Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sarah: Good afternoon and welcome to yet another extremely topical and timely EMET Webinar. Two weeks ago, at the Munich Security Forum, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “There cannot be, in my opinion, peace and security for the people of Israel or the people of Gaza without a two-state solution, and we cannot give up on that.” The Biden administration continues to push for a two-state solution in spite of the October 7th atrocities. They continue to advocate for this solution even though the Khalil Shikaki polls indicate widespread Palestinian support in Judea and Samaria, for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and for the October 7th atrocities. The administration is advocating rewarding the atrocities we witnessed in October, with the creation of a contiguous Palestinian State stretching from Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, through Gaza. This proposed solution has been tried and has failed many times. Attempts to implement a two-state solution failed with the 1937 Peel Commission, the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the 1967 Khartoum Conference, the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2002 Roadmap for Peace and the 2005 Gaza withdrawal. The Palestinians also rejected the generous offer of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Mahmoud Abbas in September of 2008 in Sharm El-Sheikh.

With us today is our wonderful friend, Ambassador Yoram Ettinger. Ambassador Ettinger, was a Minister of Congressional Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the former Consul General at the Israeli Consulate for the Southwestern United States. Yoram is well known in both the Knesset and the in halls of Congress, and appears very frequently in American and Israeli visual and print media.

Yoram, please explain to us why successive administrations keep returning to the same old failed paradigm?

Yoram Ettinger: Well, thank you very much. I would like to start with a story from the days of the Roman Empire. In those days the Romans threw men into an arena to fight lions. One of these poor human beings was thrown into the arena. He had a sword in his hand, but he knew he stood no chance against the lion. He decided to kneel down and pray. He knelt down, covered his eyes with his hands, and heard the crowd yelling, “Blood, blood, blood!” He heard the dungeon gates open. He heard the lion roaming towards him. Then there was absolute silence. At first, he assumed that he was dead. Then he realized if he could still reflect, he must be alive. He gathered some courage and opened one eye. He was astounded to see the lion was lying about three feet away from him, covering its eyes with its paws. The poor human thought his prayer worked and asked the lion if he was also praying. The lion answered, “Absolutely. I am saying grace.”

In my mind, this story illustrates how the State Department views the Middle East in general, and the Palestinian issue in particular. They are not able to differentiate between a genuine prayer and those who are saying grace before a meal. They do not understand that rogue elements and terrorists will bite the hand that feeds them. This is true in the Middle East especially, but I assume it is true across the world as well.

When considering the State Department’s proposal to establish a Palestinian State, we should be aware that this is an objective that is already a few decades old. We should also pay attention to the credibility of any proposal emanating from the State Department. In 1978-79, the State Department spearheaded the policy that resulted in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini. As a result of this policy, the Iranian military was persuaded not to oppose Khomeini. According to the State Department, Ayatollah Khomeini would become an Iranian edition of Gandhi who would be preoccupied with tractors rather than tanks.

The State Department considered Saddam Hussein an ally until August 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. According to the State Department, Saddam was an ally because he was an enemy of Iran and the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. It never occurred to them that the enemy of my enemy could also be my enemy. About ten days before his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam met with State Department representatives. At that time, he asked the US ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, what the US reaction would be if Iraq was to invade its 19th province, which is how Iraq refers to Kuwait. April Glaspie provided a response which represented the worldview of the State Department, and in particular, of the then Secretary of State, James Baker. She answered that an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was an inter-Arab issue which was not the business of the US. I do not know how much more of a green light the State Department could have given Saddam Hussein regarding the invasion of Kuwait. I can only imagine how bewildered Saddam was when the US suddenly launched a military operation against him after giving him the green light to invade.

We saw the State Department’s reaction to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, they stabbed the pro-US Mubarak in the back and facilitated the Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. It was General Sisi of Egypt who put an end to the rule of that anti-US, anti-Western, anti-Saudi, anti-Morocco and anti-any pro-US Arab entity in the Middle East.

In 2011, the State Department, headed by Hilary Clinton, initiated the US-led NATO military offensive against Gaddafi of Libya. The reason given for this offensive was Gaddafi’s violation of human rights. The State Department failed to take account of the fact that Gaddafi was fighting Islamic terrorists and human rights are often not respected in wars against terrorism in the Middle East. As a result of US action, Libya has become a lawless, chaotic country. It is an arena for anti-US Islamic terrorists and for ongoing civil war with the involvement of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Greece, Turkey, France and others.  The US is not being offered a choice between pro-US Arab countries who respect human rights and pro-US Arab countries who violate human rights. The US is choosing between pro-US Arab countries, which violate human rights, and anti-US Arab countries, which violate human rights.

The turbulence on the Arab street reached a new level by the end of 2010. The reaction of the State Department was to refer to it as the Arab Spring. In this regard, I have seen an Arab tsunami but I have not yet detected anything yet which reminds one of spring. The State Department, however, is very anxious to substitute the real Middle East with an alternative reality. This alternate reality presents as a much more accommodating, much less violent, and more tolerant Middle East than what is really is.

The same worldview applies in the case of the proposed Palestinian State. Secretary of State Blinken often refers to a Palestinian State. He has adhered to the vision of a Palestinian state going back to his days as staff director in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has not changed his mind since then. He is determined to replace Middle East reality with his own virtual alternative reality. Secretary of State Blinken, together with the entire Middle East establishment, adhere to the vision of a Palestinian State. They regard it as an essential step in the path to achieving Middle East stabilization, Middle East peace and Israeli security. They refer to two states coexisting peacefully side by side. The State Department has not been asked to substantiate why they assume the two states will live peacefully side by side. It is a great vision. However, the question is whether that vision is founded on reality or wishful thinking.

The two-state solution goal is expressed regularly by the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and the entire State Department establishment. However, not all pro-US Arab countries share this vision. This is contrary to what we hear from these Arab states on a daily basis. We hear regular statements from Arab leaders and foreign ministers demanding Israel accept a Palestinian state. The Saudi foreign minister reiterates frequently that Israel must accept the principle of a Palestinian State before ties between the Saudis and Israel can be normalized. However, one small thing escapes many observers. They forget there is a difference between the Arab talk and the Arab walk. What we are hearing with respect to the idea of a Palestinian state is Arab talk and not necessarily Arab walk. If there is a difference between talk and walk, walk ranks much, much higher than talk.

Since Islam began in the 7th century, words in the Arab world have not carried a great deal of weight. Further, there is a tactic in Islam of resorting to dissimulation, or taqiyya, when it comes to the relationship between so-called believers and so-called infidels. Some say this dissimulation is even a commandment in Islam. When the Arabs talk about their support for a Palestinian State, there is a question as to whether they are dissimulating. If we conduct our due diligence, we find out that no Arab country has ever flexed its military muscles on behalf of the Palestinians and they have barely flexed any financial muscles on their behalf either.

The current war is just one of many confrontations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Arab states did not assist the PLO when Israel fought them in Lebanon. The war in Lebanon started in June of 1982. June went by and July went by. The PLO was expelled from Lebanon in August. In September, after the PLO’s expulsion from Lebanon, the Arab League convened its leaders and discussed helping the PLO. They chose not to convene before the PLO were expelled from Lebanon. They did not want to walk the walk on behalf of the PLO. Their talk however, appeared as headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times and was featured on MSNBC, CNN, and other major networks. This Arab talk was not supported by an Arab walk. In fact, not a single Arab-Israel war erupted because of the Palestinian issue or on behalf of the Palestinian issue.

At the end of the 1948-49 War of Independence, Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and named it the West Bank for the first time. They chose this name because the area joined the East Bank of Jordan. It never occurred to them to provide political rights to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. In fact, they prohibited any political activity in Judea and Samaria. Egypt occupied Gaza during the ’48-’49 war. They too did not allow any political activity in this area and they instituted a curfew at night to enforce the ban. The Arab League paid lip service to the Palestinians by establishing a Palestinian Department after the 1948-49 war. By 1956 they had quietly eliminated it. They proved that when it comes to the walk, they do not walk the walk on behalf of the Palestinians.

On November 11, 2023, the Saudis hosted a joint session of the Arab Summit and the Summit of International Muslim Countries. During that joint Arab Muslim Summit, the Palestinians, along

with Iran and Algeria, submitted a proposal to end all diplomatic, economic, touristic and defense ties with Israel. That resolution was defeated by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and a number of non-Arab Muslim states. Once again, they showed they would not walk the walk for the Palestinian cause. If they had approved the resolution, they would have created quite a tailwind for the proposed Palestinian State. However, this would have been contrary to their own interests. The Arabs have been clear they will not sacrifice their own interest on the altar of the Palestinians or Palestinian interests. This illustrates that there is a difference between the objectives State Department, on the one hand, and those of every single pro-American Arab country on the other.

As usual, the State Department is basing its policy on Palestinian proclamations, on Palestinian diplomatic announcements and on discussions and deliberations with Palestinians. All of these reflect a pretty moderate Palestinian view. The Arabs, on the other hand, do not care about the Palestinian talk. They are preoccupied with the Palestinian walk, meaning their track record. Sadly, the Palestinian track record is of little interest to the State Department because the Middle East track record is pretty frustrating. Their preoccupation with talk sheds very somber light on the prospect for peace. The State Department is determined to achieve peace at no cost. Therefore, they are determined to advance a virtual alternative reality. This virtual reality is best advanced by focusing on talk.

The State Department is focusing on speculative future scenarios rather than actual track records. Arabs, on the other hand, do not engage in speculative future scenarios. They do not give much credence to Palestinian talk. They highlight and they underscore the Palestinian walk. In doing this, they consider the Palestinian walk vis-a-vis fellow Arabs and not vis-a-vis Israel. When it comes to examining the track record of Palestinians vis-à-vis the Arabs, they do not forget, and they do not forgive.

They remember that Egypt allowed the Palestinian leadership to terrorize Israel from Gaza in the early 1950s. They also remember that the Palestinians took advantage of Egyptian hospitality and joined the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorize their host country. In the end, the Palestinian leadership had to run away from Egypt. Syria offered them asylum and allowed them to terrorize Israel from Syria. Within a few years, they joined the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and began terrorizing their host government once again. As a result, they had to escape from Syria. Jordan opened its arms and allowed the Palestinians to terrorize Israel from Jordan. In 1970, the Palestinian leadership concluded they would try and take over Jordan which they considered to be the eastern part of Palestine. Their attempted takeover was galvanized by the fact that 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians and the Muslim Brotherhood was very well entrenched in Jordan. They triggered the Black September Civil War, which ultimately forced the Palestinian leadership to run away to Lebanon. They plundered Lebanon from 1970 until 1982 when they were expelled from there as well. In the process, they triggered a number of civil wars in Lebanon.

Kuwait was the most generous Arab host to Palestinians. In 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Palestinians joined Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, stabbing their host in the back. Those Palestinians were PLO loyalists who were associates, relatives, and friends of Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Palestinians in Kuwait, in Judea and Samaria, in Gaza, and in East Jerusalem, heralded Saddam Hussein, referring to him as the modern-day Saladin, the legendary Islamic warrior. Sheikh Sabah of Kuwait, upon being restored to power with the support of the US, expelled almost all 400,000 Palestinians from Kuwait.

As I said, Arabs, unlike the State Department, do not forget and they do not forgive. They realize the Palestinians have systematically trained terrorists from Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. They know they have been very close to North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba and they have close ties with Russia and China. The Saudis, the Emiratis, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco have concluded the Palestinians in a Palestinian State would not deviate from their well-documented track record. Therefore, they have refrained from any walk and any tangible move on behalf of the Palestinian State. The have limited themselves to a very generous talk.

The Saudis and the rest of the pro-American Arab countries are much more in touch with the real Middle East than is the State Department. They are well aware of what a Palestinian state would entail. They understand the demography of Jordan. They know Jordan has a 70% Palestinian majority and a well-entrenched Muslim Brotherhood. They are mindful of the recently intensified Iranian subversion inside Jordan and the destabilizing impact of almost two million Syrian refugees in northern Jordan. They recognize that a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River, would basically mean a death sentence for the pro-US, relatively moderate Hashemite regime east of the river. They are aware a Palestinian state would transform Jordan into a platform for a multitude of Islamic terrorist groups. These terror groups would be similar to those we are currently witnessing in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and South Yemen. They know the terror will not limit itself to the boundaries of Jordan. There would be a spillover, ripple effect southward into the Arabian Peninsula. This would threaten the survival of every single pro-American, oil-producing Arab regime including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and even Egypt.

Given the geostrategic location of the Arabian Peninsula, all of this would be quite a blow to global trade. It would be quite a blow to the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf and quite a bonanza to the Ayatollahs of Iran, to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Russia and China. On the other hand, it will have an adverse effect on the American economy, and will likely cause global terrorism, and particularly anti-American terrorism.

That basically describes the difference in worldviews between the State Department, on the one hand, and the pro-American Arab countries on the other. All of the pro-American Arab countries understand the implication of a proposed Palestinian State. They do not care about the security of Israel. They do not care about Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture, and language. They care about their own survival. From the US perspective, creation of a Palestinian state will also have a direct impact upon the interests of the United States.

One last comment. The pro-American Arab countries realized a long time ago that the Palestinians bite the hand that feeds them. They bit the hand of Egypt, then Syria, then Jordan, then Lebanon and then Kuwait. They have no reason to assume that the Palestinians have reformed. They know that a few generations are needed to achieve a real change and to move on from the current Palestinian track record, which extends back to the 1940s at least, and probably back to the 1920s.

The US should be well aware of the tendency by rogue countries to bite the hand that feeds them. The US provided major assistance to the Mujahideen to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Mujahideen responded by joining the perpetrators of September 11. The US supported the Ayatollahs in toppling the Shah of Iran. That resulted in Iran transforming from the American policeman of the Gulf to the most venomous, anti-American octopus, anywhere in the world. The same occurred in Libya. The US provided military support needed to help to topple Gaddafi. Gaddafi was subsequently lynched by his adversaries who were Islamic terrorists. The same Islamic terrorists lynched the American Consul General and two more diplomats in Benghazi. The list goes on and on.

A Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria could very well be a death sentence to the Jewish State. A pre-1967 waistline of 8 to 15 miles, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would be almost impossible to defend. American target audiences, including American legislators, should understand that a Palestinian State would be contrary to America’s best interests since it would add fuel to the Middle East fire. A Palestinian state would incentivize the Middle East epicenters of anti-American regional and global terrorism. In my view the State Department’s position on the proposed Palestinian State should be scrutinized carefully. The behavior and actions of pro-American Arab countries in this regard needs to be taken into account and carefully considered. The US should refrain from advancing the State Department’s flawed vision.

There is a saying in Texas that applies to the State Department’s attempt to create a Palestinian State coexisting peacefully next to the Jewish State.  In Texas they say, “You can put your boots in the oven, but that does not make them biscuits.” Apparently, some people in the State Department establishment assume if they adjust the heat of the oven appropriately, even boots will become biscuits. Well, it does not work in Texas and it does not work in the Middle East.

Sarah: Thank you so much, Yoram. That was an incredibly comprehensive overview. Before we turn the podium over to my wonderful colleague, Joseph Epstein, we have some questions from our audience. First, if the Arab states feel so strongly about the creation of a Palestinian state, why are they not able to influence the views of the US State Department?

Yoram: In my mind, the State Department means well but they are addicted to virtual reality. When someone is addicted, it is very difficult to wean them off their addiction. In this case, we are referring to an addiction to a drug of perceived peace and stability. We are referring to people who have invested their entire adult lives into advancing a Pollyannaish vision. Irrespective of reality, they do not want to abandon their vision. Facing reality would mean admitting the complete failure of the litany of proposals advanced by the State Department since 1948 to try and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other hand, we have six peace accords between Israel and Arab countries including Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and South Sudan. We have unprecedented commercial and defense ties with Saudi Arabia. The only reason these peace accords and relations with Saudi Arabia have flourished, is because we have followed a path in direct contrast to that followed by the State Department. In these cases, we by-passed the Palestinian issue and made it subordinate to Arab interests. From day one, the State Department has been determined to make the Palestinian issue the centerpiece of the Middle East. They firmly believe, notwithstanding reality, that the Palestinian issue is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the crown jewel for Arab policymakers, and the core cause of Middle East turbulence.

The fact is that none of these assumptions has anything to do with the Middle East. The fact is that there are six peace accords which have come to fruition after bypassing the Palestinian issue. These successes appear to have escaped the State Department, hence the failures of the State Department. And it seems to me that these failure needs to be highlighted but from the American, and not Israeli, point of view. Why are we committed to an approach which undermines American interests and threatens the survival of every pro-US Arab regime? I have no doubt that if one systematically sheds light on reality, eventually, more and more target audiences in the US are going to join the camp of realism over the camp of virtual reality.

Sarah: Wonderful. You mentioned the Iranian presence in the Western Hemisphere and in Latin America. Can you provide more detail on which countries they are impacting and how is this a threat to the United States national security interests?

Yoram: We have witnessed the Ayatollah’s regime destabilizing every single pro-American Arab country in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East. They have also extended their reach to Central Asia, to East, West, and North Africa and, in fact, all the way to South and Central America.

When it comes to the Middle East, Iran’s recent focus has been on Jordan. This is because Iran is interested in expanding its reach all the way to the Mediterranean. The Iranians want to engulf Israel and Saudi Arabia with pro-Iranian regimes. They conclude, and rightly so, that if they persist in intensifying subversion and terrorism inside Jordan, they are going to succeed in toppling the pro-Saudi, relatively pro-Israel and pro-US Hashemite regime in Jordan. This effort would be helped immensely by a Palestinian State west of the river. A terrorist-run Jordan would engulf Saudi Arabia from the north through Iraq. Together with Yemen in the south, they could bring about the toppling of the pro-US Saudi regime in Riyadh.

Certainly, toppling the Hashemite regime would facilitate the surrounding of Israel with Iranian-controlled regimes. These would include Lebanon and Syria in the north, a chaotic non-Hashemite Jordan in the east, and Saudi Arabia, not too far away. They would also hope to use Jordan to generate instability in Egypt and complete the engulfing of Israel. All of that would transform the Middle East into a majorly anti-American part of the world. Again, this is a critical part of the world between the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. This part of the world is critical for the trade between the Far East and Europe and an arena for major epicenters of anti-American terrorism.

In Latin America, we have seen the Iranians expanding their influence in many places. They have established terrorist training camps in the tri-border areas of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. Some of the terrorists are dispatched to the Middle East. Most of them remain in Latin America with their eyes focused on the US mainland.

They have done the same thing in the tri-border area of Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. They have invested plenty in Venezuela and provided Venezuela with the same predator unmanned aerial vehicles provided to the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis used these vehicles to target civilian centers and oil centers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. They did all that in coordination with Hezbollah. Their Latin American activities began in the early 1980s, when the Ayatollahs of Iran teamed up with Hezbollah. They have invested a great deal in Latin America, which they view as the soft underbelly of the US.

Recently, they have intensified their presence and investment in Mexico. They are supporting the drug cartels of Mexico. They also support the cartels of Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Brazil. Hezbollah terrorists have been training drug cartels in the so-called art of car bombs and improvised explosive devices. The Ayatollahs have provided drug cartels with sophisticated equipment to construct underground tunnels between Mexico and the USA, attempting to bring both drugs and terrorists into the US.

So far, the State Department has been determined not to reassess its decision to pursue the diplomatic option with the Ayatollahs. They continue to stick to the diplomatic option, refusing to even consider facilitating regime change in Iran or creating a credible, effective military threat to hold over the head of the Ayatollahs. The diplomatic option toward Iran has been in place for the last 45 years, constituting a bonanza for the Ayatollahs. The State Department’s pursuit of a diplomatic option with respect to the Palestinians, has been a bonanza for them as well. As long as the State Department adheres to the diplomatic option regarding the Palestinians, they unintentionally provide an effective tailwind for Palestinian terrorism. If there is no dramatic cost for Palestinian terrorism, there is no incentive for them to refrain from engaging in terror. The worldview of Secretary Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan continues to inform that of the State Department. This worldview suggests terrorism is driven by despair and not by ideology or by a fanatical religious vision. As long as the State Department adheres to this simplistic, faulty, and Pollyannaish worldview, there is little motivation for either the Ayatollahs or the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, to refrain from terrorism.

Sarah: There are a lot of wonderful questions that have come in. My dear friend Ellen Heyman mentioned that both US parties are culpable for preserving the folly of a Palestinian State. She asked if you believe that now, after October 7, the Israeli government and successive Israeli governments will resist the pressure from the US administration to endorse a Palestinian state.

Yoram: Well, we cannot take anything for granted, least of all, the assumption that common sense shall prevail. Common sense and State Department policy has been an oxymoron, sadly, and therefore, we should not take anything for granted. Those of us who understand the reality should not stop sharing facts especially with Capitol Hill. We need to share this reality with Democrats and Republicans alike. Sadly, when it comes to the chance of influencing Israeli or American policymakers, wishful thinking for a change in policy is very tempting. Educating policymakers and those who mold public opinion, is a marathon and not a sprint. If we are realistic, it is a multi-generational marathon, especially when it comes to the State Department.

The State Department vehemently opposed the idea of a Jewish State back in 1948. The rationale espoused by the State Department at that time was that the founders of the Jewish State originated from East Europe, and therefore, the Jewish State would become an ally of the Soviet bloc. How wrong they were. The rationale was also that the Jewish State had no military muscle and would be easily overwhelmed by the Arab military powers. Again, how wrong they were. The State Department claimed that the US had to align themselves with either with the Jewish State or with the Arabs and the choice was binary. We now have six peace treaties with Arab states and the State Department has been proven wrong once again. Therefore, we should not trust that the State Department or any other entity will reach the proper conclusion on their own. As I said previously, anyone who understands the reality and knows the facts, should not spare any effort in sharing those facts, especially with legislators in the House and Senate.

Do not underestimate the ability of individual constituents to impact legislators. There is a myth that legislators do not care about their constituents. Legislators not only care, they are afraid. They are fearful of their constituents and are accountable to them. Constituents need to leverage that accountability and relay their concerns to representatives in both the House and the Senate. Based on my 35 or so years of experience on Capitol Hill, the vast majority of legislators are open-minded. This includes both Democrats and Republicans. They do appreciate people providing alternative perspectives to what they have heard coming from elite media and other official channels. So, do not be bashful about sharing your views and facts. It could make a real difference.

Sarah: Okay. Maybe we have time for one more question. A viewer asked if the Queen of Jordan, who is Palestinian, influences the King in any consequential way? Unfortunately, the Queen of Jordan has not been making very positive statements recently.

Yoram: Well, again, I reiterate the difference between the talk and the walk. One has to realize that 70% of Jordanians are Palestinians. This is in addition to Jordan’s strongly entrenched Muslim brotherhood and the Syrian and Iranian-driven threats to the Hashemite regime. Hence, in a way, the King needs his wife to issue proclamations which are not consistent with reality. That is the talk. The main issue is the walk. Once again, I will refer to the Saudi example. We do not yet have a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia. However, the Saudis, especially the Crown Prince MBS, was the major force which has propelled Israel’s peace treaties with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and South Sudan. The Saudis did not precondition these treaties upon Israel’s accepting a Palestinian State in principle or in reality.

The Saudis have also developed unprecedented ties with Israel. These include ties in the areas of defense, irrigation, agriculture and high technology. None of these ties have been preconditioned on Israel accepting the principle of a Palestinian State. The Saudi foreign minister has been known to refer to a Palestinian State when he speaks, but that is the talk. Whether we like it or we do not, we should not confuse the talk with the walk. It seems to me that we should focus on the walk rather than the talk and educate Americans about the difference between those two elements, especially in the Middle East and especially among the Arabs who have been known in the art of dissimulation.

Sarah: Great. I really want to thank Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, who is an amazing friend. He is brilliant. He has tremendous knowledge of American, Jewish history and Israeli history and he is a wonderful asset and ally for all of us. I encourage you to sign up for Yoram’s newsletter. Yoram, how do people sign up for your newsletter?

Yoram: Well, first of all, you can read my articles on my website, which is one word, And those of you who want to get it directly, my email address is yoramtex, y-o-r-a-m t-e-x, like Texas, I will be very happy to send you my weekly articles, which are heavy on fact. They focus on the benefits for America of different options in the Middle East rather than those for Israel. And they do provide facts, which you do not get in the Wall Street Journal or in the New York Times, nor in Fox or on CNN.

Sarah: Thank you so much, Yoram. We had the honor and privilege of taking Yoram around Capitol Hill last week. All of the work EMET does, costs us a great deal of time, energy, and resources. So, if you can, please donate to EMET at . We need your support to survive and continue providing weekly webinars, articles, and frequent visits to Capitol Hill. Thank you very much, and we will see you next week with Dr. Waleed Faris. Thank you, Yoram.

Yoram: Thank you very much.



About the Author

The Endowment for Middle East Truth
Founded in 2005, The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) is a Washington, D.C. based think tank and policy center with an unabashedly pro-America and pro-Israel stance. EMET (which means truth in Hebrew) prides itself on challenging the falsehoods and misrepresentations that abound in U.S. Middle East policy.

Invest in the truth

Help us work to ensure that our policymakers and the public receive the EMET- the Truth.

Take Action

.single-author,.author-section, .related-topics,.next-previous { display:none; }