Washington’s co-sponsorship of an anti-Israel United Nations Security Council Statement reflects the return of the U.S. State Department’s worldview to the center stage of U.S. foreign policy. This was the first time in six years that the United States had enabled the UNSC to act against Israel.
This worldview has been highly critical of Israel since 1948, when Foggy Bottom led the charge against the re-establishment of the Jewish state. It has systematically undermined U.S. interests, by subordinating America’s unilateral, independent national security policy (on Iran’s ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian issue, etc.) to a multilateral common denominator with the anti-America and anti-Israel United Nations and international organizations, as well as the vacillating and terrorist-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, and reduce terrorism and regional instability, thus enhancing U.S. interests.
However, the reality of the Middle East and Jordan, and the rogue Palestinian track record, lend credence to the belief that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-U.S. Hashemite regime, yielding traumatic ripple effects, regionally and globally. Among these ripple effects would be:
• Replacing the relatively moderate Hashemite regime with either a rogue Palestinian regime, a Muslim Brotherhood regime or other rogue regimes;
• Transforming 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-U.S. Saudi regime;
• Converting Jordan into a major arena of regional and global Islamic terrorism;
• Triggering a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula, which could topple all pro-U.S. oil-producing Arab regimes;
• Imperiling the supply of Persian Gulf oil, which would be held hostage by anti-U.S. entities, catapulting the price at the pump;
• Jeopardizing global trade routes between Asia and Europe through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal;
• Intensifying epicenters of regional and global terrorism and drug trafficking;
• Generating a robust tailwind to U.S. adversaries (Russia and China) and enemies (Iran’s ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State) and a powerful headwind to U.S. 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 of erasing the “infidel” Jewish entity from “the abode of Islam,” as stated by the charters of Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964), written eight and three years, respectively, before the Jewish state reunited Jerusalem and reasserted itself in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).
Aspiring toward 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 central to Arab interests, which has been refuted by the Abraham Accords. The latter ignored the State Department, sidestepped the Palestinian issue and therefore succeeded.
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 P.A.’s 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 that aim to bring “The Great Satan” to submission.
Yoram Ettinger is a former ambassador and head of Second Thought: A U.S.-Israel Initiative.
This article was originally published by The Ettinger Report.