Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 15, 2026
*The gap between Middle East talk and walk is underscored by the Arabic colloquialism “On words one does not pay custom,” or “Words spoken at night are erased by daytime.”
*Middle East Talk has been highlighted as a primary weapon ofpsychological warfare, stalling fortime, a survival mechanism, tactical flexibility, diplomacy, Taqiyya (dissimulation), deterrence, rallying morale, intimidating and gaslighting rivals/enemies and befogging real intents, without committing oneself to a specific Walk, and without abandoning one’s ideology.
*Since 1978, US policy makers have indulged in a diplomatic dialogue with the Ayatollah regime, which has flooded US negotiators with tempting, business-like and peaceful-like talk, camouflaging the Ayatollah’s rogue, apocalyptic walk. The Ayatollah’s walk is clearly documented in the 1979 Constitution, school curriculum, mosque sermons and official media, which have transformed Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a chief global epicenter of anti-US terrorism, wars, drug trafficking and money laundering in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and on US soil.
*The Jordanian Hashemite regime’s talk has consistently urged Israel to halt its military offensive against Hamas terrorists, demanding an immediate ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
However, the Jordanian regime’s walk – which reflects national security priorities – has diametrically contradicted its talk, especially since Hamas’ October 2023 terror offensive on Israel. It intensified the Hashemite fear of another “Palestinian Black September” attempt to topple the Amman regime. Jordan is aware of the systematic collaboration between the trans-national Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian terrorism. It considers Hamas – a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot – a major epicenter of subversion, incitement, money laundering, drug trafficking, terror plots and rockets/drones/drugs smuggling and manufacturing. Moreover, Hamas has collaborated with Iran’s Ayatollah regime, other Palestinian terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed in April 2025, although it’s political arm, the IAF, is the largest party in Jordan’s Parliament). Hamas was expelled from Jordan in 1999, but has renewed its terrorism there, as well as against US bases in Jordan. Irrespective of its anti-Israel talk, the Hashemite regime’s military, commercial and diplomatic walk recognizes that Israel supplies critical water and counter-terror intelligence, and averted its potential oblivion in 1970 (forcing Syria to rollback its invasion of Jordan), and still acts as a line of defense for the pro-US, highly vulnerable Hashemite regime.
*Egypt’s talk has condemned Israel’s war on Hamas, demanding a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. However, just like Jordan, Egypt’s walk has been a derivative of its national security requirements, especially Hamas’ affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is viewed by General Sisi as an existential threat. Since its establishment in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has attempted to topple Egypt’s central regimes, and since 2013, it has been outlawed, designated as a terrorist organization. Cairo is also aware of Hamas’ strategic alliance with the Ayatollah regime, which aims to topple all “apostate” pro-US Sunni regimes, including General Sisi. Moreover, Hamas has been effectively outlawed in Egypt, as a terrorist organization, including its political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party. Egypt has heavily restricted Hamas operations in Egypt, designating its armed wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) as a terrorist entity.
*While the talk of both Jordan and Egypt, as well as that of most Arab countries, has castigated Israel for a disproportionate response to Hamas’ terrorism, and severely criticize the proposal to facilitate a voluntary relocation of Gaza residents to Egypt and Jordan, their national security driven walk is the inverse. They consider Israel’s war against Hamas to be aligned with their own homeland and national security requirements. They have concluded that a failure to obliterate Hamas would be perceived as a dramatic Hamas victory, generating a robust tailwind to Islamic terrorism in their own countries, posing an existential threat to most pro-US Arab regimes. On the other hand, Israel’s obliteration of Hamas would relieve all pro-US Arab regimes of a major lethal threat, and minimize regional instability.
*Furthermore, Egypt’s and Jordan’s refusal to consider the relocation of Gaza residents to their countries is a derivative of the Palestinian terrorist walk in Egypt (during the 1950s), Syria (1960s), Jordan (1968-1970), Lebanon (1970-1983), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (until 2003), which transformed Palestinians into the role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude. While the Western establishment is infatuated with the Palestinian moderate talk, embracing the proposed Palestinian state, the Arabs focus on the Palestinian rogue intra-Arab walk, and therefore have refrained (since 1948) from advancing the cause of the proposed Palestinian state. For instance, none of the 6 Israel-Arab peace treaties was preconditioned upon the establishment of a Palestinian state….
*The Saudi and the UAE’s public talk has emphasized restraint, diplomacy and de-escalation of the war on the Ayatollah regime. However, the walk of MBS, the Saudi Crown Prince, and MBZ, the President of the UAE, (including constructive defense, counter-terrorism, commercial and diplomatic cooperation with Israel) reflects full awareness of the lethal implications of the fanatical and apocalyptic Ayatollah vision, which mandates the toppling of every “apostate” Sunni regime – especially Saudi Arabia – and bring to submission the Western “infidel,” especially “The Great American Satan.” Both MBS and MBZ are concerned about the US continued embrace of the negotiation option, which, since February 1979, has been the leading engine of the Ayatollah surge to global geo-strategic prominence, setting the Ayatollah machete closer to the throats of all pro-US Sunni Arab states. Irrespective of its public talk and the renewal of diplomatic relations with Iran (ain’t the first, or the last, time!), Saudi Arabia and the UAE would be greatly relieved by a regime-change in Tehran. Both of them, as well as all other pro-US Arab regimes, consider Israel as the most reliable ally in their existential battle against the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Bottom Line
*The contrast between rhetoric (talk) and reality (walk) has been ingrained in the Middle East for 1,400 years, following in the footsteps of the 7th century Caliph Muawiyah, who laid the groundwork for shifting allegiance and flexible talk, trumpeting adherence to pacts.
*The unpredictable, violently intolerant and shifty intra-Arab/Muslim track record behooves US policy-making to be driven by Middle East walk (reality) – as frustrating, costly and inconvenient as it is – rather than Middle East talk (alternate reality), as appealing as it may sound.
