A View from the Arab Spring, towards the Following Summer

The phrase “Arab Spring” is a surprisingly appropriate description of current events in the

Arab world. It relates not only to the awakening of anger and to the desire for change by the

Arab masses, but also to the lack of understanding of the circumstances, by most European

and American observers. Winter in New York, London or Berlin is often accompanied by a

mild depression. It is a period when nothing blooms, very little remains green, sunshine is

rare and most birds are gone. And then comes the spring, when everything begins to blossom,

warmth returns, birds are chirping and life restarts. Alas, in most of the Arab world, winter is

a pleasant period relative to what comes next. The winter temperature is quite comfortable

and the sun often shines. When spring arrives, the heat returns, heralding an unbearable

summer, without one drop of water and a harsh and dry brown-yellow land. The little that

was partly green, during the winter, is gone. Indeed, “The Arab Spring” inevitably leads to a

difficult and unpleasant summer. The metaphor reflects not only what it purports to describe,

but also the mentality gap between its Western authors and the real situation.


Many of the demonstrators in the streets of Tunis, Cairo and Damascus were truly fed up

with the corrupt dictators, lack of democracy and absence of freedom. Indeed, democracy is

long overdue in the Arab world. But democracy and freedom are not trivial concepts.

Democracy is not removing the Shah of Iran and replacing him by a cruel Ayatollah regime.

Democracy is not removing the Russian Tsar and replacing him by Stalin and democracy is

not electing Hitler. Democracy is not even just an honest election, once every four years.

None of the above guarantee the rule of law, freedom of speech, free press, proper judicial

system, equality for women, fair treatment of minorities, freedom of religion, equal

opportunity and social mobility, to quote just a few basic ingredients of a real democracy.


Achieving any of the above in a society in which all significant organized forces are hostile

to each of these concepts, and in which the majority of women are illiterate, cannot happen

through street demonstrations. Successful protests in such countries are as good as pressing a

“restart” button on a machine which can be controlled, at present, only by one of three

previously existing forces. And, if all of these forces are hostile to every single element of

democracy, the Arab Spring will indeed lead to a long and harsh summer.


There are 22 Arab states from the west end of North Africa to the Gulf. They are as diverse

as the 27 member states of the European Union. Like the EU they have a dominant common

religion, coming in two major flavors, and numerous variants for each flavor. Like Europe,

they have substantial ethnic and religious minorities and many arbitrary national borders.

But, at the same time, all or most Arab states have many things in common. Not last among

these features is the total absence of democracy, by any definition that is even remotely

acceptable by Western standards.


At the risk of oversimplification, we might observe that, in every Arab country, in different

forms and at various levels, there are at most three major organized types of political forces:

First, “Royalty” of one sort or another, supported by the military-police-intelligence

complex; Second, fanatic political Islam, Sunni or Shiite; and third, tribal forces and rivalries

or organized ethnic minorities. In some Arab countries, one of these three types of forces is

partly missing. In others, one of the forces appears in more than one flavor (for instance, the

extremist Sunni and Shiite Islamic groups in Iraq or in Lebanon).


The first and, until the current “Spring”, the dominant organized force is the military,

coupled with the police, intelligence services and related bodies, supporting a ruler, who is

either a King (Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan), a Sultan (Oman), an Emir (Kuwait, Qatar,

UAE), or a “non-royal quasi-monarch” who is, in some sense, royalty without a crown

(Assad, Ghaddafi, Mubarak). In several cases, the ruling military-backed regime is also tribal

or sectarian, controlled by a well defined minority of the population (the Allawites in Syria,

the Bedouins in Jordan and the Sunnis in Bahrain).


The second force is the extreme political Islam, Sunni or Shiite. The Sunni version is usually

the Muslim Brothers or variations on its themes, and the Shiite version is largely inspired, if

not directly guided, by Iran’s Ayatollahs, who have an active hand in much of the tumult in

the Arab world. Iran and Turkey are, of course, Muslim but not Arab. However, both

interfere in a variety of ways in the upheaval of the “Arab Spring”. In a full analogy to a

kingdom, which has a king, a prime minister and an army, political Islam is often organized

in three layers: The “military wing”, which might be a strong organized force like the

revolutionary guard in Iran, or the Hizbullah in Lebanon; the “political wing”, which

pretends to be the real leadership but has only limited influence; and the “spiritual leader”

who is the actual dictatorial ruler, approximately equivalent to an absolute King, although he

is always pretending to play the role of a religious scholar and he never stands for election.


The third force is the old tribal structure, based on family or clan loyalty and surviving in the

21st century in a way of life not unlike that of several centuries ago. Somali, Yemen and, to a

large extent Libya, are countries in which such allegiances are extremely strong and tribal

forces must be reckoned with. In other countries various private armies may belong to

specific religious or ethnic groups, rather than to tribes. This is the case with the Druz in

Lebanon and the Kurds in Iraq.


Needless to say, not every Arab country has significant versions of all of these three forces.

Egypt’s dominant forces are, even now, the military and the Islamists, with no other visible

organized force, except for the Bedouin tribes in the Sinai. Bahrain has the Sunni Monarch

and the Iranian inspired Shiite majority. Iraq has Shiite Islamists and secular Shiites, Sunnis

of all flavors, Kurds of rival political factions and other smaller minorities. Saudi Arabia

exhibits an intricate cooperation of Sunni Islamists, royalty and the military, and, in addition,

an awakening Shiite minority, concentrated in the rich northeast oil area of the kingdom.

Tunis was a secular dictatorship and Qatar is pursuing a veiled Muslim Brotherhood agenda,

while serving as a main American military base. Such are some of the paradoxes and

complexities of the Arab world. There are also Sunni Brothers supported by Shiite fanatics,

like the Hamas, which is the Palestinian version of the Muslim Brothers, strongly supported

and supplied by its Iranian sponsors.


But almost nowhere in the Arab world we can find any significant organized force, other than

the above three dominant flavors: The military based Monarchy (or quasi-monarchy), the

Islamic extremists and the tribal forces. In particular, there is nowhere in sight a substantial

organized force pushing for real democracy. There are individuals, active in weak political

parties or in street demonstrations, cheering for democracy. But, whenever one of the three

major traditional forces is toppled, its place is taken by another element of this unholy trinity,

or by a different version of the same type of force. No street demonstration, facebook driven

enterprise or democracy seeking educated youngsters, can change this fact. A formal election

day, in any such country, even if no irregularities are taking place, must inevitably lead to a

victory of one of the above, usually the Islamic option. The uneducated rural masses,

numerous illiterate voters and even educated, frustrated and hateful young adults are easily

incited and influenced by the preachers, and the mosques are the focal points of “guided

enlightenment”. Since the Islamic extremists are often the only counterforce to the cruel

dictator, they will usually be the winners, if one of the three dominant forces is to be replaced

by another.


Even before the “Arab Spring” the Islamists won the election in Algeria, only to be

undemocratically toppled by the military. Hamas won the Palestinian election in Gaza and

the municipal election in the Palestinian West Bank, and Tunis, a largely secular country

with a relatively liberal tradition, has now voted an Islamic party into power. It is clear that,

in Egypt, the only force that can replace the military are the Muslim Brothers and any other

option is a wishful unrealistic illusion. If the King of Bahrain is removed, an Iranian-inspired

theocracy will replace him and, after the American departure, a similar fate is probably

waiting for predominantly Shiite Iraq. The most likely replacement of Assad, if he ever

ceases to butcher his own citizens, is again an extreme Islamic Sunni group ruling

predominantly secular Syria.


On the other hand, in Libya and Yemen, and probably also in the Gulf States, the leading

counterweight to royalty and quasi-royalty are the tribal elements. It will be interesting to see

whether Libya will now fall in the hands of fanatic Islamists or into an inter-tribal civil war.

Neither alternative resembles a beautiful spring, and a third option does not seem to be in the

cards. Lebanon, created by the colonial powers as a Christian enclave, is already largely in

the hands of the Shiite Islamists and Qatar, an Emirate, is collaborating actively, willingly or

under duress, with the Muslim Brothers everywhere, using its Al Jazeera as an instrument of

propagating unrest.


Most European and American observers, those who think that spring is the beginning of a

good period, observe the Islamists through the distorted lenses of Western culture. There are

a few truths, which are not transparent to most of these commentators.


The first such truth, which is very clear to the extreme militant Islam, is that it is not

necessary to preach for anything in order to rise into power. In most Arab countries, the only

forces are the military-royal force and the extreme political Islam. All that is necessary is to

incite against the regime and collect the fruits. There are two ways to eat fresh fruits from a

tall tree: You may climb a ladder and pick the fruits actively, or you can lie under the tree in

the storm and wait for the fruits to fall into your hands, and they will reach you because there

is no one else around to enjoy them. Some of them might be rotten, but they will be yours.

Even though there are very few fruit trees in the desert, this last option is the one preferred by

the Islamic parties. They are always present in the street demonstrations, but they rarely take

the lead. They know that an angry demonstrator is a powerful weapon against a military or

dictatorial regime, and if the anger prevails, political Islam will win by default and will pick

the falling fruits. The Western TV viewer sees secular youth roaming the streets in

demonstrations in Cairo or Tunis, with no major visible Islamic influence, and suddenly the

first post-revolution election leads to an Islamic government.


The second truth is that, once an election is declared, the real movers and shakers, namely the

preachers, the Ayatollahs and the ”Spiritual Leaders”, will never run for office. They are

allegedly selected by God, not elected by people. It is their disciples, sometimes their

puppets, invariably wearing more moderate masks, who will run for office. In this way,

secular voters, educated women and others are coerced to vote for what will then become a

very ugly version of the religion. It is this façade that leads to amazing remarks in

Washington such as “the Muslim Brothers in Egypt are not of a uniform extreme nature”. But

when reality is unveiled, spiritually and literally, it is quite different.


The third truth is that, once in power, the private armies of the extreme Islam are not

conventional at all. They are not interested in planes or tanks. Their primary weapon is

ruthless terror against civilian populations, and the leading tools are car bombs, explosive

devices, suicide murders, rockets and, eventually, even hoping to acquire weapons of mass

destruction. We see it in Iraq, in Somali, in the Palestinian areas, and in the Muslim, non-

Arab, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The division of labor between the Iranian army and the

revolutionary guard, or between the Lebanese army and the Hizbullah, serve as models for

Hamas and future Muslim Brotherhood regimes.


The fourth and final truth is that an election of an extremist Islamic regime is not a victory

for democracy, even if a real majority voted for it. It is usually the first and last free election

in such a country, just as in the Fascist or Communist regimes, which are sometimes elected

democratically, for the first time, and perpetuate their totalitarian regime thereafter without

regard to any democratic principles or human rights.


Western observers view much of the above with the naïve eyes of those who believe that

removing a dictator is a guarantee for freedom, that religious leaders cannot be murderous

and that a winning candidate in an election is indeed the real ruler. They also have the

illusion that public declarations bear a close relationship to true plans and views. None of

these are common practices in the struggle between the two leading undemocratic forces of

the Arab world: The ruthless kings and dictators and the even more ruthless extreme political



The relation of Israel to the events in the Arab world is entirely asymmetric. Israel, its

conflict with the Palestinians and any actions it takes, are either totally irrelevant or have a

very minor impact on the events in the Arab world. But the scorching “Arab Summer” that

will probably follow the “Arab Spring” may create serious problems for Israel. It is entirely

clear that the protesters in Bahrain, Tunis and Yemen, and even those in Cairo and

Damascus, could not care less about the Palestinians and are not spending a minute thinking

about Israel. Only after the fall of Mubarak, the Egyptian Muslim Brothers tried to mobilize

the masses for “a march of a million” against Israel. The attendance was meager and the

great march fizzled. This was followed by a fierce attack on the Israeli Embassy, by a

relatively small group, with no great visible interest of the demonstrating masses. The

protests are entirely an internal affair of each Arab State, with no relation to the Israeli-

Palestinian dispute, and nothing that Israel might do, or avoid doing, would have the slightest

effect on them. On the other hand, any power grab by the Muslim Brothers, an organization

historically created with the active help of the Nazis, and committed to the annihilation not

only of Israel but of the entire Jewish people, will not be good news for Israel. This topic

requires a separate analysis, and we will not dwell on it here.


The American attitude of the Obama regime, during the evolving events in the Arab world, is

truly amazing and baffling. One might understand and applaud an idealistic American

attitude based on the principles of supporting freedom, justice and democracy everywhere.

One could also understand a less honorable, but very pragmatic, American policy of

supporting its friends in the Arab world, regardless of their own attitudes towards freedom

and democracy. But there is no explanation, either idealistic or pragmatic, for a policy which

works against dictatorial friends of America and does not oppose, in any significant way, all

dictatorial foes of America.


The Obama government gave a significant boost to Hizbullah during its first months in

office, by returning its ambassador to Syria in the midst of a tense and dramatic election

campaign in Lebanon. The U.S. did not utter a word in support of the serious antigovernment

street demonstrations in non-Arab Iran. The U.S. was extremely active in

removing Mubarak in Egypt, sending a shattering message to all its other Arab allies in the

region. It reprimanded the pro-American King of Bahrain, host to the main American naval

base in the Gulf, who was fighting against Iranian sponsored agitation of his Shiite citizens.

It helped to destroy the ruthless Ghadafi, a man who only a few years earlier was elected as

the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and presided over its frequent

condemnations of Israel, supported by many European nations and being a “born again”

friend of America and the West. America did not lift a finger against the murderous Assad. It

also did not utter a word when U.S. allies Turkey and Qatar started, immediately after the

election of President Obama (and never earlier), to support the terrorist Hamas, which is the

Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers. The complete American departure from Iraq is a

clear invitation to Iran to swallow this Shiite-dominated country, which cannot defend itself

against the Ayatollahs, and the Turkish-Iranian coalition seems to be making preparations for

marching into the oil rich Kurdish north of Iraq, with not one visible step taken by America

or Europe to prevent such a dangerous move.


The excitement about the “first democratic election of the Arab Spring” has already led to the

victory of the Islamists in secular Tunis, and that same Arab Spring is now well on its way to

a hot suffocating Islamic summer. But the Western world, and its leader, President Obama,

seem oblivious to the direction into which “the Arab Spring” is moving. Following the

American treatment of Mubarak, and the almost absent reaction to Assad, all friends of the

West in the Arab world, headed by the Saudi leaders, are now maneuvering in order to

distance themselves away from the U.S. administration.


Does the Obama government not understand what is happening in the region, or do they

understand and support it cheerfully? Both possibilities are mind boggling, and both

endanger the entire free world. It is indeed impossible to believe either of these two

hypotheses, but it is even more difficult to present a third alternative theory for the American

view of the evolving events. When and if the Muslim Brothers win the first “democratic”

election in Egypt, the largest Arab country, it is very likely that the “Arab Spring” will

officially move into a long and dangerous dry summer, with a significant thirst, hopefully not

for blood.

The Ettinger Report logo


Subscribe for our daily news

related articles


2024 artificially inflated Palestinian demography

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
March 25, 2024

Palestinian demographic numbers are highly-inflated, as documented by a study, which has audited the Palestinian data since 2004.  For example:

*500,000 Arabs, who have been away for over a year, are included in the census, contrary to international regulations. 325,000 were included in the 1997 census, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and 400,000 in 2005, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. The number grows steadily due to births.

*350,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted – by Israel and by the Palestinian Authority. The number grows steadily due to births.

*Over 150,000 Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly counted. The number expands steadily due to births.   

*A 413,000 net-emigration (since the 1997 first Palestinian census) is ignored by the Palestinian census, overlooking the annual net-emigration since 1950. A 23,445 net-emigration in 2022 and a 20,000 annual average in recent years have been documented by Israel’s Population and Migration Authority in all international passages.  

*A 32% artificial inflation of Palestinian births was documented by the World Bank (page 8, item 6) in a 2006 audit.

*The Judea & Samaria Arab fertility rate has been westernized: from 9 births per woman in the 1960s to 2.9 births in 2022 (In Jordan – similar to Judea & Samaria), reflecting the sweeping urbanization, a growing female enrollment in higher education, rising marriage age and the rising use of contraceptives.

*The number of deaths is under-reported for political and financial reasons.

*The aforementioned artificial inflation of 1.7 million documents a population of 1.55 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, not the official 3.25 million. In 2024: a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel, benefitting from a tailwind of fertility and net-immigration, while Arab demography is westernized. In 1947 and 1897: a 39% and 9% Jewish minority.
No Arab demographic time bomb; but, a Jewish demographic momentum. More data in these articles and this short video.

Support Appreciated


FBI Director Chris Wray defies the State Department on Iran

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel initiative”
June 17, 2024

FBI Director Chris Wray’s position on Islamic terrorism/Iran

FBI Director, Chris Wray reiterated – during his June 4, 2024 Senate testimony and April 11, 2024 House testimony – his warning of an October 7-like terrorism on the US soil:

“We have seen the threat from foreign terrorists rise to a whole another level after the October 7 [Hamas terrorism]….Increasingly concerning is the potential for a coordinated attack here in the [US] homeland, akin to the ISIS attack we saw at the Russia Concert Hall in March, 2024 [137 murdered, 180 wounded]…. Nations such as the PRC, Russia and Iran are becoming more aggressive and more capable than ever before.  These nations seek to undermine our core democratic, economic and scientific institutions….

“We are in an environment where the threats from international terrorism, domestic terrorism and state sponsored terrorism are all simultaneously elevated…. We are paying heightened attention to how the events abroad could directly affect and inspire people to commit violence here in the homeland….

“Our top concern stems from lone offenders inspired by the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, as they pose the most likely threat to Americans.  In recent years, there have been several events in the US that were purportedly motivated, at least in part, by the Israel-Hamas conflict….

Iran and its global proxies and partners, including Iraqi Shia militant groups, attack and plot against the US and our allies throughout the Middle East.  Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force has also provided support to terrorist organizations. And, Iran has supported Lebanese Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Hezbollah has sent operatives to build terrorist infrastructure worldwide [including in Latin America all the way to the US-Mexico border]. The arrests of individuals in the US allegedly linked to Hezbollah’s main overseas terrorist arm, and their intelligence-collection and procurement efforts, demonstrate Hezbollah’s interest in long-term contingency planning activities here in the homeland….

“We continue to see the drug cartels [which intensely collaborate with Iran’s Ayatollahs and Hezbollah, that supply them predator unmanned aerial vehicles and tunnel construction equipment] push fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into every corner of the country, claiming countless American lives….

“Since October 7, we have seen a rogue gallery of foreign terrorist organizations call for attacks against Americans and our allies…. Our most immediate concern has been that [terrorists] will draw twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home….”

The FBI Director Wray’s April 11 and June 4 testimonies followed his alarming testimonies on October 31, 2023 and on November 15, 2023, in the Senate and House Homeland Security Committees.

FBI Director Wray vs. Secretary of State Blinken

*FBI Director Chris Wray recognizes that the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorism is relevant to the US homeland security, and that Israel’s war on Hamas supports the US’ war on Islamic terrorism. Unlike Director Wray, Secretary of State Blinken has assumed the role of an “honest broker,” ignoring the US-allied role of Israel and the US-enemy role of Hamas, a proxy of Iran’s Ayatollahs and a branch of the Moslem Brotherhood, the largest anti-US Sunni terrorist organization.

*FBI Director Wray considers Iran’s Ayatollahs and their Islamic terror proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as a clear and present threat to the US homeland security. He is aware of their intensified collaboration with the drug cartels in Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, as well as with Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and all other anti-US governments in Latin America, the US’ soft underbelly. In contrast, Secretary of State Blinken – true to his multilateralist UN-oriented worldview – has approached Iran’s Ayatollahs as a diplomatic challenge, opposing the options of regime change, and refraining from establishing a potent military threat hovering above the head of the Ayatollahs.

*FBI Director Wray realizes that Iran’s Ayatollahs are the chief epicenter of Hamas, Hezbollah and other components of the global anti-US Islamic terrorism, in addition to the Ayatollahs’ role as the main anti-US drug trafficker, money launderer and proliferator of advanced military systems. However, irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ rogue anti-US track record, Secretary Blinken refrains from defining Iran as a terrorist-state, viewing the Ayatollahs as partners in good-faith negotiations.

*FBI Director Chris Wray is aware that Iran’s Ayatollahs, and other anti-US Islamic terrorists, are driven by a 1,400-year-old fanatical and imperialistic ideology, which aims to bring the “infidel US” to submission. He is convinced that Islamic terrorism should be addressed by national security means, and not via gestures and concessions, which are perceived by terrorists as terror-inducing weakness. On the other hand, Secretary Blinken believes that Islamic terrorism is despair-driven, and therefore, should be addressed via substantial diplomatic and financial gestures, notwithstanding the fact that terrorists bite the hands that feed them (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs terrorize the US, which facilitated their rise to power; the Mujahideen’s terrorize the US, which helped them expel the Soviet military from Afghanistan; Libyan Islamic terrorists lynched US diplomats, notwithstanding the US-led NATO military offensive, which helped them topple Gadhafi; etc.).   

*Will the mounting threat of anti-US Islamic terrorism, and the volcanic Middle East reality, cause Secretary Blinken to reassess his position on Iran’s Ayatollahs, Hamas and other forms of Islamic terrorism, by avoiding rather than continuing to repeat critical mistakes, which have undermined the national security and homeland security of the US?

Support Appreciated

Judea & Samaria

Secretary Blinken on settlements – vindicated by facts?

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
February 27, 2024

Secretary of State Antony Blinken represents conventional wisdom when claiming that “It’s been longstanding US policy… that new settlements are… inconsistent with international law.”

However, conventional wisdom is frequently demolished by the march of facts

For instance:

*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, who was the co-author of the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, served as Undersecretary of State and was the Dean of Yale University Law School: “Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa.”

*According to UN Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from territories, not the territories, nor from all the territories, but some of the territories, which included Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.  Moreover, according to Prof. Rostow, “resolutions calling for withdrawal from all the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable [9-15 mile-wide] lines… but to secure and recognized boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967….”

*Former President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, stated: “Between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967 (according to Article 52 of the UN Charter), on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine…. It follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful…. [The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… [as] indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of [Egyptian] troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the UN Emergency Force…[and] Jordan’s initiated hostilities against Israel…. The 1948 Arab invasion of the nascent State of Israel further demonstrated that Egypt’s seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful….” 

*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following 4 authoritative, binding, internationally-ratified documents, which recognize the area for what it has been: the cradle of Jewish history, culture, language, aspirations and religion.

(I) The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, calling for “the establishment in Palestine (a synonym to the Land of Israel) of a national home for the Jewish people….”
(II) The April 24, 1920 resolution, by the post-First World War San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, entrusted both sides of the Jordan River to the British Mandate for Palestine, for the reestablishment of the Jewish Commonwealth: “the Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was one of over 20 Mandates (trusteeships) established following WW1, responsible for the boundaries of most Arab countries.
(III) The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine was ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by its 6th article: “[to] encourage… close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands….” The Mandate was dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights, while guaranteeing the civic rights of all other religious and ethnic groups. On July 23, 1923, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which included the Mandate for Palestine.  
(IV) The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine into the UN Charter.  Accordingly, the UN or any other entity cannot transfer Jewish rights in Palestine – including immigration and settlement – to any other party. According to Article 80 of the UN Charter and the Mandate for Palestine, the 1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its legal owner, the Jewish state.  Legally and geo-strategically the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, since they are not “foreign territory,” and Jordan did not have a legitimate title over the West Bank.  Moreover, the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria violated international law and was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan.

*The 1949 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of populations to areas previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power. However, Israel has not forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan’s sovereignty there was never legal.

*The November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a recommendation, lacking legal stature, superseded by the Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice (non-peace) Agreements between Israel and its neighbors delineated “non-territorial boundaries.”   

*The term “Palestine” was a Greek and then a Roman attempt (following the 135 CE Jewish rebellion) to eradicate Jews and Judaism from human memory. It substituted “Israel, Judea and Samaria” with “Palaestina,” a derivative of the Philistines, an arch enemy of the Jewish people, whose origin was not in Arabia, but in the Greek Aegian islands.    

*The aforementioned march of facts demonstrates that Secretary Blinken’s conventional wisdom on the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is based on gross misperceptions and misrepresentations, which fuels infidelity to law, undermining the pursuit of peace.

*More on the legality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria in this article by George Mason University Law School Prof. Eugene Kontrovich.

Support Appreciated


United Jerusalem – a shared US-Israel legacy and interest

US departure from the recognition of a United Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of the Jewish State, and the site of the US Embassy to Israel, would be consistent with the track record of the State Department, which has been systematically wrong on Middle East issues, such as its opposition to the establishment of the Jewish State; stabbing the back of the pro-US Shah of Iran and Mubarak of Egypt, and pressuring the pro-US Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, while courting the anti-US Ayatollahs of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the Houthis of Yemen; transforming Libya into a platform of global Islamic terrorism and civil wars; etc..

However, such departure would violate US law, defy a 3,000 year old reality – documented by a litany of archeological sites and a multitude of documents from Biblical time until today – spurn US history and geography, and undermine US national and homeland security.

United Jerusalem and the US law

Establishing a US Consulate General in Jerusalem – which would be a de facto US Embassy to the Palestinian Authority – would violate the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which became US law on November 8, 1995 with substantially more than a veto-override majority on Capitol Hill.

According to the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which enjoys massive support among the US population and, therefore, in both chambers of Congress:

“Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….

“Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem….

“In 1990, Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that Congress ‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….’

“In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113… to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming Congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city….

“In 1996, the state of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry….

“The term ‘United States Embassy’ means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.”

United Jerusalem and the legacy of the Founding Fathers

The US Early Pilgrims and Founding Fathers were inspired – in their unification of the 13 colonies – by King David’s unification of the 12 Jewish tribes into a united political entity, and establishing Jerusalem as the capital city, which did not belong to any of the tribes (hence, Washington, DC does not belong to any state). King David entered Jerusalem 3,000 years before modern day US presidents entered the White House and 2,755 years before the US gained its independence.

The impact of Jerusalem on the US founders of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist system and overall civic life is reflected by the existence, in the US, of 18 Jerusalems (4 in Maryland; 2 in Vermont, Georgia and New York; and 1 in Ohio, Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, Utah, Rhode Island and Tennessee), 32 Salems (the original Biblical name of Jerusalem) and many Zions (a Biblical synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel).  Moreover, in the US there are thousands of cities, towns, mountains, cliffs, deserts, national parks and streets bearing Biblical names.

The Jerusalem reality and US interests

Recognizing the Jerusalem reality and adherence to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act – and the subsequent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the site of the US Embassy to Israel – bolstered the US posture of deterrence in defiance of Arab/Islamic pressure and threats.

Contrary to the doomsday assessments by the State Department and the “elite” US media – which have been wrong on most Middle East issues – the May 2018 implementation of the 1995 law did not intensify Palestinian, Arab and Islamic terrorism. State Department “wise men” were equally wrong when they warned that Israel’s 1967 reunification of Jerusalem would ignite a worldwide anti-Israel and anti-US Islamic volcanic eruption.

Adherence to the 1995 law distinguishes the US President, Congress and most Americans from the state of mind of rogue regimes and terror organizations, the anti-US UN, the vacillating Europe, and the cosmopolitan worldview of the State Department, which has systematically played-down the US’ unilateral, independent and (sometimes) defiant national security action.

On the other hand, US procrastination on the implementation of the 1995 law – by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – eroded the US posture of deterrence, since it was rightly perceived by the world as appeasement in the face of pressure and threats from Arab/Muslim regimes and terrorists.  As expected, it radicalized Arab expectations and demands, failed to advance the cause of Israel-Arab peace, fueled Islamic terrorism, and severely undermined US national and homeland security. For example, blowing up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and murdering 224 persons in August 1998; blowing up the USS Cole destroyer in the port of Aden and murdering 17 US sailors in October 2000; the 9/11 Twin Towers massacre, etc.

Jerusalem and Israel’s defiance of US pressure

In 1949, President Truman followed Secretary of State Marshall’s policy, pressuring Israel to refrain from annexing West Jerusalem and to accept the internationalization of the ancient capital of the Jewish people.

in 1950, in defiance of brutal US and global pressure to internationalize Jerusalem, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion reacted constructively by proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State, relocating government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and settling tens of thousands of Olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) in Jerusalem. He upgraded the transportation infrastructure to Jerusalem, erected new Jewish neighborhoods along the 1949 cease fire lines in Jerusalem, and provided the city land reserves for long-term growth.

In 1953, Ben Gurion rebuffed President Eisenhower’s pressure – inspired by Secretary of State Dulles – to refrain from relocating Israel’s Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In 1967, President Johnson followed the advice of Secretary of State Rusk – who opposed Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence – highlighting the international status of Jerusalem, and warned Israel against the reunification of Jerusalem and construction in its eastern section. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol adopted Ben Gurion’s statesmanship, fended off the US pressure, reunited Jerusalem, built the first Jerusalem neighborhood beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines, Ramat Eshkol, in addition to the first wave of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.

In 1970, President Nixon collaborated with Secretary of State Rogers, attempting to repartition Jerusalem, pressuring Israel to relinquish control of Jerusalem’s Holy Basin, and to stop Israel’s plans to construct additional neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem.  However, Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to rescind the reunification of Jerusalem, and proceeded to lay the foundation for additional Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines: Gilo, Ramot Alon, French Hill and Neve’ Yaakov, currently home to 150,000 people.

In 1977-1992, Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir defied US and global pressure, expanding construction in Jerusalem, sending a clear message: “Jerusalem is the exclusive and non-negotiable capital of Israel!”

“[In 1978], at the very end of [Prime Minister Begin’s] successful Camp David talks with President Jimmy Carter and President Anwar Sadat, literally minutes before the signing ceremony, the American president had approached [Begin] with ‘Just one final formal item.’ Sadat, said the president, was asking that Begin put his signature to a simple letter committing him to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table of the final peace accord.  ‘I refused to accept the letter, let alone sign it,’ rumbled Begin. ‘If I forgot thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning,’ said [Begin] to the president of the United States of America, ‘and may my tongue cleave to my mouth’ (The Prime Ministers – An Intimate Portrait of Leaders of Israel, 2010)”

In 2021, Prime Minister Bennett should follow in the footsteps of Israel’s Founding Father, Ben Gurion, who stated: “Jerusalem is equal to the whole of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem is not just a central Jewish settlement. Jerusalem is an invaluable global historical symbol. The Jewish People and the entire world shall judge us in accordance with our steadfastness on Jerusalem (“We and Our Neighbors,” p. 175. 1929).”

Support Appreciated






Jewish Holidays

Shavou’ot (Pentecost) guide for the perplexed, 2024

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
June 9, 2024

More on Jewish holidays: Smashwords, Amazon

1. Shavou’ot (June 11-12, 2024) and the Land of Israel

*Shavou’ot commemorates the receipt of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses). It is one of the three liberty-driven Jewish pilgrimages to Jerusalem:  Passover, Shavou’ot (Pentecost) and Sukkot (Tabernacles). It documents the critical linkage between Judaism, the Land of Israel and the Jewish people. These pilgrimages constitute central milestones in the formation of Jewish history and the 4,000-year-old Jewish roots in the Land of Israel.

*Shavou’ot is an historical, national, agricultural and a spiritual extension of Passover. Passover highlights the physical liberty from slavery in Egypt; Shavou’ot highlights spiritual liberty, embracing the values of the Five Books of Moses, the Ten Commandments and The Ethics of our Fathers (Pirkey Avot). Therefore, the eve of Shavou’ot is dedicated to an all-night study of Jewish values.

*Shavou’ot is also called the Holiday of the Harvest (Bikoorim in Hebrew), since it concludes the harvesting season, which starts during Passover.

*Shavou’ot commemorates the 40 years of the Exodus, which entailed tough challenges on the road to the Land of Israel, forging the state-of-mind of the Jewish people and the Jewish State. 

*Shavou’ot means “weeks” in Hebrew and its root is identical to the root of the Hebrew word for “vows” (שבע), which is the same word for “seven.” It documents the seven weeks between Passover (the Exodus) and Shavou’ot.

*Shavou’ot highlights the prerequisites for a secure Land of Israel: the willingness to sustain blood, sweat and tears; faith and principle-driven tenacity in the face of severe odds; the steeper the hurdle, the more critical is the mission; crises are opportunities in disguise.

2. Shavou’ot’s impact on the formation of the US

*The holiday of Shavou’ot commemorates the legacy of Moses, which had a significant impact on the Early Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers, and the formation of the US culture, civic life, the federal system (e.g., the Separation of Powers), the US Revolution, The Federalist Papers, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

  • *The Liberty Bell and the Abolitionist Movement were inspired by the Biblical concept of Jubilee – the role model of Biblical liberty – which is a cardinal component of the Mosaic legacy. The essence of the Jubilee is engraved on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof (Leviticus 25:10).”
  • *The Liberty Bell was installed in Philadelphia in 1752, 50years following William Penn’s Charter of Privileges, and eventually inspiring the 50 States in the union. According to the Biblical Jubilee, all slaves must be released, and land must be returned to the original proprietors every 50 years. Shavou’ot is celebrated 50 days following Passover, and Pentecost – a derivative of the Greek word for 50 – is celebrated 50 days following Easter.  According to Judaism, there are 50 gates of wisdom, studied during the 50 days between Passover and Shavou’ot.
  • 3. The Scroll of Ruth (Honor thy mother in-law…)
  • Shavou’ot spotlights the Scroll of Ruth, the first of the five Biblical scrolls, which are studied during five Jewish holidays: Ruth (Shavou’ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot/Tabernacles), Book of Lamentations (the Ninth day of Av), Esther (Purim).
  • *Ruth was a Moabite Princess, who joined the Jewish people, and became the great grandmother of King David. She was a role model of loyalty to her Jewish mother in-law. Ruth is exemplary of humility, gratitude, responsibility, reliability, faith, optimism and respect of fellow human beings. Ruth stuck by her mother-in-law, Naomi, during Naomi’s roughest time, when she lost her husband, Elimelech (a President of the Tribe of Judah), two sons and property.
  • *The stature of Ruth reflects the centrality of Biblical women: the four Matriarchs: Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel; Yocheved, Miriam and Tziporah, the mother, older sister and the wife of Moses; Deborah the Prophetess, Judge and military leader; Hannah, the mother of Samuel the Prophet; Queen Esther and Yael, who delivered the Jewish people from potential oblivion; etc.  
  • The Scroll of Ruth took place in the Judean Desert (in Judea and Samaria), the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture, language and ethnicity.

4. The Ethics of the Fathers  (Pirkey Avot in Hebrew)

It is customary to study – from Passover through Shavou’ot – the six brief chapters of The Ethics of the Fathers, one of the 63 tractates of the Mishnah (the Oral Torah) – a compilation of common-sense values, ethical and moral teachings, which underline key inter-personal relationships. For example:

“Who is respected? He who respects other persons!”
“Who is a wise person? He who learns from all other persons!”
“Who is wealthy? He who is satisfied with his own share!”
“Who is a hero? He who controls his urge!”
“Talk sparsely and walk plenty;”
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”
“Don’t be consumed with the flask, but with its content.”
“Conditional love is tenuous; unconditional love is eternal.”
“Treat every person politely.”
“Jealousy, lust and the obsession with fame warp one’s mind.”

5. Jubilee/Constitution. Shavou’ot has seven names: The holiday of the Jubilee; the holiday of the harvest; the holiday of the giving of the Torah; Shavou’ot; the holiday of offerings; the Rally and the Assembly (Constitution).

More on Shavou’ot and additional Jewish holidays: Smashwords, Amazon

Support Appreciated


Secretary Blinken on settlements – vindicated by facts?

Islamic Terrorism

FBI Director Chris Wray defies the State Department on Iran