UN showdown will decide if the Abraham Accords are built to last



We recently marked the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Abraham Accords, a historic diplomatic breakthrough that upended decades of conventional thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The agreement was intended to transform the Middle East, rewarding realism over extremism and demonstrating that peace pays.

In many ways, it has succeeded. But now, five years in, we face a moment of clarity. As France and Saudi Arabia lead a call to recognize the Palestinian state, the accords need recalibration.

Arab states cannot ask for access to Israel’s markets, security expertise, technology, and military protection while staying silent as the international system moves to target the Jewish state.

On Sept. 15, 2020, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain ended their boycott of Israel and established open relations. Morocco soon followed. Embassies opened. Flights took off between Tel Aviv and Dubai. And with that, the Middle East began to shift in a direction few thought possible.

Despite the trauma of the Oct. 7 massacre and the seven-front war against Israel that ensued, the accords have endured. Israeli tourists still visit Abu Dhabi and Manama. Business conferences continue. Flights remain regular. The economies of these Arab nations have benefited greatly from Israeli trade, technology, and innovation.

Security without reciprocity

According to the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, bilateral trade between Israel and the UAE alone reached $3 billion in 2023. In Morocco, Israeli firms have invested in agriculture, water management, and cybersecurity. The economic dividends of peace are real and growing. Israel has helped create new pathways to prosperity across the region.

Moreover, Israel has also systematically dismantled regional threats — namely, Iranian proxy forces in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon. It has rolled back Tehran’s nuclear capabilities through daring strikes aided by U.S. air power. It has kept Red Sea shipping lanes open by taking the fight directly to the Houthis. These actions make the region more stable for all.

Ironically — and tragically — Israel receives warnings from the very countries that have benefited from this new regional architecture. Back off against Hamas in Gaza. Don’t extend sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Lay off Hamas leaders who are enjoying protection in Qatar. Don’t relocate displaced Gazans — or else.

The list of Arab red lines imposed on Israel keeps growing, always with the vague threat of harming the accords.

This is not the behavior of true allies. It is the posture of parties who want to enjoy the benefits of peace without shouldering the responsibilities of partnership.

The UN test

As the United Nations General Assembly convenes, the imbalance is coming to a head. A growing international pressure is mounting to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. Hamas, a group committed to Israel’s destruction, would celebrate such a move as a political victory.

The message would be unmistakable: You murder Jews, you get a state.

If the Abraham Accords mean anything beyond commercial convenience and one-way security guarantees, participating Muslim countries must not allow this to happen. The same governments that send delegations to Tel Aviv and sign investment deals in high tech must now reject any declaration of Palestinian statehood that rewards violence and bypasses good-faith negotiation.

That is a simple request. Oppose any resolution that turns mass murder into political capital. Refuse to legitimize a governing entity that hides behind Arab civilians while murdering Israeli babies. Deny cover to Hamas leaders enjoying luxury Doha hotels while Israeli hostages waste away in Gazan dungeons.

Partnership has obligations

A partnership, by definition, is not a one-way street. It should include joint efforts to dismantle the machinery of terror, not vague calls for “restraint” every time Israel is attacked. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Houthis threaten the entire Middle East. Israel has done the hard work of confronting these threats directly.

RELATED: Why does the mainstream media keep blaming Israel for Gaza’s humanitarian crisis?

Photo by Hassan Jedi/Anadolu via Getty Images

Over the last half-decade, Israel and the Abraham Accords nations have redefined what was possible in the Middle East. They created a new model for cooperation based on mutual interests rather than historical grievances. But Israel has faced repeated admonitions from its new allies about what it must not do to defend itself.

That is not sustainable. It is not even moral.

Arab states cannot ask for access to Israel’s markets, security expertise, technology, and military protection while staying silent as the international system moves to target the Jewish state.

The Abraham Accords are still the best way forward. Five years later, the time has come to define what true partnership means. That starts with refusing to reward terror and standing up, publicly and clearly, at the United Nations this week.

A Two-State Solution Conference With No Solution in Sight

Representatives from dozens of countries descended on New York City this week for a conference about the two-state solution led by France and Saudi Arabia. "We must ensure that it does not become another exercise in well-meaning rhetoric," U.N. secretary-general António Guterres informed the gathered delegates.

The post A Two-State Solution Conference With No Solution in Sight appeared first on .

Trump Is Right About Letting Palestinian Refugees Leave Gaza

Keeping descendants of 1948 refugees in the Gaza Strip perpetuates a futile war against Israel. They should be allowed to flee Hamas’ rule.

Embarrassing: Biden official makes numerous attempts to answer softball question — and still fails



Bonnie Jenkins is the United States under secretary of state for arms control and international security, and yet she cannot answer one simple question: What would a two-state solution in the Middle East look like?

Dave Rubin plays a clip of Ms. Jenkins being questioned by Florida Rep. Brian Mast (R) about the very thing she should be an expert on.

“We support a two-state solution,” she told Mast in the hearing.

“Okay, have you looked at that objectively?” Mast asked in return.

“This is something that we do support,” Jenkins responded, failing to answer the question.

“That’s not an answer,” Mast laughed, before asking again, “Have you analyzed a second Palestinian state objectively?”

“No, I have not,” she answered, failing to realize the embarrassment such an admission should cause someone with her job title.

Mast assumed she “might not” understand the question, so he asked her again, but this time, she said “yes,” suggesting that she had analyzed a two-state solution objectively but couldn't expand on what that meant.

Their exchange continued, but Jenkins never was successful at explaining how she or anyone in her department had analyzed a two-state solution objectively.

Dave is shocked that a woman with so little knowledge is in such an important position.

“She has no idea what she’s talking about. She doesn’t know what the word objective is; that’s a bit of a problem. She has no idea why she supports a two-state solution or two states, which is a complete farce and always has been,” he says.

“But putting all that aside,” he continues, “she has no idea why she supports a certain policy other than she’s supposed to support a certain policy.”

Perhaps Ms. Jenkins is yet another example of DEI at work in the government. To see her make a fool of herself, watch the clip below.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

US official flounders when facing questions about two-state solution



Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins indicated that the Biden administration is pushing for a two-state solution, but she floundered when facing questions about the issue from GOP Rep. Brain Mast of Florida.

"Have you analyzed that objectively?" Mast asked, regarding the support for a two-state solution.

Jenkins reiterated that it is a policy "we do support."

Mast continued to press the question.

"I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Have I personally analyzed it?" Jenkins asked.

As Mast continued pressing the issue, Jenkins answered, "No I have, not," adding the caveat, "if I understand your question."

The congressman asked Jenkins if she was "representing support for a Palestinian state."

"Yes," she replied.

"Have you analyzed that support objectively?" Mast asked.

"Yes," she replied.

Moving on from that topic, Mast proceeded to repeatedly ask Jenkins what group she assessed "would lead that Palestinian state?"

Jenkins said that matter would have to be considered but that she did not believe she was in a position to answer.

Mast pressed the issue, but Jenkins said that she did not think she could answer the question, and that the matter is a piece of a bigger discussion.

Mast tried asking Jenkins whether she had assessed who would helm a Palestinian state.

Jenkins said the issue belongs to a broader discussion and she could not answer a question regarding what she particularly thinks.

So, Mast kept asking.

"I support a two-state solution," Jenkins said.

Mast still didn't let it go and kept asking.

"There will be an assessment of this question within the U.S. government," Jenkins said, noting that she is not in the position to answer, as it is a component of a bigger discussion.

"Why do you think that we should make a country out of a people that just conducted a Jewish genocide four months ago?" Mast asked.

Jenkins said that she was not sure what Mast was asking.

Mast asked again, but Jenkins said that while she wanted to answer, she did not feel that she was in a position to answer those kinds of questions. She said that it is a question for the American government.

In a post on X, Mast said, "The Biden Administration wants to create a Palestinian state, but REFUSES to say who would run it or whether they would be considered our ally. Here's the obvious truth: Hamas is the popularly elected government, and as a result, a Palestinian state would be run by terrorists."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: AOC goes FULL anti-Israel in latest rant



AOC, a key member of what Dave Rubin calls the “Hamas Caucus,” has been one of the loudest voices when it comes to condemning Israel’s efforts to defend itself against the terrorists of Hamas.

In her latest rant, Cortez said, “More than 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7, and 136 remain hostage. In response, 27,478 Palestinians have been killed, 70% of whom are women and children, and most Gazans today cannot reach a fully functioning hospital.”

“This is not war. This is slaughter. And yet, after all this destruction and devastation, the Netanyahu government is still nowhere close to their stated objective of destroying Hamas,” she continued.

“All the things I want to say about [her] will get us kicked off of YouTube and everywhere else,” sighs Dave Rubin.

“They understand nothing about war. They’re lying about genocide. There was a ceasefire on October 6. ...They’ve decided who the good guys and bad guys are,” he explains.

As for AOC’s comparison between the death tolls on each side, Dave says it’s quite a simple matter: “In a war, when you want to win, you’ve got to win.”

However, AOC wasn’t the only Hamas Caucus member to go on a ridiculous rant. Unsurprisingly, Rashida Tlaib had her own “psychotic rhetoric” in which she claimed that Israel’s government was “extremist” and that the funding it receives from the U.S. comes with “no conditions attached.” Check it out below.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Unveiling the dark secret: Why the two-state solution was rejected



Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has boldly proclaimed his rejection of a two-state solution — but this is nothing new.

Hamas has said over and over again that a two-state solution is not the way, but it falls on deaf ears in the United States.

“We have nothing to do with the two-state solution,” Mashal was heard saying on Memri TV. “We reject this notion, because it means that you would get a promise for a Palestinian state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity.”

Mark Levin doesn’t believe the two-state solution is right either, but not for the same reasons.

“In this second state, what exactly would it look like?” Levin asks. “It would be an armed encampment with advanced missiles, advanced jets, nuclear weapons, right on their border thanks to Iran.”

“It would be hordes and hordes of men prepared to rush into Israel at any time at any moment and to rape and pillage because Israel would not be able to defend its border, because it wouldn’t have much of a border to defend when you surrender 30% of your country,” he continues.

“Israel is supposed to accept this.”

Neither Israel nor Hamas want this solution, but Hamas’ reasoning is that they want Israel gone — and so do those who fund them.

“Iran doesn’t give a damn about a two-state solution with the Palestinians,” Levin says, “but Iran wants the Palestinians there, and so does Turkey, for the purpose of obliterating Israel and destroying the Jews.”

Khaled Mashal has said that rather than a two-state solution, Hamas will agree to a completely independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return included.

“This from a man who is Hitlerian, who is genocidal, and this from a man in a leadership that can’t point to a single historical, biblical, or legal justification for the so-called misnomer Palestinians to have one inch of land in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people,” Levin explains.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Mr. President, Get Our People Out of Israel NOW!' | Glenn TV | Ep 311
play icon

'Mr. President, Get Our People Out of Israel NOW!' | Glenn TV | Ep 311

Why It’s Time To Lay The ‘Two-State Solution’ To Rest For Good

Mideast pundits are once again advancing a 'Two-State Solution,' but for those on the front lines of Mideast reality, the idea is nothing more than an apparition.