“The Deal of the Century” – a Middle East perspective

US policy:

*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 3^rd 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).

Israeli policy:

*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.

*The US’ co-sponsorship of an anti-Israel UN Security Council Statement reflects the return of the State Department’s worldview to the center stage of US foreign policy-making. This was the first time, in six years, that the US enabled the UN Security Council to act against Israel.

*This is not merely a worldview, which is highly critical of Israel, as has been the case since 1948, when Foggy Bottom led the charge against the re-establishment of the Jewish State.

This worldview has systematically undermined US interests, by subordinating the unilateral, independent US national security policy (on Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian issue, etc.) to a multilateral common denominator with the anti-US and anti-Israel UN and international organizations, as well as the vacillating and terrorists-appeasing Europe.

*It has sacrificed Middle East reality on the altar of wishful-thinking, assuming that the establishment of a Palestinian state would fulfill Palestinian aspirations, advance the cause of peace, reduce terrorism and regional instability; thus, enhancing US interests.

*However, the reality of the Middle East and Jordan and the rogue Palestinian track record lend credence to the assumption that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, yielding traumatic ripple effects, regionally and globally:

^Replace the relatively-moderate Hashemite regime with either a rogue Palestinian regime, a Muslim Brotherhood regime, or other rogue regimes;
^Transform Jordan into a chaotic state, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs to intensify their encirclement of the pro-US Saudi regime;
^Convert Jordan into a major arena of regional and global Islamic terrorism;
^Trigger a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula, which could topple all pro-US, oil-producing Arab regimes;
^Imperil the supply of Persian Gulf oil, which would be held hostage by anti-US entities, catapulting the price at the pump;
^Jeopardize major naval routes of global trade between Asia and Europe through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal;
^Intensify epicenters of regional and global terrorism and drug trafficking;
^Generate a robust tailwind to US’ adversaries (Russia and China) and enemies (Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS) and a powerful headwind to US economic and national security interests.

*The State Department assumes that Palestinian terrorism – just like Islamic terrorism – is driven by despair, ignoring the fact that Palestinian terrorism has been driven (for the last 100 years) by the vision to erase the “infidel” Jewish entity from “the abode of Islam,” as stated by the charters of Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964), 8 and 3 years before the Jewish State reunited Jerusalem and reasserted itself in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

*Aspiring for a Palestinian state, and viewing Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace, ignores the Arab view of the Palestinians as a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, corruption and treachery. Moreover, the State Department has held the view that the Palestinian issue is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a central to Arab interests, which has been refuted by the Abraham Accords. The latter ignored the State Department, sidestepped the Palestinian issue and therefore came to fruition.

*The State Department overlooks the centrality of the Palestinian Authority’s hate education, which has become the most effective production-line of terrorists, and the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian Authority’s worldview and vision.

*The State Department has also taken lightly the Palestinian Authority’s mosque incitement, public glorification of terrorists and monthly allowances to families of terrorists, which have documented its rogue and terroristic nature (walk), notwithstanding its peaceful diplomatic rhetoric (talk).

*The State Department’s eagerness to welcome the Palestinian issue in a “red carpet” manner – contrary to the “shabby doormat” extended to Palestinians by Arabs – and its determination to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state, along with its embrace of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been interpreted by rogue regimes and organizations as weakness.

Experience suggests that weakness invites the wolves, including wolves which aim to bring “The Great Satan” to submission throughout the world as well as the US mainland.

Support Appreciated

Recent Articles

Search

“The Deal of the Century” – a Middle East perspective

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement – acumen

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb