Middle East and a significant collaborator with the pro-US Arab regimes. They perceive the war on “the infidel Jewish State” as a preview of their more significant war on “the infidel West” and their attempts to topple all pro-US Sunni Arab regimes. Therefore, Islamic and Palestinian terrorism has been engaged in intra-Arab subversion, while systematically collaborating with enemies and rivals of the US and the West (e.g., Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, Ayatollah Khomeini, Latin American, European, African and Asian terror organizations, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba). The more robust is Israel’s war on terrorism, the more deterred are the terrorists in their attempts to bring the “infidel” West to submission.
*Islamic and Palestinian terrorism has terrorized Jewish communities in the Land of Israel since the late 19th century, adhering to an annihilationist vision as detailed by the Fatah and PLO charters of 1959 and 1964 (eight and three years before 1967), as well as by the hate-education system, which was installed by Mahmoud Abbas in 1993 following the signing of the Oslo Accord.
*Israel battles Palestinian terrorism (Hamas and the Palestinian Authority) and Islamic terrorism (Iran and Hezbollah), which are not preoccupied with the size – but with the eradication – of the “infidel” Jewish State from “the abode of Islam.”
*Israel and the West fight against deeply-rooted and institutional Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, that is inspired by 1,400-year-old rogue values, which are perpetrated by K-12 hate-education, mosque incitement and official and public idolization of terrorists.
*Israel and the West combat terrorism, that has astutely employed 1,400-year-old Islamic values such the “Taqiya’ ” – which promotes double-speak and dissimulation, as a means to mislead and defeat enemies – and the “Hudna’,” which misrepresents a temporary non-binding ceasefire with “infidels” as if it were a peace treaty.
*Israel and the West confront Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, which is politically, religiously and ideologically led by despotic and rogue regimes, rejecting Western values, such as peaceful-coexistence, democracy, human rights and good-faith negotiation.
*Israel and the West face off against Palestinian and Islamic terrorism, which does not allow lavish financial and diplomatic temptations to transcend intrinsic, fanatic, rogue and annihilationist vision. Moreover, terrorists bite the hands that feed them.
*Israel and the West are not assaulted by despair-driven terrorism, but by hope-driven terrorism – the hope to bring the “infidel” to submission. The aspiration of these terrorists contradicts peaceful-coexistence.
*Israel and the West clash with terrorists, who view gestures, concessions and hesitancy as weakness, which inflames terrorism.
*Israel and the West struggle against terrorism, which is not driven by a particular Israeli or US policy, but by a fanatic vision. Thus, Islamic terrorism afflicted the US during the Clinton and Obama Democratic Administrations, as well as during the Bush and Trump Republican Administrations.
*The US State Department has embraced a “moral equivalence” between Palestinian terrorists – who systematically and deliberately hit civilians, while sometimes hitting soldiers – and Israeli soldiers, who systematically and deliberately hit terrorists, while sometimes, unintentionally, hitting civilians. It emboldens terrorism, which threatens all pro-US Arab regimes, undermining regional stability, benefiting US’ rivals and enemies, while damaging the US.
War on terrorism
*The bolstering of posture of deterrence – rather than hesitancy, restraint, containment and gestures, which inflame terrorism – is a prerequisite for defeating terrorism and advancing the peace process.
*The most effective long-term war on terrorism – operationally, diplomatically, economically and morally – is not a surgical or comprehensive reaction, but a comprehensive and disproportional preemption, targeting the gamut of terroristic infrastructures and capabilities, draining the swamp of terrorism, rather than chasing the mosquitos.
*Containment produces a short-term, false sense of security, followed by a long-term security setback. It is the terrorists’ wet dream, which does not moderate terrorism, but adrenalizes its veins, providing time to bolster its capabilities – a tailwind to terror and a headwind to counter-terrorism. It shakes the confidence in the capability to crush terrorism. Defeating terrorism mandates obliteration of capabilities, not co-existence or containment.
*Containment aims to avoid a multi-front war (Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Iran), but it erodes Israel’s posture of deterrence, which brings Israel closer to a multi-front war under much worse conditions.
*Containment erodes Israel’s posture of deterrence in the eyes of the relatively-moderate Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, the Sudan, Jordan and Egypt), which have dramatically enhanced cooperation with Israel due to Israel’s posture of deterrence against mutual threats, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs, the “Muslim Brotherhood” and ISIS terrorists).
*Containment is also a derivative of White House’s and the State Department’s pressure, subordinating national security to diplomatic priorities. It undermines Israel’s posture of deterrence, which plays into the hand of anti-Israel and anti-US rogue regimes. Precedents prove that Israeli defiance of US pressure yields short-term tension, but long-term strategic respect, resulting in expanded strategic cooperation. On a rainy day, the US prefers a defiant, rather than appeasing, strategic ally.
*The 2002 comprehensive counter-terrorism Israeli offensive, and the return of Israel’s Defense Forces to the headquarters of Palestinian terrorism in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – and not defensive containment and surgical operations – resurrected Israel’s effective war on Palestinian terrorism, which substantially curtailed terrorists’ capabilities to proliferate terrorism in Israel, Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula.
*The containment option intensifies terrorists’ daring, feeds vacillation and the self-destructive “don’t rock the boat” mentality. It erodes steadfastness and confidence in the capabilities to withstand the cost of terrorism, and feeds the suicidal perpetual retreat mentality.
*The addiction to containment is one of the lethal by-products of the 1993 Oslo Accord, which has produced a uniquely effective hot house of terrorism, highlighted by the importation, arming and funding of some 100,000 Palestinian terrorists from Tunisia, the Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria to Gaza, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, who have unprecedentedly radicalized the Arab population of pre-1967 Israel, established a K-12 hate education system, launched an unparalleled wave of terrorism, and systematically violated agreements.
The bottom line
*The 30 years since the Oslo Accord have featured unprecedented Palestinian hate-education and wave of terrorism. It has demonstrated that a retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria has boosted terrorism; that the Palestinian Authority is not committed to a peace process, but to the destruction of the Jewish State; and that terrorism requires a military, not political, solution. A successful war on terrorism behooves a preemptive offense, not defense, containment and reaction; and that fighting in the terrorists’ own trenches is preferable to fighting in one’s own trenches. No Israeli concessions could satisfy international pressure; and diplomatic popularity is inferior to strategic respect. Avoiding a repeat of the critical post-Oslo errors requires a comprehensive, disproportional, decisive military campaign to uproot – not to coexist with – terroristic infrastructures.
*The historic and national security indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which dominate the 8-15-mile sliver of pre-1967 Israel – and the necessity to frustrate Palestinian terrorism, behooves Israel to eliminate any sign of hesitancy and vacillation by expanding the Jewish presence in this most critical area. It will intensify US and global pressure, but as documented by all Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion, through Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, defiance of pressure results in the enhancement of strategic respect and cooperation.
*The Palestinian track record during the 30 years since the 1993 Oslo Accord has highlighted the violent, unpredictable and anti-US rogue nature of the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, which would force the toppling of the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River. It would transform Jordan into an uncontrollable, chaotic state in the vein of Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, triggering a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula (south of Jordan), which could topple the pro-US, oil-producing Arab regimes. This would reward Iran’s Ayatollahs, China and Russia, while severely undermining regional and global stability and US economic and national security interests.