Palestinian state: advancing or undermining US interests? Yoram Ettinger
The US position on the proposed Palestinian state – just like on any other issue – should be driven by US interests, and not by pro-Israel or pro-Arab sentiments, nor by an honest broker state of mind.
Would a Palestinian state advance, or undermine, US interests?
*The US State Department’s deeply rooted attachment to the proposed Palestinian state – just like Western conventional wisdom’s attachment – has been largely a derivative of the Palestinian Authority’s peaceful talk, when communicating with Westerners. However, the moderate talk is replaced by (anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-US) hateful talk when the Palestinian Authority communicates with its own school children and mosque worshippers as well as with audiences in Arab countries. While communications with Westerners represents a 1,400-year-old dissimulation (Taqiyyah) tactic aimed to mislead the West into advancing the Palestinian strategic position, the Palestinian school curriculum and official mosque sermons constitute the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian worldview.
*The State Department and Western conventional wisdom have also forged their position on the proposed Palestinian state based upon speculative alternate reality – an ostensibly reformed Palestinian government. This position has been systematically frustrated, since the 1993 Oslo Accord, by Middle East reality. This reformed Palestinian government would, supposedly, refrain from terrorism, hate education and incitement. It would, allegedly, embrace peaceful coexistence, adhere to democracy and human rights, abide by good-faith negotiation, and abandon its intrinsic ideology, which predates the 1948 and 1967 wars. This ideology has focused on terminating the existence – not the shrinking the size – of the Jewish State, mandating the elimination of “the infidel and illegitimate Zionist entity” from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.
*However, contrary to the State Department, Arab leaders take lightly the Palestinian talk. They are aware of the fact that in the Middle East one does not pay custom on words, and therefore, there has been an unbridgeable gap between Arab talk and Arab walk (especially on the Palestinian issue). Therefore, Arabs pay much attention to the Palestinian intra-Arab walk, which has become the role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, ingratitude and treachery.
*Unlike most Westerners, who are driven by present and future policy planning, Arabs consider history (since the 7th century) as the core of policy planning. For example, they remember the 1950s Palestinian betrayal of Egypt, when the Palestinian leadership collaborated with Muslim Brotherhood terrorists against their Egyptian host government, followed by the Palestinian leadership escape to Syria. Moreover, in the 1960s, the Palestinians betrayed Syria, by collaborating with Muslim Brotherhood terrorists against their host government, escaping to Jordan. Similarly, in 1970, the Palestinians betrayed Jordan, by launching a military operation against their host Hashemite regime, which triggered a bloody civil war, forcing their escape to Lebanon. During 1970-1982, they plundered Lebanon, igniting a series of civil wars and the invasion of Lebanon by the Syrian military, until they were expelled to Tunisia. In 1990, they betrayed Kuwait, which was their most generous Arab host, absorbing 400,000 (PLO) Palestinians, allowing them to rise to top administrative and business positions. Consistent with their rogue intra-Arab conduct, the Palestinians joined Saddam Hussein’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, heralding him as a savior and a “Modern day Salah a-Din.” Therefore, once restored to power, the leader of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah, expelled almost all 400,000 Palestinians, with hardly any intra-Arab backlash.
*Arab leaders are, also, aware of the systematic Palestinian alignment with radical/violent anti-US global forces, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, Ayatollah Khomeini, global terrorism (Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America), the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood (the largest Sunni terror organization), North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia and China.
*Arab leaders don’t expect a Palestinian state to act differently than its 100-year-old rogue intra-Arab track record, which would add fuel to the Middle East fire, threatening every pro-US, relatively moderate Arab regime. Therefore, Arab leaders shower Palestinians with embracing talk; but, refrain from any tangible walk on behalf of a Palestinian state. For instance, Arabs have never flexed a military – and barely a financial – muscle on behalf of the Palestinians. Furthermore, no Arab-Israeli war erupted due to the Palestinian issue, and none of the six Israel-Arab peace treaties was preconditioned upon the establishment of the Palestinian issue. Irrespective of their talk, Arabs have never sacrificed their own national interest on the altar of the proposed Palestinian state.
*Arabs are aware that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River. This was echoed by the late King Hussein’s reaction to the September 1993 Oslo Accord. It was reiterated by him and his top military commanders during the October 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty ceremony.
*Arabs are aware that the toppling of the Hashemite regime would transform Jordan into a platform of anti-US Islamic terrorism. It would also ignite a civil war between various Palestinian groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran-controlled and ISIS-controlled anti-US terrorists. Such a chaotic state of affairs would generate a domino scenario into the terror-ridden Sinai Peninsula, intensifying attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to topple the pro-US Egyptian regime of General Sisi. The destabilizing ripple effects would also head south of Jordan to the Arabian Peninsula, destabilizing Saudi Arabia and every other pro-US Arab oil-producing regime. Such an avalanche could transfer the control of 48% of global oil reserves – as well as the domination of critical Asia-Europe commercial sea lanes – to the anti-US Ayatollah regime, the anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, anti-US China or anti-US Russia, intensifying the epicenter of anti-US Islamic terrorism. Thus, causing a severe setback to the US/Western homeland security and economy, and providing a historic bonanza to rivals and enemies of the US.
*Contrary to the State Department’s attachment to alternate reality, Arab leaders are aware that the Palestinian leopard does not change spots (strategy), only tactics.
Comments are closed.
