Facebook Feed

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
bit.ly/3xHPCDc הסכמי אברהם – אינטרס ערבי, אמריקאי וישראלי: ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

A Solution to Terrorism


Palestinian terrorism has been fueled by the “Titanic/Ship of Fools” state-of-mind, which has afflicted Israel’s leadership since the 1993 establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA):

*Snatching tens of thousands of Palestinian terrorists from oblivion in Yemen, Iraq, Sudan and Tunisia;

*Importing the terrorists to the doorsteps of their intended Israeli victims;

*Arming the terrorists under the illusion that they would eradicate terror;

*Extending financial and diplomatic assistance to the terrorists;

*Pressuring the US Congress to moderate its stance toward these terrorists;

*Accepting an emerging balance-of-deterrence with Palestinian and Lebanese terrorism;

*Co-existing with the PA as if it were a partner to peace negotiation, despite the fact that the PA educates Palestinian children to eradicate Israel, incites Israeli Arabs against Israel, directs anti-Israel terror and violates commitments systematically and terroristically.

Thus, Gaza, Judea and Samaria have become the largest terror base in the world, inflaming the Intifada of rocks and Molotov cocktails (until 1993) into a war of missiles and homicide-bombers, which threatens every Israeli.

It would take a drastic change of course to divert the Titanic away from the iceberg.


250 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the 15 years that preceded the PA. About 1,800 have been murdered during the 12 years since the establishment of the PA (equal, proportionally, to 90,000 Americans or to 30 “Twin Towers”!).

Until the PA was created, Israeli leaders demonstrated conviction in Israel’s just cause and in the need to bear arms as a deterrent in the Middle East, which has not experienced inter-Arab peace since the 7th century. They had confidence in Israel’s capability to withstand US pressure, to overcome the demographic threat and to eradicate Palestinian terrorism.

In contrast, since the founding of the PA, they have reflected unprecedented erosion of conviction and lack of confidence in Israel’s capability to bear arms in the long run, and to defy the challenges of demography, terrorism and US pressure. Such a battle-fatigue is the result of the unprecedented post-1993 terrorism, while downplaying Israel’s stronger-than-ever military, economy and demography (48% Jews west of the Jordan River in 1948 and 60% in 2005!), not to mention the improved global climate with the US, England, Spain, Australia and West Europe exposed to the wrath of Islamic violence.

The combination of a vigorous political option (negotiation) with a low-intensity military option – practiced by Israel since 1993 – is every terrorist’s wet dream, but a nightmare for democratic societies. 12 years of the PA have proven that low-intensity warfare exacerbates terrorism, provides terrorists with stunning political and territorial gains, erodes Israel’s posture of deterrence and wears down its leadership.

The attrition of Israel’s leadership – since 1993 – has adrenalized Palestinian terrorists, who have been driven by the hope of dismantling the Jewish state. This hope must be extinguished by a determined, fierce military option, as demonstrated by Germany, Italy, Turkey, Peru, Egypt, Algeria, Sri Lanka, the US and other countries against the terrorism of Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, PKK, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers, Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban and Ba’th, etc.


A moderate response to a radical threat is strategically-flawed and morally-wrong.

Targeted killing has eliminated many Hamas leaders, but Hamas has gained in strength, because Israeli leaders have ignored the Texas colloquialism: “Fertilizing and watering wouldn’t make the poison ivy a friendly flower, and targeted pruning would only strengthen its roots. The only way to neutralize the poison is by uprooting the poison ivy!”

Restraint in face of terrorism is not a moral or strategic virtue – it is a symptom of suicidal weariness.

The track record of the past 12 years behooves Israel to drastically alter its war on Palestinian terrorism:

1. Ending moral ambivalence (which dresses a terror-authority like a partner for peace), and undermining the legitimacy of that authority (PA), constitute a prerequisite for strategic clarity and for a victory on the battlefield.

2. Uprooting hate-education from PA’s kindergartens, elementary schools, universities, mosques and official media (which constitutes the manufacturing-line of homicide-bombers and reflects PA’s strategy) is essential, if terror is to be disconnected from its life line.

3. Swift, offensive, comprehensive and preventive war on the terrorists’ own breeding ground, not a protracted war of attrition, targeted killing, limited military operations, defensive and reactive tactics. Flexing a disproportional military muscle would restore Israel’s long term deterrence posture.

4. Destruction of the political–ideological–financial infrastructure that feeds the fire of terrorism – and bringing the enemy to submission – rather than a series of ceasefires and coexistence with terrorism.

5. Wars are not won by remote control (artillery, missiles, air force), but rather by controlling the ground and the people that breed terror.

6. Disengaging Israel’s military and secret service from Gaza (1994) and the towns of Judea and Samaria (1994-2002), and transferring control to the PA, added fuel to the fire of Palestinian terrorism. Reengaging the IDF and the Secret Service with the towns in Judea and Samaria (since 2003) has reduced terrorism by 90%! Control of terrorists’ breeding ground significantly reduces their ability to plan, operate, incite, enlist, train, manufacture and smuggle terrorist hardware. It also upgrades Israel’s capabilities of deterrence, intelligence-gathering, prevention and retaliation.

7. The war on anti-Israel terrorism must not be subcontracted to the PA, Quartet, Egypt, US, Italian inspectors or Turkish security guards. Terrorism is not an object to complain about, but rather an object to be demolished, while displaying “zero tolerance” toward any potential expression of terrorism at its ebb.

8. No additional accords should be concluded with an authority, which has become the role-model of systematic and murderous abrogation of all commitments made to Arabs, to the US and to Israel. One does not negotiate with terrorists; one eliminates terrorists, especially those whose inner philosophical truth is consistent with the destruction of one’s own state.

9. The Geneva Convention determines that “human shields” do not preclude the right of self-defense. It stipulates that the responsibility for civilian casualties is clearly at the door step of terrorists who abuse Palestinian civilians as “human shields”.

10. A country that allows terrorists to determine the course of its national agenda is doomed to oblivion.

A fatal Titanic-like crash of Israel will be averted only by a leadership that is prepared to dramatically change the course of the Jewish State away from the direction of Oslo-Hebron-Wye-Road Map-“Disengagement”.

This change will entail a short-term (possibly steep) diplomatic and financial cost. However, it will accord the Jewish State a long-term critical and significant enhancement of security, economic and diplomatic fortunes, as was demonstrated against much rougher odds in 1948, 1967, 1981, etc.


The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated






The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb