Tuesday, October 13, 2026
From Ian:
Nicole Lampert: The Palestinians have played the West for fools, and here’s the awful proof
Nicole Lampert: The Palestinians have played the West for fools, and here’s the awful proof
These countries insisted they believed – naively? stupidly? wishfully? – that, when Abbas said he wanted a democratic state that would live in peace with Israel, he meant it. It is rather inconvenient that this wasn’t true. Abbas, who also cancelled elections in 2021, has fallen at the first hurdle.Jonathan Tobin: The foreign-policy establishment’s war on Israel finds a target
The UK’s expectations were slightly different. It had demanded that the Palestinians organise (but not necessarily hold) an election within a year of a ceasefire taking effect (which it did on Oct 10, 2025). By giving a new election date of Sept 11, 2027, the Palestinians might be able to claim to Labour they have just about done that. But it should have been less easy to fob off the other countries. France, for example, had suggested that elections should actually take place within a year after a ceasefire under international supervision.
What has been the response? On Tuesday afternoon, more than 48 hours after the elections were called off, the foreign ministers of the UK, France, Canada, and Australia issued the weakest of statements denouncing the move. They said they “deeply regret” the decision and it would be “deeply disappointing” to the Palestinians who wanted to vote. A feeble statement for breaking a core pledge for their statehood, it is little wonder the Palestinian leadership knows it can run rings around Western powers.
And what needs to happen for these nations to realise that the two-state solution they demand – of two democracies that live next to each other in peace – is a pipe dream? That as much as we all wish it – and goodness, I wish it could be true – that is not what the Palestinian leadership has ever seemed to want.
That the Palestinian leadership doesn’t appear to believe in a two-state solution is something many in Israel learned when, in response to the Oslo peace process which would have given them a state, Hamas, with the acquiescence of the Palestinian Authority, began a wave of suicide bombings known as the Second Intifada. For those dreamers in Israel who still believed in peace, October 7 buried their hopes in the ground.
Abbas claimed he was cancelling the elections because of the instability in the West Bank and Gaza, but that is unlikely to be fixed within the year. We must surely assume he has once again cancelled these elections because he knows he would lose. Rivals within his own Fatah ruling party, sick of the 90-year-old man’s rule, have been trying to create broader coalitions for both the presidential and legislative elections.
But another of the parties due to take part in the elections is Hamas, even though all the Western nations dreaming of a peaceful Palestine insist the terror group cannot be in control. Abbas’s former Fatah rival Mohammed Dahlan was in talks to create a coalition with Hamas and fellow terrorists Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Dahlan has attacked the cancellation of the elections as an “attack on democracy”.
Abbas himself was likely to be replaced. The most overwhelmingly popular candidate for president is Marwan Barghouti, who is in Israeli prison after being convicted of the murder of five people during the Second Intifada as the co-founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. As much as there has been a PR push for Barghouti to paint him as the Palestinian Mandela, the suspicion must surely be that he is loved in Palestine because of his violence not his lack of it.
A few days ago, another Fatah official, Basel Abu Shahab, who runs the group’s movements in Lebanon, was forthright about the two-state solution “trap”. Threatening more attempts to overrun Israel, he was reported to have said: “Israel understands why it does not want to give us a state: it knows what the future could hold ... the establishment of a Palestinian state would mean the disappearance of the Israeli entity and the end of global Zionism.”
Perhaps there are voices for peace in Palestine but they cannot emerge when Western nations continue to reward corrupt politicians and terrorists. It would be good if, just once, our country would acknowledge what the Palestinian leadership actually is. That pointing this out would be too costly at the electoral booth shows not just how democracy itself is challenged by the Palestinians, but how this issue has damaged our own electoral processes.
Palestinian statehoodDoes the West really need a Palestinian state?
That was to be expected prior to Trump becoming president and in the interregnum between his first and second terms when Joe Biden was president. This was also a time when the promotion of Palestinian statehood and the belief that Jewish communities in the territories were illegal was official American policy.
That’s not the case now, but many permanent State Department employees and diplomats who continue to work in U.S. embassies and consulates, including in Israel, are still drinking the two-state Kool-Aid. The notion of repeating the failed experiment in which Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005—and allowing the creation of a Hamas terror state there in the far larger and more strategic Judea and Samaria—is regarded by most Israelis as not so much ill-advised as insane. That was already true before the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab terror attacks in Israeli communities in the south on Oct. 7, 2023. After that, it is nothing short of perverse for Americans to be trying to impose such a suicidal plan on their ally.
Like the Hamas-run enclave in Gaza, a Palestinian state elsewhere would simply be another terror state whose goal would be Israel’s destruction. It would further serve to destabilize neighboring moderate Arab governments, leading to a disaster not just for Israel but for U.S. interests as well.
In addition to still trying to preserve the notion of forcing Israel out of the territories, many staffers, with the aid of a small minority of left-wing Israelis, have been promoting the “settler-violence” narrative about Jews living there conducting pogroms against their Arab neighbors.
This flips the reality of life in the territories on its head. While some Jews have been guilty of violence—and labeled by Huckabee as “terrorists” who deserved prosecution—the overwhelming majority of incidents there are acts of violence and terror against Jews. Most such cases of “settler violence” are really about Jews defending themselves against terror or engaged in non-violent conduct in places where Palestinians and other enemies of Israel wish they weren’t allowed to go, such as Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.
That many embassy staffers working on Palestinian affairs still hold such views is not surprising since most come out of the same liberal academic institutions, think tanks and other bastions of foreign policy groupthink about Israel and the Palestinians shared by left-wing journalists, such as those who work at the Times.
They’re also angry that the current Israeli government has been willing to allow the Jews in the territories to build more homes and to expand their outposts in parts labeled as “Area C,” as referenced in the Oslo Accords. The article claims that Huckabee and Milstein’s refusal to designate such building activity as against U.S. policy contradicts Trump’s stated opposition to Israel annexing or extending its law to that area.
But that is untrue. Since Trump has signed off on an official change in policy that rightly rejects the notion that Israeli settlement in the territories is illegal (contrary to liberal conventional wisdom, international agreements guaranteed the Jewish right to “close settlement” in Judea and Samaria more than a century ago), there is no contradiction.
Enforcing Trump’s policies
It should be pointed out again that the sources claiming that Milstein had acted wrongly were anonymous embassy employees who are obviously upset that under Trump, the United States has rejected the two-state mantra and effort to demonize the Jewish presence in the territories.
Rather than acting to protect the Netanyahu government from the wrath of Trump, Milstein is, as the anti-Israel and anti-Trump Quincy Institute Washington think tank labeled him in 2025, “Trump’s pro-Israel enforcer.”
He’s serving as a check on diplomats and bureaucrats who are still acting as if Biden or Barack Obama were president. Under their administrations and many of their predecessors, the purpose of the ambassador and other U.S. diplomats in Israel was to act as imperial proconsuls whose jobs were to force the Jewish state to bend to the will of foreign dictates that undermined its security.
Whether some who work for the State Department or liberal media outlets agree with it or not, that is no longer U.S. policy.
It’s also possible that some working in the current administration have been seduced by the Tucker Carlson/groyper wing of the Republican Party and, for entirely different reasons—back an isolationist U.S. foreign policy that would discard support for Israel and be indifferent to the increased power of anti-American Islamist states like Iran and its terrorist proxies. They also wish to promote discord between Washington and Jerusalem.
Under Friedman and Huckabee, in addition to current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the embassy, which is now properly relocated in Israel’s capital, works to facilitate better relations and security cooperation between these democratic allies, not to promote conflict between them. And the old consulate that acted as a bastion of anti-Israel activity is no more.
It is clearly part of Milstein’s job to keep those who want to promote Palestinian statehood in check, rather than allow them to clog up the flow of reports from Jerusalem to the State Department with documents seeking to boost policies the administration opposes and fuel conflict with Israel’s democratically elected government. Doing so isn’t a violation of his oath as a U.S. official or an act of censorship. It’s actually what any responsible person in such a position at this time ought to be doing.
Seen from that perspective, the flurry of stories about Milstein has nothing to do with his alleged misconduct and everything to do with an attempt to thwart current U.S. policy.
But rather than resign and advocate a reversal of Trump and Rubio’s policies, some staffers—with the support of members of the U.S. foreign establishment at think tanks, universities and liberal media outlets—want to undermine it from within. And in order to accomplish this task, they are out to discredit someone who is actually doing his job to carry out current American policy, which just so happens to be far more rational as well as more attuned to what is best for the United States and its allies.
That Milstein is related to Levin and close to Huckabee makes him an even more attractive target. Still, that is no excuse for an anonymously sourced smear campaign aimed at undermining Trump’s and Rubio’s trust in them.
We can only hope that Trump and Rubio will, as Huckabee has already rightly done, stand up for a devoted public servant doing what is best for the United States and the administration.
This disturbing effort should serve as a warning to everyone who follows U.S. foreign policy about what depths the establishment will sink to enforce groupthink orthodoxy. Their pursuit of policies rooted in myths about the Middle East and the Palestinians that sane people know were proven to be failures decades ago isn’t just an obsession. They think it’s a license to destroy the reputation of anyone who stands in their way if it will make it easier for them to retake control of American foreign policy.
The reasons the Palestinians do not want their own state are as heterogeneous as the Palestinians themselves. The supposed state was conceived along the lines of U.N. Resolution 181 (II) of 1947. It was to exist alongside a Jewish state “in peace and security” and, in another, mostly forgotten paragraph, allow a Jewish minority to live “in security” on its territory—a precaution taken by the United Nations to protect Palestinian Jews.
Thus, the Jews’ presence in the “territories” of the envisaged Arab state is by no means “contrary to international law,” as claimed by the European media and European politicians, especially of the left. On the contrary, the presence of Jews is required by international law, as “close Jewish settlement” in the entire British Mandate territory of Palestine was the actual purpose of the Mandate, which was granted in 1922 by the League of Nations and confirmed in 1947 by the U.N. Founding Assembly as applicable international law.
The coexistence with a Jewish state demanded by the United Nations is one of the reasons many Palestinians do not want their own state according to the U.N. model: They would have to make do with only part of the territory that, in their view, belongs to them “from the river to the sea.”
There is a reason they cannot accept this. According to Islamic law, conquered Muslim land, including the entire territory of the Ottoman Empire, is forever Muslim. Thus, the State of Israel (or any other non-Muslim state in the Middle East) is “illegal” in their eyes.
Many Palestinians reject a Palestinian state for another reason: It would be corrupt and inefficient. There are no guarantees of interior or personal security under the corrupt crony networks of Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas or a similar figure.
The Palestinian Authority led by Abbas, which was intended to create the necessary conditions for statehood according to the Western model, by no means fulfills the conditions of a state authority or state power: clear “state territory,” a clearly defined “state people” and a “state authority” in possession of a monopoly on the use of force. In fact, the Palestinian Authority would certainly collapse if Israeli troops were to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. It would suffer the same fate as it did in Gaza and be overthrown and eliminated by a fundamentalist movement like Hamas.
In 2006, in the last parliamentary elections in the “Palestinian territories” to date, Hamas won the most votes. It then took over Gaza in a brief but bloody civil war and brutally executed every Palestinian Authority and Fatah official it could get its hands on. In Judea and Samaria, only the presence of Israeli troops has secured the power of the Palestinian Authority, which is hated by the population it rules and, according to estimates by its Palestinian opponents, wastes and embezzles 70% to 80% of Western aid funds.
Under such circumstances, a Palestinian state is difficult to imagine unless the West would like to see another Hamas state (and the wars emanating from it), or Israeli troops and settlers remaining to protect the alleged “state authority.”
The other criteria of statehood according to Western ideas are also not fulfilled by the Palestinians: There is neither agreement on the borders of the state territory nor the minimum of internal solidarity of a loudly declared but not consistent “people of the state.”
The only cohesion between Palestinian Arab groups and clans is their shared hatred of the West, and the common intention to extract as many billions in aid money from the despised and frightened Western states as possible. Arab religious fighters and terrorists of all stripes immigrating to these states provide the bloody actions to create the necessary level of fear to persuade governments and the electorate to continue financing Palestinian corruption.
On all issues beyond this, the positions of Palestinian Arab groups diverge to the point of incompatibility.
A state under the presence of Israeli troops or other foreign forces of order would not be tolerated by radical Palestinians. Nor would they demilitarize and disarm their militias, as we can see in the case of Hamas, which refuses to disarm even though the organization has lost any real power. Such groups would do everything imaginable (smuggling, secret weapons production, etc.) to achieve the actual purpose of a state as they see it, which is religious war or jihad.
Moreover, Palestinian “independence” would remain constrained by dependence on massive foreign aid. If a Palestinian state were established, many Palestinians would lose the refugee status that underpins billions in current assistance, primarily from the corrupt U.N. organization UNRWA and the European Union. Aid would likely come from other sources, such as Iran, which receives billions from China for crude oil. Other powers might also seek influence over the strategically important territory of “Palestine.” Moreover, the state would remain “fragile” or “failing,” marked by violent internal conflict; attacks on neighboring states; and lawless areas where criminal gangs and terrorist networks operate.
The question is why European governments insist on creating a state of this kind. It would most likely be a terrorist state similar to the Hamas regime in Gaza that not only keeps its own population in poverty and ignorance and invests international aid money in rocket building and global terrorist activities, but will also likely trigger another regional war. Does the world really need such a state?
