Blinken’s vision for Gaza will only make things worse.
The outgoing U.S. secretary of state's plan is less a roadmap to peace and more a patchwork of impractical ideas that fail to account for the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
There is a reason U.S. Secretary of State1 Antony Blinken will be without this high-stakes job in a week’s time.
That is because his boss, U.S. President Joe Biden, lost a re-election campaign last November — and for good reason. The world has become a far less stable place under this administration.
Nevermind that Blinken’s department spent a whopping $77 million on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs last year2 — the same programs that the Los Angeles Fire Department was preoccupied with, instead of focusing on basic fire prevention to mitigate what is now an all-time worst natural disaster in California.
Back in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, Blinken delivered a speech at the Atlantic Council Headquarters outlining a supposedly visionary roadmap for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and governance.
Yet, this proposal, heralded as a step toward peace, reads less like a pragmatic plan and more like an intellectual exercise detached from reality. With a mix of wishful thinking and condescending oversimplifications, Blinken’s remarks betray a troubling lack of understanding of the complexities of Israeli security and regional dynamics.
At the heart of Blinken’s plan is the suggestion that the Palestinian Authority, supported by international partners, should oversee an interim governing body in Gaza. To bolster security, Arab state forces would step in temporarily, only to be replaced later by a Palestinian-led security force.
The ultimate goal?
The establishment of an independent Palestinian state unifying Gaza and the West Bank.
One cannot help but marvel at the audacity of proposing a solution that has failed time and time again, dressed up in the lofty language of diplomacy.
Blinken’s faith in the Palestinian Authority is, at best, misplaced. For decades, the Palestinian Authority has been mired in corruption and plagued by inefficiency. It is a governing body more adept at siphoning international aid than delivering basic services to its people.
The Palestinian Authority has received an estimated $25 billion in financial aid from the U.S. and other Western countries, the highest-per-capita assistance in the world. All this while the Palestinian Authority refuses to use its considerable international aid to relocate more than 100,000 Palestinians from Palestinian-controlled refugee camps to residential locations in the territories, preferring to leave them confined under extremely unpleasant conditions.
At the same time, Tareq Abbas, son of the current Palestinian Authority president, is a multi-millionaire who owns villas in Jordan, Lebanon, and London. His older brother, Yasser (named after Arafat), has made a fortune from his monopoly sale of U.S.-made cigarettes in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank).
Leaked records from a Panamanian law firm show that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his two sons used power and influence to control the two major Palestinian economic boards and built a West Bank economic empire worth more than $300 million.3
Mahmoud Abbas’ authoritarian rule — he’s now in the 19th year of a four-year term — has allowed his family’s consortium to dominate the West Bank’s commerce and labor markets, including owning shopping centers, media, and insurance companies, while distributing food, cigarettes, cosmetics, and other consumer items.
Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump and one of the president-elect’s senior advisors during his first term in the White House, recently told a story about Mahmoud Abbas, saying that Kushner and his team would meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “who runs a military superpower and an economic superpower,” but “would take a commercial EL AL flight” to Washington, D.C.
On the other hand, Abbas would come visit them in Washington “and he obviously represents a ‘refugee group’” yet “he would fly in a $60-million Boeing private business jet,” Kushner said. “I’d meet with him and we’d be sitting around and he’d put a cigarette into his mouth and somebody would come over to light the cigarette for him. I’d be like, ‘Am I meeting with the head of a refugee group or am I meeting with a king?’”4
According to Aaron Menenberg, Executive Director of the Public Interest Fellowship, many of the Palestinian Authority’s supporters tend to look for ways to explain away their problems.
“They have composed a popular narrative in which, despite the Palestinian Authority’s corruption — or perhaps regardless of it — the Palestinians’ problems are primarily Israel’s fault,” wrote Menenberg. “Economic and political development in the Palestinian territories, it is claimed, can only move forward if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, voids its security requirements for border movement, and allows the free flow of people and goods.”5
If you think that’s the butt of the joke, get this: Between 2002 and 2004, Israel began building a security barrier, separating it from the West Bank to prevent repeated Palestinian terrorism. Publicly, the Palestinian Authority called this the “apartheid wall,” but while the barrier was being denounced, it was being built with Palestinian cement, corruptly diverted by Palestinian Authority officials.
Some 20,000 tons of cement, imported from Egypt for building Palestinian homes and buildings in Gaza, had been resold at huge profits to the Israelis for use in constructing separation barriers and settlements throughout the West Bank.6
Suggesting that the Palestinian Authority could suddenly transform into a competent administrator for Gaza — a territory riddled with the scars of war and entrenched extremism — is not only naive but also deeply cynical. It is as if Blinken is playing the geopolitical equivalent of handing the keys to a sinking ship to a captain known for running aground.
Equally perplexing is the notion of introducing Arab state forces into Gaza. Such an idea disregards the delicate balance of power in the region and the deeply ingrained mistrust among stakeholders. These forces would ostensibly serve as a stabilizing presence, but their very presence could ignite tensions and provoke resistance from local factions.
Moreover, how does Blinken imagine Israel would react to the insertion of foreign troops into a neighboring territory? The history of the Middle East is littered with the wreckage of such interventions, yet Blinken seems oblivious to these lessons.
In his remarks, Blinken criticized Israel for not doing enough to curb violence in the West Bank and for withholding funds from the Palestinian Authority. These comments, delivered with the moralistic tone of a detached observer, betray a profound ignorance of Israel's security realities.
Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza are not arbitrary; they are responses to real and ongoing threats. By framing these measures as impediments to peace, Blinken shifts blame onto Israel while glossing over the existential dangers posed by groups like Hamas.
The suggestion of a Palestinian-led security force adds another layer of absurdity. The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to maintain control even in the West Bank, where its authority is theoretically stronger.
Expecting it to foster a robust and reliable security apparatus in Gaza — while simultaneously unifying a fractured populace — borders on delusion. One cannot help but wonder if Blinken has confused a high-stakes conflict with a classroom simulation.
Blinken’s plan is less a roadmap to peace and more a patchwork of impractical ideas that fail to account for the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It represents the worst kind of diplomacy: one that prioritizes appearances over substance and sacrifices practicality at the altar of idealism.
While the Secretary of State may have delivered his speech with the gravitas of a statesman, his words amount to little more than intellectual posturing. For Israel, and indeed for anyone seeking a genuine resolution to this conflict, Blinken's vision is not just misguided — it is dangerous.
In the end, Blinken’s proposal serves as a reminder that even the most eloquent speeches cannot substitute for grounded, informed policymaking. Peace in the Middle East will not be achieved through condescending lectures or recycled ideas.
It requires a nuanced understanding of history, a commitment to Israel’s security, and the courage to confront uncomfortable truths — qualities glaringly absent from Blinken’s address.
The American equivalent of a foreign minister
“EXCLUSIVE: State Department Forced To Disclose Multi-Million Dollar Cost Of Biden’s Diversity Agenda.” The Daily Wire.
“Palestinian kleptocracy: West accepts corruption, people suffer the consequences.” The Hill.
“E153: In conversation with Jared Kushner: Israel-Hamas War, paths forward, macro picture, AI.” All-In Podcast. YouTube.
“Terrorists & Kleptocrats: How Corruption is Eating the Palestinians Alive.” The Tower.
“Chronic Kleptocracy: Corruption Within the Palestinian Political Establishment.” Council on Foreign Relations.
Thank you. It is likely that Blinken is delusional and/or psychopathic. Judea & Samaria. From Sept 27, 2024: "Approximately two weeks ago, the head of the Samaria Regional Council Yossi Dagan visited the US, where he connected with a joint effort with lawmakers for the benefit of the settlements. Among other resolutions, it was decided to change the official name of the Judea and Samaria region, so that it would be referred to in official U.S. documents as "Judea and Samaria" rather than "the West Bank." ". The podcast The Israel Guys have for several years refused to call the region anything other than what it is: Judea & Samaria.
Blinken misunderstood, mismanaged and worsened the present situation in Gaza. It’s no surprise that Blinken would do so in the future.