Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

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

4 weeks ago

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

A WAKEUP CALL: THE COST OF INDECISIVENESS

Washington has urged Jerusalem to accelerate to 150 miles per hour on the road to destroying the capabilities of Hizballah, the Syria-Iran proxy, which murdered 300 Americans in Beirut in 1983 and is involved in anti-US terrorism in Iraq in 2006. However, Jerusalem does not press the pedal to the metal, and does not exceed 80 miles per hour. The pro-Israel Wall Street Journal, which generally reflects the Bush-Cheney world view, has expressed the US disappointment: “Israel has pledged not to stop without disarming Hezbollah; a defeat for Israel will mean more danger and far more casualties down the road… President Bush’s entire vision for the Middle East would suffer a severe setback if the current fighting ends with Hezbollah still a credible military force…” (August 1, 2006).

The more Israel retreats from the original goals of the war (i.e. disarming Hizballah), the more it undermines its stature as a producer of national security, which upgrades US power-projection, and the more it is perceived as a consumer of national security, which seeks US assistance.

The more Israel appears unwilling – or unable – to obliterate Hizballah’s capabilities, the more it advances Hizballah’s regional posture, adrenalizing the veins of terrorist regimes, weakening pro-US Arab regimes such as Jordan and Kuwait, exacerbating Mideast instability, undermining Israel’s and US’ posture of deterrence, planting seeds for the next and more horrific war, and lessening US interest to expand strategic cooperation with Israel.

The more Israel distances itself from its defiant tradition, which has been forged by the 1948 Declaration – and War – of Independence (in face of US military embargo!), by the 1967 Six Day War (resisting US pressure and French military embargo) and by the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor (in spite of US, UN and European threats), the less committal are many of Israel’s staunch allies on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue and in the Christian community.

The more protracted is the war, the more difficult it is for President Bush to sustain his staunch support of Israel’s war on terrorism in face of pressure by Bush 41st, Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Haas, the State Department and the CIA bureaucracies, the multinational oil and engineering companies, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the UN.

The more Israel subordinates its military operations to diplomatic processes, to international public opinion and to extreme concern for collateral damage (unmatched by any western military!), the less effective is its military and the higher the level of Israeli fatalities. Moreover, the US defense establishment is concerned whether Israel has misconstrued the “1982 Lebanon Quagmire”. Is Israel throwing the “baby” (the necessary destruction of PLO capabilities to spray northern Israel with Katyusha missiles) out with the “bath water” (the ill-advised attempt to change the regime in Beirut)?

The more Israel engages itself with diplomatic processes – before it obliterates Hizballah capabilities – the more is the US sucked into these processes. The processes enhance the profile of the UN, Europe and Foggy Bottom (which aim at Israel’s retreat to the 1949 lines on all fronts), promote the role of the US as an even-handed mediator at the expense of its position as a unique ally of Israel, and yield undue pressure on Israel for sweeping and reckless concessions.

The more Israel calls for a multi-national force in Southern Lebanon, the more it is portrayed as a country, which ignores the flight by such forces from Lebanon (i.e. US and France in 1983), which relies on subcontractors for its own defense, even when the subcontractors constitute a human-shield for terrorists and a major hurdle for Israeli hot-pursuits of terrorists. A multi-national force in Lebanon would severely undermine the relations between Israel and the components of the multi-national force.

The longer the war lingers on, the more thoroughly will the Hizballah experience be implemented by Palestinian terrorists in Judea & Samaria and (especially) in Gaza, which is rapidly becoming Hizballistan, adding fuel to the fire of regional anti-US terrorism.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney do not consider Israel a puppet; they consider the Jewish State a unique ally with shared-values, mutual threats and joint strategic interests, a critical First Yard Line outpost in the third World War between western democracies and Middle East-based Islamic terrorism. Therefore, they have not approached Israel even-handedly. In fact, they have prodded Israel to resume the daring and the determination, which catapulted the Jewish State from being the remnant of the Holocaust in 1948 to a major non-NATO ally of the US since 1988. Israel’s resolve to devastate Hizballah to submission – and not just to win – requires a shift to a higher gear, driving at 150 miles per hour. Israel’s leaders are well-advised to study the US colloquialism: “If you can’t roll with the Dobermans on the street, stay on the porch with the Poodles.”




Videos

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

 

 

 

 




Videos

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