Just imagine

Let's say you're a shaker and a mover in the U.S. administration and you want to really make a difference in our foreign policy toward the Arab world. Would you (A) try to figure out where the tumult in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere is leading, and how we can protect our national interests? Or would you (B) beat up on Israel?

Apparently (B) is the right answer, because that's what we're doing. It turns out that we're threatening to gang up with the EU, the UN and Russia to try to force Israel to accept an independent Palestinian state that includes the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem.

Now, don't for a minute think this is part of any 'peace process.' As commentator Caroline Glick notes: "Since [the Palestinian state] would not be established in the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, and since its leaders reject Israel’s right to exist, 'Palestine' would be born in a de facto state of war with Israel."

Nor is there any indication that an independent Palestinian state would help overcome the murderous hostility between Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah. Or that it would stop the Palestinian Authority (remember, we think they're the good guys) from inciting terrorist acts like the Fogel family murders in Itamar and then hypocritically condemning (probably only in English) the subsequent celebrations in Rafah. (Imagine handing out candy to Palestinian children because Israeli children had their throats slit in their sleep.)

We would, however, make our European pals happy. Not only would they get to be in the front row when the 'international community' gangs up on Israel, but they could demonstrate their clout at having gotten the United States to agree to an approach they've pushed a long time.

At least all this is easier than figuring out how to combat Islamist pressures in the Muslim world (let alone at home), oppose Iranian aggression, or decide what to do about Libya. Gee, maybe that's why it's so attractive!