Rumor is circulating that a significant diplomatic proclamation is discreetly brewing in the Oval Office. Should this rumor come to pass, it will mark a level of diplomatic perfidy not seen since the backstabbing that took place at the Munich Conference in September 1938.

The surprise introduction by the United States of a UN Security Council resolution to establish parameters for territorial concession in Judea and Samaria – without the input or consent of Israel – should hardly be viewed as unlikely in view of Obama’s flagrant circumvention of Congress to consummate his Iran deal. Seeking to cement his imprimatur, Obama isn’t above using the UN as a cudgel to deliver this parting kiss to Congress.

ADVERTISEMENT

When the concept of a Palestinian state was first floated on the White House lawn in 1993, the world was in an entirely different place. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had definitively taken on the role of “go-to power.” Regionally, Arab dictatorships were managing to hold down the surge of radical Islamist movements, and trading land for peace would have fit within the pattern of Palestinian nationalist aspiration.

Events on the Temple Mount in the year 2000 abruptly shattered the viability of that simple equation. The intensity of Palestinian rage exposed a loathing by Palestinians that was utterly incompatible with a future of peaceful coexistence. Punctuating that hopeless reality was the reaction of Palestinians in Gaza who, upon Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005, wasted no time in demolishing the agricultural greenhouse facilities that had purposely been bequeathed by the Israeli government as a potential platform for economic cooperation. Instead, the scrap metal was used to build Qassam rockets.

The US has largely withdrawn from the region, leaving a vacuum quickly filled by Hamas terrorists now poised to take control from the thoroughly corrupt Palestinian Authority and extend its reign of terror to Judea and Samaria. An Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would duplicate the now failed Gaza experiment that ended up creating a launching pad for the export of radical Islamist violence.

The “Gazafication” of Judea and Samaria would similarly add immeasurably to Israel’s burden of defense. Presently Israel is the U.S.’s only ally in the region that is both ideologically and militarily immune to radical Islamist incursion. Strategically for the U.S., this stability presents an irreplaceable operational advantage. Israel’s incomparable contribution as a partner in countering radical Islam on the global stage underscores the imperative of upholding policies that bolster its military, technological and diplomatic strengths.

The primary difference between the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran and the dangers posed by the Gazafication of Judea and Samaria is that in the case of Iran, the danger is existential but less immediate. Gazafication would yield immediate and irreversible strategic handicaps that would serve only to deplete the conventional capabilities of both the U.S. and Israel to respond to Iran’s likely violation of the nuclear deal.

In his attempt to disconnect the obvious link between radical Islam and terrorism, President Obama has taken to attributing each act of terror to the deranged folly of “lone wolves.” Should our president in his quest to perfect his unilateralist legacy dare to follow through on this rumored bombshell of diplomatic perfidy, he will have earned the title of “mother of all lone wolves.”

Andrew Lappin is a Chicago based redeveloper and contributor to the Haym Salomon Center, a news and public policy group. Lappin serves on the board of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews; The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.