Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “Recognizing a Palestinian State Is a Rebuke to Hamas,” is a delusion, predicated on fallacy, based on a fantasy.
During his tenure as America’s leading diplomat, Blinken got everything wrong: the catastrophic surrender in Afghanistan to the appeasement of Iran; the alienation of Saudi Arabia; the attempted rehabilitation of Venezuelan President Nicolas Máduro; the pathetic response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s preparation for and invasion of Ukraine; the opening of America’s southern border to any thug, terrorist or human trafficker willing to make the trip; and the slow-motion betrayal of Israel. The U.S. State Department under his watch left the world a far more dangerous place than the one it inherited.
Still, Blinken felt the need to “educate” Americans on how best to foster the creation of a Palestinian state and an “enduring, peaceful and secure coexistence” between Israelis and Palestinians. His prescription for peace only makes sense if one ignores history and reality.
Blinken takes issue with the decisions by France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia to unilaterally recognize a state of Palestine. He claims the establishment of Palestine should be “conditions-based.” Unfortunately, the conditions he envisions make his proposal indistinguishable from that of America’s allies.
Blinken’s approach is predicated on the false assumption that the Palestinians are interested in a two-state solution. The fundamental reason there is no Palestinian state is that there has never been, and is not now, any legitimate Palestinian leader or organization willing to recognize the existence of a Jewish State of Israel living in peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries. Had there been, the Palestinians could have had a state in 1948, 2000, 2005 or 2009.
Since Israel’s creation in 1948, Palestinian leadership has demonstrated it is only interested in a single state: an Arab state with no Jews or one with a subjugated Jewish minority.
Rejecting a role for Hamas in any future Palestinian government, Blinken envisions a “reformed” Palestinian Authority governing the new state. As he writes: "[Israel] must support the reform of the Palestinian Authority instead of trying to undermine it, which lets Israel claim it has no negotiating partner.”
The statement is delusional. Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the PA, is in the 20th year of his four-year term. No one prevented him from calling new elections throughout the past 16 years. He did not do so because he believed (correctly) he would lose to Hamas as he did in Gaza in 2005.
Abbas refused to accept the establishment of the Palestinian state in 2009 that President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to him, because it required him to end the struggle to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.
Instead, he rejected the offer and adopted the policy of “pay to slay.” The P.A. pays families of terrorists who are killed or put in jail by Israel for murdering its citizens. Incredibly, Blinken helped fund this program during his time in the Biden White House.
One would think that after four years of leading the State Department, Blinken could identify an alternative to Abbas or Hamas with whom Israel could negotiate. It is telling that no one comes to mind. He attempts to sound evenhanded, writing: “While Palestinians have a right to self-determination, with that right comes responsibility. No one should expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state that is led by Hamas or other terrorists, that is militarized or has independent armed militias, that aligns with Iran or others that reject Israel’s right to exist, that educates and preaches hatred of Jews or Israel, or that, unreformed, becomes a failed state.”
The reference to Iran is noteworthy. It was an open secret that Iran funded, armed and trained Hamas, and helped plan the terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Yet Blinken was among the strongest advocates in the Biden White House for appeasing the Islamic Republic and granting it billions of dollars in sanctions relief, knowing the money would find its way to support Iran’s terrorist network, including Hamas.
Undaunted, Blinken states: “Addressing these conditions over the next three years—a reasonable time frame—can show Israel and the world that an independent Palestine will be focused on building a state, not destroying Israel.”
He fails to say who will be responsible for addressing these conditions beyond the generic “Palestinian.” The absence of a legitimate interlocutor for the Israelis highlights why Blinken’s brainstorm is a non-starter.
He also fails to say precisely what those “conditions” objectively are. There are no specific metrics for the Palestinians to meet.
What if Israel is not persuaded that the conditions are met, but other countries believe they have been? Does that mean the State of Palestine will be recognized? What metrics will the United States require? What are the consequences for the Palestinians if they fail the Blinken challenge?
Blinken attempts to give Israel comfort by saying the Americans will protect them, saying that “The United Nations Security Council is the appropriate organization to judge whether the Palestinians meet the conditions, and America’s veto would reassure Israelis.”
Putting aside that the United Nations is a cesspool of antisemitism and anti-Israel hate, given the state of the modern Democratic Party, no responsible Israeli leader could ever agree to this insanity. The United States is one election away from betraying Israel and recognizing a Palestinian state. It would already have done so if Kamala Harris had won the presidential election.
Israel’s existence is a message to the world that the destiny and security of the Jewish people will be determined by the Jewish people.
All is not lost, however.
Blinken frequently uses the term “self-determination” interchangeably with the concept of statehood. They are not necessarily one in the same.
The Kurds have an independent enclave in Iraq that satisfies the definition of “self-determination,” but not a state. Puerto Ricans exercise self-determination in Puerto Rico, but they do not have a state of their own.
Perhaps the best model for Palestinian self-determination is the United Arab Emirates. There, a collection of clans, the various emirates, exercise self-determination within their enclaves, but, ultimately, pay allegiance to Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the leader of the United Arab Emirates. No clan has its own state.
Some semblance of this is taking shape in Gaza as Israel has been supporting and, in some instances, arming, clans that oppose Hamas. These groups are more interested in the future of their fellow Gazans and have abandoned the goal of destroying the Jewish state. That movement is likely to gain traction.
Blinken also falsely assumes all Gazans want to stay in Gaza. However, if given the opportunity, many will likely leave voluntarily, as their brethren in other Arab countries have done.
Blinken was a failed secretary of state in a failed administration. He has nothing to teach Americans other than to do the opposite of what he suggests.
