Antony Blinken At AIPAC Deeply Disappoints

On June 5 Antony Blinken spoke at the annual meeting of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, where some of his remarks, beyond the bromides about America’s commitment to Israel’s security being ironclad, and the unconvincing assurance that Washington will “never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons” were most disturbing. More on his appearance can be found here: “Settlement expansion is obstacle to peace, Blinken tells US Israel lobby,” by Simon Lewis and Doina Chiacu, Reuters, June 5, 2023:

…In a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, Blinken also cautioned that moves toward annexation of the West Bank or that disrupt the status quo at holy sites would hurt the prospects for a two-state solution….

He didn’t name the specific holy sites to which he was referring.

“Settlement expansion clearly presents an obstacle to the horizon of hope that we seek,” Blinken said to muted response from the audience.

Settlements, settlements. Where would be be if we couldn’t denounce those Israeli settlements ad nauseam as an “obstacle to peace”? Here’s where: Israel has a perfect right to build settlements in Judea and Samaria, on state and waste lands, and on land purchased from, or long abandoned by, Arab owners. Its right and title comes from the Mandate for Palestine, Article 6, which called for “facilitating Jewish immigration” and “encouraging close settlement by Jews on the land.” Which land? All the land that the League of Nations decided should be included in Mandatory Palestine – all the land, that is, “from the river to the sea.” Israel has the same right to build settlements in Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank) as it does inside the 1949 armistice lines.

Nor are these settlements an “obstacle to peace.” They serve to solidify Israel’s hold over the West Bank, where those settlements are an “obstacle” not to peace, but to any invader from the East. They increase Israel’s deterrent power. And deterrence is the only sure way to prevent another major Arab onslaught on Israel. Were Israel to be squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, with a nine-mile-wide from Qalqilya to the sea, the temptation among Arabs to try again to defeat Israel would be very great. It was deterrence that kept the peace for more than four decades between the Soviet Union and the West during the Cold War. No one thought then that NATO bases all over Europe were an “obstacle to peace,” and no one should think that Israeli towns and cities in the West Bank are an “obstacle to peace” now.

Blinken appears to believe that a peace treaty between Israel, which would have agreed to be squeezed within the 1949 armistice lines, and the Palestinians, now handed a state, would guarantee peace between Arabs and Jews. Such a treaty would for the Muslim Arabs not be a true “peace” treaty, but rather, a “truce” treaty, one that the Muslims could break whenever they felt strong enough to threaten Israel. Muslim treaties with Infidels are modeled on the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. It was supposed to last for 10 years, but as soon as Muhammad felt his forces were sufficiently strong, he broke the treaty after 18 months, and attacked the Meccans. Does Blinken know about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya? And does he know just how well the policy of “deterrence” worked to keep the peace, from the late 1940s to 1989, between the Soviet Union and the Western world, until the former finally crumbled? How dare the Bidenites presume to lecture Israel on what it can or cannot do to ensure its survival?

Likewise, any move toward annexation of the West Bank, de facto or de jure, disruption of the historic status quo at holy sites, the continuing demolitions of homes and the evictions of families that have lived in those homes for generations damage prospects for two-states. They also undermine the basic daily dignity to which all people are entitled.”…

Again, annexation of all or of any part of the West Bank is within Israel’s rights as the successor state to Mandatory Palestine. In fact, had the Jews won the West Bank in the 1948 war, instead of Jordan seizing and holding it, no one would now be arguing about the Jewish state’s “rights” to that land; those rights had been well settled by the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine in 1922. Annexation of the West Bank would make absolutely clear that Israel will continue to maintain control of that territory. At the same time, annexation of land does not necessarily mean that the Palestinians living in the West Bank could not become citizens of what some analysts have taken to calling the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. That is something for Israel to work out with its neighbors, the Jordanians and the West Bank Palestinians. Were Israel to listen to the Bidenites, ignore the Mandate for Palestine, and relinquish Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank, by returning to the pre-1967 armistice lines which were never meant to be permanent borders, that would not sate but merely whet Palestinian appetites.

Blinken also spoke of “disruption of the historic status quo at holy sites.” He apparently has in mind the Temple Mount. His remarks were aimed squarely, and most unfairly, at Israel. The Arabs keep screaming about how “Al-Aqsa is in danger.” It is not. In June 1967, the “status quo” on the Temple Mount – one most favorable to the Muslims, and most unfavorable to the Jews – was set down by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. In order not to rile up the Muslims, still smarting from their “Naksa,” Dayan on his own decided that while Jews would at long last be allowed to visit the Temple Mount — from 1949 to 1967 not a single Jew was allowed by the Jordanians to visit either the Temple Mount or the Western Wall — they would not be allowed to pray, either openly or silently, on the Temple Mount. They were also forbidden from bringing prayerbooks, prayer shawls, and tefillin onto the site, despite its being the most sacred site in Judaism. Furthermore, while Muslims could visit the Temple Mount on any day, at any time, the Jews were severely restricted: they could visit the site for only three hours in the morning, and one hour in the afternoon, and then only on five days of the week. There has been no change in that status quo, and Blinken’s hint of displeasure with Israel, presumably for trying to “change the historic status quo at holy sites” was completely uncalled for. He might, in fact, have done the handsome thing, and declared that “it would be quite understandable if the Israelis now decide to allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.” Isn’t it about time that Dayan’s 1967 error were rectified?

Or Blinken might have added that “it’s important that religious sites not be attacked or become battlefields, both of which unfortunately have happened.” Journalists would rush to find out, and report on, what “attacks” he had in mind. These would include the repeated Palestinian firebombing of Joseph’s Tomb near Nablus, the Palestinians both firebombing and shooting at Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem, the Palestinians on the Temple Mount hurling huge rocks both at Jewish visitors to the Mount, and on Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall far below, and the Palestinian attacks on Jewish pilgrims who are forced to visit under armed guard, the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, which is the second holiest site in Judaism. And were Blinken made of sterner stuff, he might add that the “stockpiling of weapons inside Al-Aqsa Mosque desecrates that holy site and should be condemned by everyone, but first and foremost by Muslims themselves.”

Finally, there is Blinken’s condemnation of what he calls “the continuing demolitions of homes and the evictions of families that have lived in those homes for generations.” Israel demolishes homes for two reasons. The first reason is to uphold the law. When houses are built illegally, without permits, often on land not even belonging to the builder, the government tears them down. That practice affects illegal structures built by both Jews and Arabs. The second reason is to deter terrorist murderers. For it is their family houses that are demolished, both to punish them, and to deter others who might be thinking of engaging in terrorist attacks. The Israelis believe, having studied the matter at length, that while some Palestinians would be willing to die, and then to live on posthumously as much praised “martyrs,” who would have assured their family a lifetime subsidy from the “Pay-For-Slay” program, they are much less willing to subject their families to the loss of their houses, and this consideration acts as a deterrent, keeping some from terrorism. Why does Blinken ignore the reason for those “demolitions,” which is to save lives? And when he mentions “evictions,” is he perhaps thinking of the “evictions” of Arabs in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of east Jerusalem who, after years of non-payment of rent to the Jewish owners of the houses they have been living in, are after a long period of legal wrangling, finally evicted? Those Sheikh Jarrah evictions are no different from evictions everywhere in the Western world for non-payment of rent, including the United States. Does Blinken think those who fail, over many years, to pay their rent somehow acquire a right to the property, in a bizarre version of adverse possession?

The top US diplomat drew widespread applause when he outlined the longstanding American commitment to Israel and said all options were on the table when it came to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons….

Blinken did not deserve “widespread” applause for his remarks. A stony silence from that AIPAC audience would have been more appropriate. He merely offered, as all the Bidenites have been doing, their purely verbal assurance that Israel can depend on the US to deal with Iran: You can count on us. We won’t let you down. That’s not what the IDF high command thinks, as it makes its own plans for a solitary reckoning with the mad mullahs, and their deadly science project, in Tehran. If you were Israeli, would you be reassured by the likes of Biden and Blinken when they claim that “we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”?

“The United States has a real national security interest in promoting normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia,” he said.

By insisting that the U.S. is most eager that there be normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Blinken merely emboldens the Saudi Crown Prince to not give an inch, but to stick with the quite extraordinary demands he apparently has made of the Americans. We now know that he wants American security guarantees, including unfettered access to American weapons, and American help with what the Saudis claim will be a “civilian” nuclear program. Furthermore, the Crown Prince has said he will not normalize relations with Israel unless, and until, Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state consisting of all of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, and Gaza, meaning that Israel would have to agree to be squeezed back within the 1949 armistice lines, with that nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would mean, too, the loss of the Temple Mount, the Wailing Wall, the entire Old City. No Israeli government would ever agree to such an arrangement. Perhaps the Israelis think the Crown Prince can be persuaded to modify the territorial demands he is making of the Jewish state. But every time an American official — such as Blinken at AIPAC – expresses such a keen desire for a Saudi-Israel normalization, that only makes the Crown Prince more determined not to give an inch, but to stick to his maximalist demands.

Instead, the Americans ought to signal less eagerness for that normalization to take place. Yes, sure, that would be desirable, the Bidenites should semaphore, but we’re not in any rush — “the parties will have to work that normalization out for themselves.” We know that Biden has concluded that such an Israeli-Saudi agreement would help him in the 2024 election, and would also show the world that that despite China’s brokering of an Iran-Saudi rapprochement, the US is still just as important a player in the Middle East, able to bring Saudis and Israelis together. And to help him win the presidency, he is prepared to sacrifice Israeli security, by pressuring the Jewish state to give up its historic claim, validated by the League of Nations, to all of Judea and Samaria.

Fortunately, the IDF’s high command is clearly not putting much faith in the Bidenites’ statements that Washington will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. They don’t believe it. They are not about to risk the survival of the Jewish state on the. likes of Biden and Blinken. They are preparing, like Gary Cooper in High Noon, to face the threat alone, just as Israel had to in 1948, and in 1967, and in 1973. And the result, I am sure, will again be the same. The good guys will win. How do you say “Nakba” in Farsi?