Gadi Taub and Michael DoranIsrael Must Publicly Protest America's Policy of Appeasing Iran
The excessive desire to maintain a semblance of cooperation with the administration has led Israel to adopt the empty talk about a “longer and stronger” accord. The reigning assumption is that if the appearance of intimacy is maintained, Israel will be able in the future to employ quiet diplomacy in its efforts to persuade Washington, ultimately leading it to recognize its mistake and to turn from appeasement to deterrence – either directly, by American military means (or the threat to use them), or indirectly, by supporting Israel’s operations.Daniel Greenfield: Will Biden fund ISIS in Israel to aid the Palestinians?
There is no chance of such a plan succeeding. After all, Biden believes in the nuclear deal. It is the cornerstone of his regional policy. He believes that conciliation will create a historic opportunity to reset U.S.-Iranian relations, directing them toward a cooperative future. Why should he step aside and allow Israel to sabotage a policy he’s been working to promote?
The conclusion from all this is that Israel cannot effectively act against Iran’s nuclearization if it refuses from the start to engage in an open and sincere debate with its ally. It must develop a strategy of publicly protesting against America’s policy of appeasement, while taking into account the reasonable likelihood that Iran will try to drag the U.S. into the conflict. In other words, it must adopt a policy that won’t allow the administration to turn the American public against independent Israeli operations.
Can this be achieved? Fortunately, we have an example of such a successful policy. This was Winston Churchill’s policy at the start of World War II. The problem facing Churchill was similar. When war broke out in Europe in 1939, isolationist sentiment had great weight in American public opinion. Many Americans wished to avoid having their country dragged into what they perceived as a European war. Churchill sought to mobilize the U.S. without appearing as if he were asking the United States to fight Britain’s wars for it. In a speech he delivered in February 1941, he found the right balance. “Put your confidence in us. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job,” he said, addressing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt directly.
Israel must adopt a similar stance. A direct call for getting the tools that will enable it to vanquish Iran, without asking for direct American military assistance will force the administration to justify its pro-Iranian orientation to the American public, which it has been trying to hide behind the false rhetoric about a “longer and stronger” accord. Iran’s image in the U.S. is sufficiently negative to ensure Biden’s defeat in any competition over voters’ hearts if he is forced to admit openly that he prefers Iran over Israel.
Waiting for the Biden administration to wake up from its dream that appeasement will lead to Iranian moderation is futile. The only path available to Israel is to force the administration to take responsibility for the contradictions its policy is creating, including the hiding of its appeasement behind a veil of rhetoric about blocking or slowing down Iran’s military nuclear program. It’s doubtful whether Israel has many other options if it intends to look after its vital interests.
Blinken meanwhile used the visit to pitch Israelis on a Biden plan to remove the IRGC, Iran’s terror hub, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, claiming it would be “symbolic”.David Singer: Can the Negev Summit pave the way for Israel-PLO-Egypt-Jordan negotiations?
He failed to condemn the terrorist attack as an ISIS attack, calling it “senseless” violence.
At his joint press conference with Abbas, Blinken also failed to condemn terrorism or to note that ISIS, with the tacit support of his PLO hosts in Ramallah and of Hamas in Gaza was planting its flag in Israel. Instead Blinken once again condemned Jewish Israeli “settler violence”.
Like Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's previous visit, the formula of Biden administration officials condemning Israeli "settler violence" while promising to "strenghten" the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority is as familiar as it is evil. The Palestinian Authority is an unwanted institution whose leader 73% of the people the dictator rules over want to see out of office.
And 49% want to dissolve the Palestinian Authority.
Considering the decades of failure, misery, and terrorism wrought by the failed Clinton initiative to create a Palestinian state, it’s long past time for everyone to turn the book on this disaster.
Neither Arab Muslims nor Israelis want Abbas or the Palestinian Authority. Only diplomats like Blinken and Nuland insist on keeping the senile tyrant of Ramallah in office until he dies.
In a final statistic, the poll asked who was "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people". 31% picked Hamas, 29% chose Abbas' Palestinian Authority, and 33% chose none of the above. 84% believe the PA is corrupt and 70% believe Hamas is dirty.
The “Palestinian people” have spoken. Will Biden listen to them?
The root source of the corruption comes from the hundreds of millions of dollars that Blinken came bearing last year for the regime of a corrupt senile autocrat who didn’t even know whom he was talking to. There’s more money coming this year to prop up the terrorist regime.
All in the name of a peace which doesn’t exist and that the majority of “Palestinians” don’t want.
The United States has gone from using its foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority to prop up PLO, Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorism against Israel, to subsidizing ISIS terrorism.
Will ISIS be a final red line for the corrupt farce of a two-state solution and a peace process?
The Negev Summit (Summit) taking place on 27 and 28 March – hosted by Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid– could be the catalyst for promoting the beginning of direct negotiations - without preconditions - between Israel, Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Egypt - on the allocation of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza.
Summit attendees will include:
US Secretary for State Antony Blinken
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates H.H. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Morocco Nasser Bourita, and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt Sameh Shoukry.
Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safdi will be meeting PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah during the Summit. However - according to Israel’s Channel N12 - al-Safdi may join the Summit before the event is concluded.
On 18 March Principal Deputy Spokesperson in the US State Department – Jalina Porter – had announced Blinken’s visit to the Middle East without mentioning the Summit.
Porter articulated the Biden Administration’s views on creating a second Palestinian Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan:
... “the Biden-Harris administration believes that there should be a viable and democratic Palestinian state living in peace alongside a Jewish and democratic state. We believe that a negotiated two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the administration has also made clear on numerous occasions that Israelis and Palestinians alike equally deserve to live in security, prosperity, and freedom.”
Porter’s choice of the term “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” was unfortunate. A more appropriate term would have been the “Arab-Jewish conflict” which has been raging unresolved in former Palestine for more than 100 years – long before the terms “Israelis” and “Palestinians” were created in 1948 and 1964 respectively.