The findings of the February 19, 2010 Gallup poll put President Obama at odds with the US public, when it comes to attitudes toward the Jewish State, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arabs, Muslims and Islamic terrorism.
For example, Israel maintains its traditional spot among the five most favored nations by 67% of the US public, despite Obama’s moral-equivalence and even-handedness toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, in spite of his attempts to force Israel into sweeping concessions, and in defiance of the US “elite” media and academia. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority is ranked – along with Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan – at the bottom of the list, favored by only 20% of the US public.
According to an August 10, 2009 Rasmussen poll, Israel is ranked as the third most favorable ally (70%), preceded only by Canada and Britain. The low regard toward Egypt (39%) and Saudi Arabia (23%) demonstrates that Americans remain skeptical – at least since 9/11 – of Arabs and Muslims, even when they are portrayed by the media and the Administration as supposedly moderate and pro-American. Moreover, only 21% of adult Americans expect that the US relationship with the Muslim world will improve in a year, while 25% expect that it will get worse.
Apparently, US public attitude towards Arabs and Muslims has hardly been impacted by President Obama’s highly-publicized outreach to Muslims, as demonstrated by his apologetic speeches at Turkey’s National Assembly (“…the Islamic faith has done so much to shape the world, including my own country…”), at Cairo University (“Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”) and at the UN (“America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others…”).
Historically, most Americans have been suspicious of Arabs and Islam, while identifying with Judeo-Christian values, Judaism and the Jewish State, as documented by a June 3, 2009 Gallup poll. By an overwhelming 80%:13% ratio, Americans believe that Muslims are hostile toward the USA. They subscribe to Samuel Huntington’s “War of Civilizations,” much more that Obama’s June 4, 2009 statement, made at Cairo University: “America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.” Apparently, Obama’s efforts have failed to uproot the legacy of the Islamic threat since the early 19th century war against Muslim pirates, through the 1983 detonation of the US embassy and the truck bombing of the Marine Headquarters in Beirut, the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 9/11, the December 2009 Ft. Hood, Texas massacre and the Muslim terrorist attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner.
Since, at least 9/11, most Americans have held the Palestinian Authority in disfavor, 15% support and 73% opposed, according to a March 3, 2009 Gallup poll. A definite connection has been established between the Palestinian Authority and terrorism, pro-Saddam Hussein and Bin-Laden sentiments and anti-US sentiments. In contrast, support of Israel has remained steady at 63% with only 23% opposing.
Israel‘s good standing has recently been reflected on Capitol Hill. For instance, 344 House Representatives (79%) signed a November 4, 2009 letter, supporting Israel and condemning the Goldstone Report. On the other hand, only 54 House Representatives (12%) signed a January 27, 2010 letter, criticizing Israel and supporting Hamas.
Unlike dictatorships, which manipulate results of public opinion polls, democracies are shaped, to a large extent, by public opinion. Public opinion is especially critical in the US democracy, which features the constituent as its centerpiece. Therefore, US legislators are more attentive to voters than are other Western legislators. They take seriously the electoral battle cry: “We shall remember in November!” Hence, the sustained support of the Jewish State on Capitol Hill, which reflects the will of the American People, in addition to the role played by shared-values, mutual-threats and joint-interests in shaping the unique covenant between the US, the Jewish People and the Jewish State.
In 1948, Prime Minister Ben Gurion declared independence in defiance of demographic fatalism, which was perpetrated by Israel’s leading demographers. He rejected their assumptions that Jews were doomed to be a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, that massive Aliya was not feasible, that the Jewish fertility rate was declining below reproduction levels and that the Arab fertility rate would remain the highest in the world, irrespective of modernity. Ben Gurion did not subordinate his vision and security concerns to demographic fatalism. Instead of retreating, he declared independence, highlighted demographic optimism and Aliya as top national priorities, coalesced a solid Jewish majority and planted the seeds which catapulted Israel to a Middle East power, highly respected for its civilian and military achievements.
In 2005, in capitulation to demographic fatalism, Prime Minister Sharon retreated from Palestinian terrorism, uprooting 10,000 Jews from Gaza and Samaria. Sharon abandoned his life-long ideology of defiance and subordinated long-term strategy and security concerns to doomsday demography. Thus, he facilitated the Hamas takeover of Gaza and its ripple effects: a slackened posture of deterrence, the intensified shelling of southern Israel, the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008 Gaza War, the Goldstone Report and exacerbated global pressure on Israel.
Demographic assumptions have played an increasing role in shaping Israel’s national security policy since 1992. But, what if these assumptions are dramatically wrong?!
For example, since the beginning of annual Aliya in 1882 – and in contradiction to demographic projections – the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean has grown 238 fold, while the Arab population increased only 6 fold. Since 1948, the Jewish population increased almost 10 fold and the Arab population expanded 3 fold.
Israel‘s demographers did not believe that a massive Aliya would take place in the aftermath of the 1948/9 War. One million Jews arrived. They projected no substantial Aliya from the Communist Bloc during the 1970s. Almost 300,000 Jews arrived. They dismissed the possibility for a massive Aliya from the USSR, even if gates were opened. One million Olim relocated from the Soviet Union to the Jewish Homeland during the 1990s.
Contrary to demographic assumptions, a rapid and drastic decline in Muslim fertility has been documented by the UN Population Division: Iran – 1.7 births per woman, Algeria – 1.8 births, Egypt – 2.5 births, Jordan – 3 births, etc. Arab fertility rate in pre-1967 Israel has declined 20 years faster than projected and Judea and Samaria Arab fertility has dropped below 4.5 births per woman, trending toward 3 births.
Precedent suggests that low fertility rates can rarely be reversed following a sustained period of significant reduction.
At the same time, the annual number of Jewish births has increased by 45% between 1995 (80,400) and 2008 (117,000), mostly impacted by the demographic surge within the secular sector. The total annual Arab births, in pre-1967 Israel, has stabilized at about 39,000 during the same period, reflecting the successful Arab integration into Israel’s infrastructure of education, employment, health, trade, politics and sports.
An audit of the documentation of Palestinian births, deaths and migration, which is conducted by the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education and Election Commission, as well as by Israel’s Border Police, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics and by the World Bank, reveals huge misrepresentations by the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
For instance, the PCBS’ census includes about 400,000 overseas residents, who have been away for over one year, ignores high net-emigration (28,000 in 2008, 25,000 in 2007, etc.) and double-counts some 250,000 Jerusalem Arabs, who are also counted by Israel. Furthermore, a 40,000-60,000 annual actual birth gap is confirmed between PCBS numbers and the documentation conducted by the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education.
The audit of Palestinian and Israeli documentation exposes a 66% distortion in the current number of Judea & Samaria Arabs – 1.55 million and not 2.5 million, as claimed by the Palestinian Authority. It certifies a solid 67% Jewish majority over 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River (without Gaza), compared with a 33% and an 8% Jewish minority in 1947 and 1900, respectively, west of the Jordan River. An 80% majority is attainable by 2035 with the proper demographic policy, highlighting Aliya, returning expatriates, etc.
In conclusion, demographic optimism is well-documented, while demographic fatalism is resoundingly refuted. There is a demographic problem, but it is not lethal and the demographic tailwind is Jewish. Therefore, anyone suggesting that there is a demographic machete at the throat of the Jewish State and that Jewish geography must be conceded, in order to secure Jewish demography, is either grossly mistaken or outrageously misleading.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology to Vice President Biden – for authorizing the construction of Jewish homes in Jerusalem during Biden’s visit – departs sharply from the assertive legacy of all Israeli Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion (1948) to Shamir (1992). It is consistent with the retreating Oslo state of mind, which has afflicted all Prime Ministers since 1993. This apologetic response ignores the significant “Jerusalem Divide” between the dramatically-weakened President Obama on one hand and the majority of the American People and Congress on the other hand. Moreover, it triggers further pressure by Obama, radicalizes Arab demands, undermines the future of Jerusalem as the indivisible capital of the Jewish State, and erodes Israel’s strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Placating President Obama will certainly not transform his position on Iran from engagement to confrontation and will not produce a Green Light for an Israeli attack on Iran.
In 1949, the US Administration, Europe and the UN exerted brutal pressure on Prime Minister Ben Gurion to accept the internationalization of Jerusalem. Ben Gurion’s response was decisive, in spite of his inferior position militarily, economically, demographically, technologically, diplomatically and politically, compared with today’s Israel. Ben Gurion proclaimed Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State, relocated government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, expanded housing construction all the way to the ceasefire lines, directed a massive number of Olim (immigrants) to Jerusalem and upgraded the transportation infrastructure to the city. Ben Gurion’s determination and defiance clarified to the US that Jerusalem was non-negotiable. It accorded Jerusalem the land required for security and development for the next generation. It sent a clear message of credible deterrence and tenacity to Israel’s enemies and friends.
In 1967, the very powerful President Lyndon Johnson and the international community cautioned Prime Minister Eshkol against the reunification of Jerusalem and against any construction beyond the pre-1967 ceasefire lines, lest it severely undermine Israel’s global standing. Eshkol replied firmly by annexing the Old City, the eastern suburbs of Jerusalem and substantial land reserves and building the Ramat Eshkol neighborhood beyond the pre-1967 ceasefire lines. Thus, Eshkol reaffirmed the image of Israel – in Washington – as a dependable US ally on “rainy days.”
In 1970-1, Prime Minister Golda Meir defied the (Secretary of State) Rogers Plan, which was submitted by President Nixon at the height of his popularity. The Plan called for Israel’s retreat to the pre-1967 lines and for the transfer of Jerusalem’s Holy Basin to the auspices of the three leading religions. Defiantly, Prime Minister Meir laid the groundwork for a series of neighborhoods in Jerusalem (beyond the pre-1967 ceasefire lines): Neve’ Ya’akov, Gilo, Ramot Alon and French Hill. These neighborhoods – with over 100,000 residents – provided Jerusalem with the land required for further development. Golda’s defiance caused short-term tension between Jerusalem and Washington, but generated long-term respect toward the Jewish State.
Prime Ministers Begin and Shamir sent a clear message to the White House: “Jerusalem is not negotiable!”
That non-wavering message has been consistent with the American state of mind. For instance, twenty five towns in the United States – from Massachusetts to Oregon – bear the name of Jerusalem – Salem. It reflects the unique bonds that exist – since the 17th century Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers – between the USA and the Jewish capital, the Jewish State and Judaism.
The US Congress – the most authentic representation of the American People, therefore a systematic supporter of the Jewish State and equal in power to the President – has passed a series of bills and resolutions, reaffirming the role of Jerusalem, as the indivisible capital of the Jewish State and the appropriate site for the US embassy in Israel. Democrats are concerned that Obama’s assault on Jerusalem would haunt them during the November 2010 election.
US constituents and their representatives on Capitol Hill are aware that 3,000 years before President Obama entered the White House, and 2,770 years before the US gained its independence, King David entered Jerusalem – the Heart of the Jewish People. However, in contrast to the vast majority of Americans and their representatives on Capitol Hill, President Obama wishes to repartition Jerusalem to prohibit legal Jewish construction, while enticing wide spread illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem – the city which inspired the Founding Fathers of the USA.
The battle over Jerusalem requires the Jewish State to join forces with the American public and its representatives on Capitol Hill. This is the time to resurrect the 1999 Lieberman-Kyl initiative – to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem – which was co-sponsored by 84 Senators. This is the time to encourage Israel’s friends on the Hill, and especially the Chairmen of the Congressional and Senatorial campaign committees, to revisit bills and resolutions, which highlight Jerusalem’s indivisibility as the capital of Israel.
Securing the future of Jerusalem behooves Netanyahu to follow in the footsteps of Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, displaying steadfastness and, sometimes, defiance of an American President.
On the other hand, submission to pressure by President Obama – who is increasingly considered a burden by Democratic legislators – would jeopardize the future of the Jewish Capital. It would also raise a severe concern: Is a government which wavers on Jerusalem capable of securing the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria? Is it capable of preempting the Iranian nuclear wrath, in defiance of the US and the world at-large if necessary?
The findings of the February 19, 2010 Gallup poll put President Obama at odds with the US public, when it comes to attitudes toward the Jewish State, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Arabs, Muslims and Islamic terrorism.
For example, Israel maintains its traditional spot among the five most favored nations by 67% of the US public, despite Obama’s moral-equivalence and even-handedness toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, in spite of his attempts to force Israel into sweeping concessions, and in defiance of the US “elite” media and academia. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority is ranked – along with Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan – at the bottom of the list, favored by only 20% of the US public.
According to an August 10, 2009 Rasmussen poll, Israel is ranked as the third most favorable ally (70%), preceded only by Canada and Britain. The low regard toward Egypt (39%) and Saudi Arabia (23%) demonstrates that Americans remain skeptical – at least since 9/11 – of Arabs and Muslims, even when they are portrayed by the media and the Administration as supposedly moderate and pro-American. Moreover, only 21% of adult Americans expect that the US relationship with the Muslim world will improve in a year, while 25% expect that it will get worse.
Apparently, US public attitude towards Arabs and Muslims has hardly been impacted by President Obama’s highly-publicized outreach to Muslims, as demonstrated by his apologetic speeches at Turkey’s National Assembly (“…the Islamic faith has done so much to shape the world, including my own country…”), at Cairo University (“Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”) and at the UN (“America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others…”).
Historically, most Americans have been suspicious of Arabs and Islam, while identifying with Judeo-Christian values, Judaism and the Jewish State, as documented by a June 3, 2009 Gallup poll. By an overwhelming 80%:13% ratio, Americans believe that Muslims are hostile toward the USA. They subscribe to Samuel Huntington’s “War of Civilizations,” much more that Obama’s June 4, 2009 statement, made at Cairo University: “America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.” Apparently, Obama’s efforts have failed to uproot the legacy of the Islamic threat since the early 19th century war against Muslim pirates, through the 1983 detonation of the US embassy and the truck bombing of the Marine Headquarters in Beirut, the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 9/11, the December 2009 Ft. Hood, Texas massacre and the Muslim terrorist attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner.
Since, at least 9/11, most Americans have held the Palestinian Authority in disfavor, 15% support and 73% opposed, according to a March 3, 2009 Gallup poll. A definite connection has been established between the Palestinian Authority and terrorism, pro-Saddam Hussein and Bin-Laden sentiments and anti-US sentiments. In contrast, support of Israel has remained steady at 63% with only 23% opposing.
Israel‘s good standing has recently been reflected on Capitol Hill. For instance, 344 House Representatives (79%) signed a November 4, 2009 letter, supporting Israel and condemning the Goldstone Report. On the other hand, only 54 House Representatives (12%) signed a January 27, 2010 letter, criticizing Israel and supporting Hamas.
Unlike dictatorships, which manipulate results of public opinion polls, democracies are shaped, to a large extent, by public opinion. Public opinion is especially critical in the US democracy, which features the constituent as its centerpiece. Therefore, US legislators are more attentive to voters than are other Western legislators. They take seriously the electoral battle cry: “We shall remember in November!” Hence, the sustained support of the Jewish State on Capitol Hill, which reflects the will of the American People, in addition to the role played by shared-values, mutual-threats and joint-interests in shaping the unique covenant between the US, the Jewish People and the Jewish State.
In 1948, Prime Minister Ben Gurion declared independence in defiance of demographic fatalism, which was perpetrated by Israel’s leading demographers. He rejected their assumptions that Jews were doomed to be a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, that massive Aliya was not feasible, that the Jewish fertility rate was declining below reproduction levels and that the Arab fertility rate would remain the highest in the world, irrespective of modernity. Ben Gurion did not subordinate his vision and security concerns to demographic fatalism. Instead of retreating, he declared independence, highlighted demographic optimism and Aliya as top national priorities, coalesced a solid Jewish majority and planted the seeds which catapulted Israel to a Middle East power, highly respected for its civilian and military achievements.
In 2005, in capitulation to demographic fatalism, Prime Minister Sharon retreated from Palestinian terrorism, uprooting 10,000 Jews from Gaza and Samaria. Sharon abandoned his life-long ideology of defiance and subordinated long-term strategy and security concerns to doomsday demography. Thus, he facilitated the Hamas takeover of Gaza and its ripple effects: a slackened posture of deterrence, the intensified shelling of southern Israel, the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008 Gaza War, the Goldstone Report and exacerbated global pressure on Israel.
Demographic assumptions have played an increasing role in shaping Israel’s national security policy since 1992. But, what if these assumptions are dramatically wrong?!
For example, since the beginning of annual Aliya in 1882 – and in contradiction to demographic projections – the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean has grown 238 fold, while the Arab population increased only 6 fold. Since 1948, the Jewish population increased almost 10 fold and the Arab population expanded 3 fold.
Israel‘s demographers did not believe that a massive Aliya would take place in the aftermath of the 1948/9 War. One million Jews arrived. They projected no substantial Aliya from the Communist Bloc during the 1970s. Almost 300,000 Jews arrived. They dismissed the possibility for a massive Aliya from the USSR, even if gates were opened. One million Olim relocated from the Soviet Union to the Jewish Homeland during the 1990s.
Contrary to demographic assumptions, a rapid and drastic decline in Muslim fertility has been documented by the UN Population Division: Iran – 1.7 births per woman, Algeria – 1.8 births, Egypt – 2.5 births, Jordan – 3 births, etc. Arab fertility rate in pre-1967 Israel has declined 20 years faster than projected and Judea and Samaria Arab fertility has dropped below 4.5 births per woman, trending toward 3 births.
Precedent suggests that low fertility rates can rarely be reversed following a sustained period of significant reduction.
At the same time, the annual number of Jewish births has increased by 45% between 1995 (80,400) and 2008 (117,000), mostly impacted by the demographic surge within the secular sector. The total annual Arab births, in pre-1967 Israel, has stabilized at about 39,000 during the same period, reflecting the successful Arab integration into Israel’s infrastructure of education, employment, health, trade, politics and sports.
An audit of the documentation of Palestinian births, deaths and migration, which is conducted by the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education and Election Commission, as well as by Israel’s Border Police, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics and by the World Bank, reveals huge misrepresentations by the Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
For instance, the PCBS’ census includes about 400,000 overseas residents, who have been away for over one year, ignores high net-emigration (28,000 in 2008, 25,000 in 2007, etc.) and double-counts some 250,000 Jerusalem Arabs, who are also counted by Israel. Furthermore, a 40,000-60,000 annual actual birth gap is confirmed between PCBS numbers and the documentation conducted by the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education.
The audit of Palestinian and Israeli documentation exposes a 66% distortion in the current number of Judea & Samaria Arabs – 1.55 million and not 2.5 million, as claimed by the Palestinian Authority. It certifies a solid 67% Jewish majority over 98.5% of the land west of the Jordan River (without Gaza), compared with a 33% and an 8% Jewish minority in 1947 and 1900, respectively, west of the Jordan River. An 80% majority is attainable by 2035 with the proper demographic policy, highlighting Aliya, returning expatriates, etc.
In conclusion, demographic optimism is well-documented, while demographic fatalism is resoundingly refuted. There is a demographic problem, but it is not lethal and the demographic tailwind is Jewish. Therefore, anyone suggesting that there is a demographic machete at the throat of the Jewish State and that Jewish geography must be conceded, in order to secure Jewish demography, is either grossly mistaken or outrageously misleading.
The prevention of a nuclear Iran constitutes a top US national security priority. It sheds light on a special aspect of US-Israel relationship: defiance of mutual threats.
Iran pursues nuclear capabilities, in order to advance strategic goals, which are led by the super-goal: hegemony of the Persian Gulf and its natural resources. Those who undermine the super-goal are considered super-enemies, targeted by super-capabilities. Hence, Teheran would use its nuclear power/threat, first and foremost, to force US and NATO out of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. It would then turn it against Iraq – its arch rival since the seventh century – and against Saudi Arabia, which is considered an apostate regime. All Gulf States are perceived by Iran as a key prize, required in order to control the flow and the price of oil and to bankroll Teheran’s megalomaniac regional and global aspirations (e.g. leading Islam’s drive to dominate the globe).
The Jewish State constitutes a non-Gulf basin target for Iran; not a primary target. Moreover, Israel is expected to retaliate in a traumatic manner, which would paralyze much of Iran’s military and civilian infrastructures. Therefore, Iran would not sacrifice its super-goal (forcing the US out of the Gulf and subjugating the Gulf States) on the altar of a secondary-goal (obliterating the Jewish State).
For the US and Israel, the preferred option – against Iran – is preemption rather than retaliation. Recent precedents suggest that the two countries benefit from leveraging each other’s unique experience, as well as from bold unilateral military action against rogue threats.
In September 2007, Israel’s air force destroyed a Syrian-North Korean nuclear plant, extending US’ strategic arm. It provided the US with vital information on Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. It bolstered US posture of deterrence and refuted the claim that US-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency. In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, providing the US with a conventional option in 1991 and 2003, preventing a mega-billion dollar mega-casualties nuclear war. In 1970, while the US was bogged down in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, Israel forced the rollback of a pro-Soviet Syrian invasion of pro-US Jordan. It prevented a pro-Soviet “Domino Effect” into the Persian Gulf, which would have shattered US economy. In 2009, Israel shares with the US its battle-tested experience in combating Palestinian and Hizballah terrorism, which are the role model of anti-US Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. US GIs benefit from Israel’s battle tactics against car bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and homicide bombing. An Israel-like ally in the Persian Gulf would have spared the need to dispatch US troops to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Former Secretary of State and NATO Commander, General (ret.) Al Haig, refers to the Jewish State as the largest cost-effective, combat-experienced US aircraft carrier that does not require US personnel, cannot be sunk and is located in a most critical region for US national security interests.
While the US has been Israel’s indispensable ally, Israel’s battle experience has been integrated into the US defense industry. For example, the F-16 includes over 600 Israeli modifications, sparing the US a mega-billion dollar and a multi-year research & development budget. A litany of state-of-the-art US military systems have been upgraded in a similar manner, enhancing US national and homeland security and expanding US employment and exports.
Iran’s nuclear threat is a symptom of endemic Middle East violent unpredictability and Moslem hostility toward western democracies. It calls for an upgraded US-Israel win-win relationship, which requires a strong Israel, which is a national security producer. A weak Israel, pushed into a 9-15 mile sliver along the Mediterranean, pressured to concede the mountain ridges of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, relying on foreign troops and guarantees would become a national security consumer. It would be a burden rather than an asset to the US in a bad neighborhood, which is crucial for vital US interests.
Iran would benefit from an ineffective Israel. However, the US would have to deploy to the eastern flank of the Mediterranean real aircraft carriers and tens of thousands of US servicemen, costing scores of billions of dollars annually, denied the benefits of Israel – the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US personnel.
The bubble of demographic fatalism is bursting, according to the most recent data, published by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS). The data should be leveraged by the new Israeli government, in order to formulate a demographic policy, aimed at increasing the current 67% Jewish majority west of the Jordan River (without Gaza). The policy would uproot demographic fatalism and advance demographic optimism, thus energizing Aliya, Israel’s economy, overseas investments, diplomacy, national security, posture of deterrence and minimizing Jewish-Arab tension, which is fed by demographic fear.
According to the ICBS, Israel’s Jewish society is getting younger and the Arab society is getting older. The number of annual Jewish births increased by 45% between 1995 (80,400) and 2008 (117,000), as a result of Aliya from the USSR, the shift by the “Soviet Olim” from a typical Russian rate of 1 birth per woman to a typical Israeli rate of 2-3 births, the rising secular Jewish rate and the sustained high orthodox and ultra-orthodox rate. The number of annual Arab births has stabilized – since 1995 – around 39,000, reflecting a most successful integration by Israeli Arabs into Israel’s infrastructures of education, health, human services, commerce, finance, culture, sports and politics. The fertility gap is down from 6 births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 births in 2009, and the proportion of Jewish births has grown from 69% (of total births) in 1995 and 74% in 2007 to 75% in 2008.
The downward trend typifies, also, the Arabs in Judea and Samaria due to large scale emigration, entrenched family planning, reduction of teen pregnancy, rapid urbanization, expanded education especially among women, record divorce rate and higher median marriage age.
The Westernization of Arab fertility rate (3.5 births per woman in pre-1967 Israel and 4 births in Judea and Samaria), is apparent throughout most of the Arab and Moslem world. For instance, the 2008 map of the UN Population Division documents an average fertility rate of 2-4 births, compared with over 4 births 30 years ago (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2007/TFRmaps.htm).
)
Even Yemen, the flagship of robust Arab demography, is adopting family planning. In February 2009 it approved a new law, setting the minimum age for marriage at 17 for boys and girls, prohibiting marriage without the consent of the woman and benefiting divorced women.
The Jewish demographic tailwind, in Israel, behooves the new government to introduce a demographic roadmap, which would increase the Jewish majority, while respecting the rights of the Arab minority:
1. Reverting Aliya to the top of the order of national priorities, as expected from the Jewish State and as required by economic and security challenges. The global economic meltdown, and the rise in anti-Semitism, should be leveraged, in order to increase Aliya from the former USSR, USA, Europe, Latin America, South Africa, etc.
2. The conversion of some 250,000 Olim from the former USSR – in accordance with Jewish Laws – should be expedited.
3. Jewish immigration to – instead of emigration from – Jerusalem would be facilitated by the availability of jobs and lower-cost housing, which would be created by entrepreneurs, attracted by a drastic enhancement of Jerusalem’s infrastructures (airport, fast railroad, Loop, additional freeway, industrial and residential zones).
4. Enticing the return of expatriates and reducing the number of quality emigrants, by improving education, research and development infrastructures.
5. Expanding high school and academic programs for prospective Olim.
6. Significant development of infrastructures in the Galilee and in the Negev, triggering emigration from the Greater Tel Aviv area, which would yield economic, environmental and demographic benefits.
7. Synchronizing industrial and educational 9:00-5:00 schedule, which would facilitate raising children and obtaining employment.
8. The establishment of a global Jewish foundation, which would support Jewish fertility worldwide, in view of high assimilation, low fertility rates among non-Israeli Jews and Holocaust-driven demographic challenges.
In 1949, Ben Gurion considered demography as a top priority, in order to salvage the Jewish State, thus transferring to his successors a foundation for a long-term robust Jewish majority. In 2009, the new government will enjoy an impressive critical mass of demography, military, economy and technology. Will it resurrect the Ben Gurion legacy and buttress the future of the Jewish State, by reinforcing Jewish majority?
Just as the world at large is experiencing an unprecedented collapse of demography, the UN Population Division reports a sharp decline of fertility rates (number of births per woman) in Muslim and Arab countries, excluding Afghanistan and Yemen.
The myth of “doubling population every 20 years” has been shattered against the cliffs of demography. The director-general of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura, stated, during a UNESCO conference on “Population: From Explosion to Implosion,” that “there is an abrupt slowdown in the rate of growth… also in many countries where women have only limited access to education and employment… There is not the slightest reason to assume that the decline in fertility will miraculously stop just at replacement level (2.1 births per woman)… Before 2000, the young always outnumbered their elders; for some years now it has been the other way around.”
THE collapse of fertility rates in Muslim countries is a derivative of modernization and Westernization, rapid urbanization and internal security concerns by dictators fearing the consequences of the widening gap between population growth and economic growth. As a result, the UN Population Division has reduced its 2050 population projections by 25 percent, from 12 billion to 9 billion, possibly shrinking to 7.4 billion.
For instance, the fertility rate in Iran – the flagship of radical Islam – has declined from nine births per woman, 30 years ago, to 1.8 births in 2007. The Muslim religious establishment has also played a key role in decreasing fertility rates in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, from eight and seven births per woman 30 years ago, to less than four and less than 2.5 respectively in 2007.
Jordan, which is demographically close to Judea and Samaria, and Syria have demonstrated a diminished fertility rate: from eight, 30 years ago, to less than 3.5 in2007. A substantial dive of fertility rates in Muslim countries – trending toward two births per woman – is documented by the PopulationResourceCenter in Washington, DC.
Demographic precedents suggest only a very slight probability of resurrecting high fertility rates following a sustained period of significant reduction.
The Bennett Zimmerman-led American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) has documented a similar demographic trend among the Arab population of Judea and Samaria (currently four births per woman, and trending downward).
The decline in fertility and population growth rates has resulted from escalating emigration (which has characterized the region since 1950), accelerated urbanization (70% rural in 1967 and 60% urban in 2008), the expansion of education infrastructure, especially among women, the entrenchment of career mentality; the increase of median-marriage-age, an all-time high divorce rate, the contraction of teenage pregnancy and the UNRWA/PA-led family planning campaign.
The sharp lowering of fertility rate among “Green Line” (pre-1967 Israel) Arabs, from nine births per woman in 1969 to 3.5 in 2007, has been the outcome of their successful integration into Israel’s education, employment, commerce, health, banking, cultural, political and sports infrastructures. The annual number of Arab births stabilized at approximately 39,000 between 1995-2007. The Arab fertility rate converges swiftly toward the Jewish fertility rate (2.8 births per woman).
ON the other hand, Israel‘s Jewish demography has been non-normative as far as the impact of education and income levels on the level of fertility rates is concerned. The annual number of Jewish births (including among those immigrants from the former USSR who have yet to be recognized as Jews by the rabbinate) rose by 40% between 1995-2007.
The number of Jewish births has increased from 69% of total births in 1995 to 74% in 2006 and 75% in 2007. The secular sector – and particularly the immigrants from the former Soviet Union – has been by and large responsible for such an impressive rise. The Jewish demographic tailwind is bolstered by the (highly under-utilized) potential of immigration – which has increased due to the global economic collapse – from the former USSR, the US, West Europe, Latin America, South Africa, etc.
Recent demographic trends bode well for the solid, long-term Jewish majority of 67% within the “Green Line” and in Judea and Samaria, compared with a 33% and 8% Jewish minority in 1947 and 1900 respectively between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
Israel‘s policy-makers and public opinion-molders should base their assessments on thoroughly-documented demographic optimism and not on baseless demographic fatalism, in order to avoid erroneous assumptions, which yield erroneous and self-destructive policy decisions.
Prime Minister Barak has claimed that Assad is an honorable man. Barak has given the public a false sense of security in order to facilitate a total withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Defying a series of water agreements signed with Jordan starting in 1953, Syria has diverted 50 percent of the Jordanian share supplied by the Yarmuk River. Damascus has used its control of the ‘Yarmuk faucet’ to undermine Jordan’s stability and to force change in Jordanian policy toward Iran, Iraq, the Moslem Brotherhood, and Israel.
Formal peace did not prevent a Syrian invasion of Jordan in 1970 and threats of invasion in 1980 and 1989. In fact, Assad has attempted to topple the Hashemite regime – via subversive activities – since 1970. But Assad is an honorable man…
Syria concluded three major security protocols with Turkey in 1987, 1992, and 1993, in addition to several less comprehensive agreements. Assad violated all of them. In the agreements, Syria promised to expel the PKK Kurdish terrorists from its territory and Syrian-controlled Lebanon in return for additional water from the Euphrates.
Syrian support of the PKK has persisted, and more than 20,000 Turks have been killed since the mid-1980s. But, Assad is an honorable man…
In 1978, Syria and Iraq concluded a series of agreements, both military and nonmilitary. But in 1979 they were on the verge of a war ignited by Assad’s alleged involvement in an attempted coup in Baghdad.
Syrian and Iraqi militias have been engaged in a war by proxy on Lebanese soil since the 1975 Syrian invasion of Lebanon. That year Assad cut drastically the water quota of the Euphrates committed to Iraq. But Assad is an honorable man…
ASSAD considers peace agreements a temporary tactical means, advancing permanent strategic goals: Greater Syria and regional domination. He has cooperated with Iran, Sudan, Libya, North Korea, and other terror entities to achieve these goals.
While he has identified, rhetorically, with inter-Arab covenants of unity, Assad has supported the Popular Fronts for the Liberation of Bahrain, Oman, and the Arabian Peninsula. But, Assad is an honorable man…
The subjugation of Lebanon, the ‘Western Province,’ has been exacerbated despite Syria’s signing the three Arab Summit Resolutions (1978, 1982, and 1989) calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. In October 1990 Assad reinforced his military units in Lebanon, conducting a massive massacre of Christian strongholds there.
International agreements, inter-Arab commitments, and basic codes of human rights were brutally violated. But Assad is an honorable man…
In 1973 Assad launched a surprise attack on Israel, violating the cease-fire agreement of 1967. In 1975 he violated the 1974 Disengagement Agreement with Israel, igniting a wave of anti-Israel terrorism, operating from northern Jordan. In 1977 he abrogated the 1976 Red Line Agreement with Israel (in Lebanon).
Assad’s operational support of anti-Israel Hizbullah terrorism violates the 1974 Disengagement Agreement and the 1993 (Operation Accountability) understanding. But, Assad is an honorable man…
Would it be logical to assume that Assad – a leader of international terrorism, a ruthless abuser of human rights, the ferocious occupier of Lebanon, a chief heroin trafficker and a systematic violator of agreements – is credible? Would it be logical to assume that Assad would accord to the Jewish state that reliability which he has denied his Arab and Moslem neighbors?
Assad sticks by agreements only when they serve his interests or when he feels threatened. In October 1998 he expelled Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the anti-Turkish PKK terrorists, from Syria, in response to Turkish military deployment on his border. In 1970, Syria withdrew from Jordan in the face of a full Israeli military mobilization.
Israeli tanks and artillery on the Golan Heights, less than 60 kilometers from Damascus, have kept Assad constrained on that front. A determined Israeli military response stopped Syrian-supported terror in 1975 and the 1977 violation of the Red Line Agreement in Lebanon. But, Assad is an honorable man…
Continued overlooking of Assad’s violation of commitments would add to a false sense of short-term security. It may facilitate quick conclusion of an agreement with Syria. But it would jeopardize the long-term survival of Israel and the pursuit of a durable peace.
Involving US troops in an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement is not just a suggestion floating somewhere between Jerusalem and Washington.
Congressman Lee Hamilton, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, recently indicated that a US survey is already underway to determine the specific locations of a US peacekeeping force on the Golan. The survey’s underlying assumption is that Israel will evacuate the whole Golan.
Assad’s military potential and his record of brutality and unpredictability, the brief life-span of hundreds of Mideast agreements and the violently abrupt nature of their abrogation make Israel’s risks in evacuating the Golan substantial.
An American force would supposedly constitute an essential reassuring component.
But to bolster a potentially vulnerable accord, a US presence on the Golan must be durable, and politically/militarily sustainable. Moreover, it must be compatible with US interests, lest it be summarily withdrawn.
Is the deployment of US peacekeepers (monitoring or combat, unilateral or multinational) consistent with such requirements?
Unlike US observers in Sinai (22,000 square miles of empty desert) US personnel on the Golan (450 sqm) would be situated about 25 miles from two of the most notorious training/operational centers of international terrorism and narco-terrorism: Damascus and the Syrian-controlled Beka’a Valley (“Medellin East.”).
They would be stationed in a neighborhood the size of a small US congressional district, populated by well-armed Afghan, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal, Jibril, Habash, Hawatmeh, PLO, PKK, Japanese Red Army, Latin American, West European and Southeast Asian terrorists.
Moreover, these terrorists are proxies of hostile radical regimes (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.). They would enable their patron regimes to intimidate Washington, constrain its ability to respond to provocations elsewhere (e.g. the Gulf area), and extort political concessions by targeting US servicemen. The states sponsoring the terrorists would, meanwhile, preserve the element of deniability.
A truly effective US combat force is precluded – even theoretically – by the diminished overall size of the US military. One may predict, then, a possible withdrawal of the peacekeepers in face of hostage-taking and casualties.
Such a withdrawal would be perceived as another retreat (following Beirut, Somalia and Haiti), further eroding the US posture of deterrence and shrinking public support for essential overseas military involvement.
WHILE ON the Golan, the US presence would constrain Israel by forcing it to coordinate preemptive and reactive operations with the US, inadvertently shielding terrorists. It would also deny the US the benefits from Israel’s “unauthorized actions” (e.g. the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor).
Requiring Israel to seek prior approval in countering belligerence would strain US relations with Israel. At the same time, appearing to have enabled Israel to act freely, would damage US- Arab ties.
However, as demonstrated by the precedent of the 1982/83 US episode in Lebanon, and evidenced by Mideast complexities, one can expect the relationship between the US and both sides, essential to the achievement of a genuine peace, to be undermined.
In addition, a US presence at a stormy junction bordering Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and numerous terrorist groups, could draw the US unwillingly into inter-Arab and Arab-Israel disputes. It would certainly deepen the involvement of Russia (which has resumed strategic cooperation with Syria), France (which still views Lebanon as a French auxiliary), and other powers, further exacerbating global and regional tensions.
A Washington power broker recently agreed that the question of a complete withdrawal from the Golan should be decided by Israeli voters. But the fate of US peacekeepers and their implications for US national security should be debated by the American public and the appropriate congressional committees, independent of Israel’s stance on the Golan.
Keeping in mind the American public reaction to the US military involvement in Lebanon and Somalia and recognizing the likely pitfalls of a US force on the Golan, such an undertaking would probably not be politically/militarily sustainable.
A political arrangement predicated upon such a tenuous component would ultimately imperil regional stability, threaten US interests and jeopardize the quest for long-term peace in the Middle East.
Memo: American troops on the Golan? That’s a decision for US public opinion, not Israel.
The recent scolding of United Jewish Appeal officials by top members of the Labor Party is part of what some say is a concerted effort to reduce the organized US Jewish community to its “proper” political size.
It may also reflect an attempt to undermine the credibility of the current leadership and enhance the stock of those who have always been “politically correct.”
These suspicions explain Prime Minister Rabin’s blunt reprimand of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in August 1992.
The echoes of that widely publicized rebuke – directed at one of the most respected lobbying organizations in Washington – still reverberate in the corridors of the administration, Capitol Hill and the Jewish organizations. It has seriously impaired AIPAC’s ability to advance Israel’s concerns in the US.
After 44 years of starring on the team shaping US-Israel relations, American Jewish politicos have been largely sidelined. They are hardly consulted on critical decisions which impact on ties between Jerusalem and Washington.
They are deterred from initiating new legislation and projects designed to expand cooperation between two countries. Moreover, they’ve been urged to keep a low political profile (in the bilateral context), “lest it upset the direct line of communications between the two administrations.”
Unlike the attitude emanating from Jerusalem, President Bill Clinton has held US Jewish activists in high political esteem, appointing an unprecedentedly large number of Jews to executive positions.
He is aware of their centrality in the domestic political scene, their unique role in his 1992 victory and their potential impact on the future of critical legislation (e.g, crime, health care, deficit reduction, unemployment). He is also aware of their crucial role in his effort to retain a working Democratic majority in both Houses in the 1994 election, and of their importance to his own 1996 reelection bid.
Some 60 percent of early (1992) campaign funds in Democratic congressional races was raised from Jewish sources, as was 50 percent of the financing of Harris Wofford’s 1991 senatorial campaign, which exposed George Bush’s vulnerability and became the turning point in the 1992 presidential election.
THE GULF war shed light on the role of the Jewish community, even in the shaping of US foreign policy.
Thus, it was Jewish lobbying on and off Capitol Hill – in concert with the administration – which played a key role in forging a comfortable bipartisan congressional majority for “Desert Storm.”
Jewish political involvement also contributed to the shaping of public and media support and to the moderation of antiwar protests before and during the war.
A similar effort (though narrower in scope) was launched by the Jewish community when it was drafted by president Ronald Reagan to promote his highly controversial “Star Wars” (SDI) initiative on the Hill.
On the other hand, Jewish hesitancy (resulting from conflicting signals out of Jerusalem! ) during the decisive stages of the 1991/2 campaign for loan guarantees played into the hands of president Bush and weakened the stance of Israel’s friends in Congress.
Internationally, Russia, other CIS Republics, China, East Europe, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and other countries have viewed US Jewish organizations as a preferred political target audience. In fact, they have adopted a US Jewry-driven policy toward Israel.
They assume that improved ties with Israel plays well in Jewish circles in the US, which may be willing to use their political clout in order to eliminate restrictive US policies or to extend foreign aid.
Overlooking the political significance of US Jewry can be at the expense of major Israeli interests. It defies political reality in the US, it ignores the constitutional role of lobbying and the separation of powers, which may reflect badly on Israel’s attitude toward Congress.
Reactivating the “American Jewish political player” has become vital in view of the growing vulnerability of foreign aid.
Another factor that enhances the importance of a strong American Jewish community is the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional weapons in the Middle East, continued inter-Moslem conflicts, unstable regimes and a rising tide of Islamic fanaticism and terrorism.
Finally, a politically well-connected Jewish community is indispensable in the effort to resist pressure to establish a Palestinian state, forsake the settlements, withdraw to the ’67 lines, re-divide Jerusalem and accept the legitimacy of the PLO’s “right of return.”
Any Israeli government should recognize that.
The Ettinger Report 2023 © All Rights Reserved
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
October 2, 2023
The suggestion that Israel should retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is based, partly, on the assumption that the Jewish majority is exposed to an “Arab demographic time bomb,” which would explode if Israel were to apply its law to Judea and Samaria.
However, Israel’s Jewish majority is not vulnerable to an “Arab demographic time bomb,” but benefits from demographic momentum, fertility-wise and migration-wise.
Arab demography artificially inflated
This erroneous assumption is based on the official Palestinian numbers, which are embraced and reverberated by the global community – with no due-diligence auditing – ignoring a 1.6-million-person artificial inflation of the reported number of Arabs in Judea and Samaria.
For instance:
*The official Palestinian census includes 500,000 residents, who have been away for over a year, while international standards require their elimination from the census (until they return for, at least, 90 days). This number was documented by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (325,000 in 1997), Election Commission (400,000 in 2005) and the Ministry of Interior, increasing systematically through births.
*The Palestinian census ignores the net-emigration of 390,000 since the first 1997 census, as documented by Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority, which supervises Israel’s international passages.
*375,000 Jerusalem Arabs and more than 150,000 (mostly) Judea and Samaria Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are doubly-counted (by Israel and the Palestinian Authority). This number increases systematically through births.
*A September 2006 World Bank report documented a 32% artificial inflation of the number of births. At the same time, death has been substantially underreported as evidenced by the 2007 Palestinian census, which included Arabs born in 1845….
*The aforementioned data indicates an artificial inflation of 1.6 million in the Palestinian census of Judea and Samria Arabs: 1.4 million – not 3 million – Arabs.
Arab demography Westernized
Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arab demography has been westernized dramatically in recent years, from a fertility rate of 9 births per woman west of the Jordan River during the 1960s to 2.85 births in 2021 in pre-1967 Israel and 3.02 in Judea and Samaria.
The westernization of Arab demography has been a result of sweeping urbanization. From a 70%-rural-population in Judea and Samaria in 1967, to a 77%-urban-population in 2022. In addition, almost all girls complete high school, resulting in the expanded integration of women in employment and academia, as well as an increase in wedding age (from 15 to 24-year-old). Moreover, there has been an expansion of the use of contraceptives (70% of women in the Palestinian Authority) and a shorter fertility cycle (25 through 45 in 2022 compared to 16 through 55 during the 1960s).
Demographic westernization has occurred in the entire Moslem World, other than the Sub-Saharah countries: In 2022, Jordan – 2.9 births per woman, Iran – 1.9, Saudi Arabia – 1.9, Morocco – 2.27, Iraq – 3.17, Egypt 2.76, Yemen – 2.91, the UAE – 1.62, etc.
Jewish demographic momentum
Israel’s Jewish demography features a fertility momentum – especially in the secular sector – simultaneously with a moderate decline in the ultra-orthodox sector. In fact, Jewish fertility (3.13 births per woman) is higher than any Arab country, other than Iraq’s (3.17). The OECD’s average fertility rate is 1.61 births per woman.
In 2022, the number of Jewish births (137,566) was 71% higher than in 1995 (80,400), while the number of Arab births (43,417) was 19% higher than in 1995 (36,500).
Contrary to most global societies, Israel enjoys a positive correlation between the level of fertility, on the one hand, and the level of education, income, urbanization and (the rise of) wedding age on the other hand.
The growth of Jewish fertility reflects a high level of patriotism, optimism, attachment to roots, communal responsibility, frontier mentality, high regard for raising children and the decline in the number of abortions.
The Jewish population is growing younger, while the Arab population is growing older.
Until the 1990s, there was a demographic race between Arab births and Jewish immigration. Since the 1990s, the race is between Jewish and Arab births, while net-migration provides a robust boost to Jewish demography.
The Jewish demographic momentum has been bolstered by an annual Aliyah (Jewish immigration) – which has been the most critical engine of Israel’s economic, educational, technological and military growth – simultaneously with the declining scope of annual emigration. From an additional 14,200 emigrants in 1990 to 10,800 in 2020, while the overall population has doubled itself since 1990. A substantial decline in emigration has taken place since the 2007/2008 global economic meltdown, which has underscored the relative stability and growth of Israel’s economy.
In 2023, there has been an increase in Aliyah. This highlights a potential of 500,000 Olim (Jewish immigrants) in five years – from Europe, the former USSR, Latin and North America – should the Israeli government resurrect the pro-active Aliyah policy, which defined Israel from 1948-1992.
The bottom line
In 1897, upon convening the First Zionist Congress, there was a 9% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.
In 1948, upon the establishment of the Jewish State, there was a 39% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.
In 2022, there was a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel (7.5 million Jews, 2 million Arabs in pre-1967 Israel and 1.4 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria), benefiting from a tailwind of fertility and net-migration.
Those who claim that the Jewish majority – in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel – is threatened by an Arab demographic time bomb are either dramatically mistaken, or outrageously misleading.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
October 31, 2023
The Iran-Hamas-US connection
*National Security advisor Jake Sullivan said in an October 10, 2023 White House press briefing: “Iran is complicit in this attack in a broad sense because they have provided training, they have provided capabilities, they have provided support, and they have had engagement and contact with Hamas over years and years. And all of that has played a role in contributing to what we have seen [on October 7].”
*Iran’s Ayatollahs, who have been courted and appeased by the West, are committed to bring the West – and especially “the Great American Satan” – to submission. They are the chief architects and enablers of the Israel-Hamas and Israel-Hezbollah wars, determined to escalate them into a regional pandemonium, which would undermine Western interests.
*Iran considers its military and financial support of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists – as well as many terror entities in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America – as a means to fueling instability, toppling pro-US regimes, and severely downgrading the US’ strategic posture. Therefore, Iran has been – since the 1980s – an epicenter of global, anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking and proliferation of advanced military systems. Iran’s rogue foreign and national security policy has been matched by its rogue domestic policy, which has been replete with ruthless oppression and suppression of the population, in general, and religious and ethnic minorities and especially women, in particular.
However, irrespective of this rogue policy, the US adheres to the diplomatic option, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ global posture since their ascension to power in 1979. Moreover, the US’ response to sustained Iranian attacks on US installations in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Syria has been restrained, further eroding its posture of deterrence. Furthermore, the US has lifted most sanctions against the rogue Ayatollahs and is eagerly seeking another nuclear accord with Tehran.
*The lifting of most sanctions without Congressional consent – especially on the exportation of oil and natural gas – has enabled Iran to supply Hezbollah, Hamas and additional terror organizations and drug traffickers more advanced military systems (e.g., missiles, drones, electronics and explosives) to the detriment of the US and its allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and Israel.
*”Iran’s oil exports have increased more than threefold over the past 3 years, a consequence of relaxed US sanctions enforcement…. US sanctions imposed in 2018 and 2019 severely constricted Iranian exports of crude oil. Exports fell well below 500,000 barrels per day from a pre-sanctions peak of 2.7 million barrels per day…. Even though negotiations to revive the nuclear agreement have failed, Iran’s oil exports continue to increase, as Washington opts not to enforce the sanctions. As of September 2023, Iranian exports are estimated at close to 1.5 million barrels per day or higher [at the current $90 per barrel, at least $50 billion annual income].” According to Reuters, August 31, 2023, Iran exports 3.15 million barrels per day.
Iran’s narco-Jihad against the USA
*Recently, Iran’s Ayatollahs and their Hezbollah proxy have stepped up their drug trafficking, money laundering and terror activities. They have expanded collaboration with Mexico’s drug cartels (e.g., Los Zetas and Sinaloa), training them in car bombing, and smuggling the highly addictive methamphetamine across the border to the USA. This is an extension of their Latin American narco-terror operation, which is centered in the Tri-Border areas of Argentina- Paraguay-Brazil, as well as Chile-Peru-Bolivia.
*The Ayatollahs and Hezbollah leaders have concluded that narcotic trafficking may be more effective than guns in bringing the Western “infidel” to submission.
*According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Iran and Hezbollah established close collaboration with drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil [and the Albanian Mafia], exporting cocaine to the US and Europe, and developing the most sophisticated money laundering schemes through Lebanon. They have managed to smuggle illegal immigrants from the Middle East into the USA, bolstering their terroristic and drug trafficking infrastructure in the USA.
*Venezuela has been an effective gateway for Iran into South, Central and North America, issuing false passports to Iranian and Hezbollah terror and drug trafficking operatives. It has also provided Iran with a business and military foothold close to the shores of “the Great American Satan.” The heavy traffic of IranAir planes between Iran and Venezuela has not been limited to innocent passengers…
Iran’s fanatic vision transcends Israel
*According to Dr. Yaron Friedman, a Haifa University expert on Islam and the Middle East, the driving force of Iran’s Ayatollahs is a 1,400-year-old vision, which transcends economic and diplomatic benefits and is not centered on Israel, but on the world at large, with a focus on the “infidel” West.
*The root of the Ayatollahs’ vision is the 680 AD Battle of Karbala – a supreme Islamic milestone – which featured the murder of Hussein bin Ali, the grandson of Muhammed and the third Shiite Imam, by Yazid, the Sunni Caliph. For Shiite Islam – as it is in the Middle East which cherishes history and memory – it has been a living memory, commemorated annually during Ashura processions, by Shiite communities in the Middle East, Europe and the USA, with bare-chested men flagellating their bleeding backs and chests.
*The Battle of Karbala has become a permanent call for Shiite martyrdom, sacrifice and revenge, leading to an intrinsic Sunni-Shiite conflict, religiously and militarily, which is still a major force of breeding turbulence among Muslims. The Sunni majority is convinced that the Shiite minority is trying to rule Islam and revenge the 680 AD betrayal, as almost happened from the mid-10th century to the mid-11th century, and during the 16th century, when Iran accepted Shiite Islam and became a major power.
*Since February 1979, when the Ayatollahs (assisted by the US) ascended to power in Tehran, Iran has been preoccupied with the global exportation of the Karbala-driven Islamic Shiite Revolution, aiming to topple every “apostate” (Sunni), “modern-day Yazid” regime, and bring the “infidel” West, and especially “the Great American Satan” to submission, unconditionally, peacefully, or militarily.
*The nature of Iran’s fanatic, religious, megalomaniacal, apocalyptic vision – and the 43-year-old rogue track record of the Ayatollahs – reveal that the Ayatollahs are not amenable to good faith negotiation, peaceful-coexistence, nor exchanging their 1,400-year-old vision for a financial/diplomatic bonanza.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 15, 2023, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/377022
*The platform of an Israel-Saudi accord is the volcanic, violent and unpredictably tenuous Middle East, not Western Europe or No. America;
*Saudi Arabia is driven by Saudi – not Palestinian – interests;
*Unlike the State Department, Saudi Arabia accords much weight to the rogue Palestinian track record in the intra-Arab arena, and therefore limits its support of the proposed Palestinian state to (mostly) talk, not to walk; *An accord with Saudi Arabia – in the shifty, tenuous Middle East – is not a major component of Israel’s national security. On the other hand, Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria is a prerequisite for Israel’s survival in the inherently turbulent, intolerantly violent Middle East, which features tenuous regimes, and therefore tenuous policies and accords.
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).”
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
November 29, 2023
More on Jewish holidays: Smashwords, Amazon
1. According to Israel’s Founding Father, David Ben Gurion: Chanukah commemorates “the struggle of the Maccabees, which was one of the most dramatic clashes of civilizations in human history, not merely a political-military struggle against foreign oppression…. Unlike many peoples, the meager Jewish people did not assimilate. The Jewish people prevailed, won, sustained and enhanced their independence and unique civilization…. It was the spirit of the people, rather than the failed spirit of the establishment, which enabled the Hasmoneans to overcome one of the most magnificent spiritual, political and military challenges in Jewish history….” (Uniqueness and Destiny, pp 20-22, David Ben Gurion, IDF Publishing, 1953).
2. A Jewish national liberation holiday. Chanukah (evening of December 7 – December 15, 2023) is the only Jewish holiday that commemorates an ancient national liberation struggle in the Land of Israel, unlike the national liberation holidays, Passover, Sukkot/Tabernacles and Shavu’ot/Pentecost, which commemorate the liberation from slavery in Egypt to independence in the land of Israel, and unlike Purim, which commemorates liberation from a Persian attempt to annihilate the Jewish people.
3. Chanukah and the Land of Israel. When ordered by Emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid region to end the Jewish “occupation” of Jerusalem, Jaffa, Gaza, Gezer and Akron, Shimon the Maccabee responded: “We have not occupied a foreign land…. We have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation (Book of Maccabees A: 15:33).”
Chanukah highlights the centrality of the Land of Israel in the formation of Jewish history, religion, culture and language. The mountain ridges of Judea and Southern Samaria (the West Bank) were the platform for the Maccabean military battles: Mitzpah (the burial site of the Prophet Samuel, overlooking Jerusalem), Beth El (the site of the Ark of the Covenant and Judah the Maccabee’s initial headquarters), Beth Horon (Judah’s victory over Seron), Hadashah (Judah’s victory over Nicanor), Beth Zur (Judah’s victory over Lysias), Ma’aleh Levona (Judah’s victory over Apolonius), Adora’yim (a Maccabean fortress), Eleazar (named after Mattityahu’s youngest Maccabee son), Beit Zachariya (Judah’s first defeat), Ba’al Hatzor (where Judah was defeated and killed), Te’qoah, Mikhmash and Gophnah (bases of Shimon and Yonatan), the Judean Desert, etc.
4. Historical context Chanukah is narrated in the four Books of the Maccabees, The Scroll of Antiochus and The Wars of the Jews.
In 323 BCE, following the death of Alexander the Great (Alexander III) who held Judaism in high esteem, the Greek Empire was split into three independent and rival mini-empires: Greece, Seleucid/Syria and Ptolemaic/Egypt.
In 175 BCE, the Seleucid/Syrian Emperor Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes claimed the Land of Israel. He suspected that the Jews were allies of his Ptolemaic/Egyptian enemy. The Seleucid emperor was known for eccentric behavior, hence his name, Epiphanes, which means “divine manifestation.” He aimed to exterminate Judaism and convert Jews to Hellenism. In 169 BCE, he devastated Jerusalem, attempting to decimate the Jewish population, and outlaw the practice of Judaism.
In 166/7 BCE, a Jewish rebellion was led by the non-establishment Hasmonean (Maccabee) family from the rural town of Modi’in, half-way between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean. The rebellion was headed by Mattityahu, the priest, and his five sons, Yochanan, Judah, Shimon, Yonatan and Eleazar, who fought the Seleucid occupier and restored Jewish independence. The Hasmonean dynasty was replete with external and internal wars and lasted until 37 BCE, when Herod the Great (a proxy of Rome) defeated Antigonus II Mattathias.
5. The reputation of Jews as superb warriors was reaffirmed by the success of the Maccabees on the battlefield. In fact, they were frequently hired as mercenaries by Egypt, Syria, Carthage, Rome and other global and regional powers.
6. The significance of Chanukah. Chanukah celebrates the Maccabean-led national liberation by conducting in-house family education and lighting candles for 8 days in commemoration of the re-inauguration of Jerusalem’s Jewish Temple and its Menorah (candelabra).
The Hebrew words Chanukah (חנוכה), inauguration (חנוכ) and education ((חנוך possess the same root.
7. As was prophesized by the Prophet Hagai in 520 BCE, the re-inauguration of the Temple took place on the 25th day of the Jewish month of Kislev, which is the month of miracles, such as the post-flood appearance of Noah’s rainbow, the completion of the construction of the Holy Ark by Moses, the laying of the foundations of the Second Temple by Nehemiah, etc.
In 1777, Chanukah candles were lit during the most critical battle at Valley Forge, which solidified the victory of George Washington’s Continental Army over the British monarchy.
The 25th Hebrew word in Genesis is “light,” and the 25th stop during the Exodus was Hashmona (the same Hebrew spelling as Hasmonean-Maccabees).
The first day of Chanukah is celebrated when daylight hours are equal to darkness hours – and when moonlight is hardly noticed – ushering in brighter days.
8. Chanukah highlights the defeat of darkness, disbelief, forgetfulness and pessimism by the spirit of light, faith, commemoration and optimism over.
A new 8-minute-video: YouTube, Facebook
Synopsis:
*Israel’s control of the topographically-dominant mountain ridges of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria has enhanced Israel’s posture of deterrence, constraining regional violence, transforming Israel into a unique force-multiplier for the US.
*Top Jordanian military officers warned that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, transforming Jordan into a non-controllable terrorist heaven, generating an anti-US domino scenario in the Arabian Peninsula.
*Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria has eliminated much of the threat (to Jordan) of Judea and Samaria-based Palestinian terrorism.
*Israel’s posture of deterrence emboldens Jordan in the face of domestic and regional threats, sparing the US the need to deploy its own troops, in order to avoid an economic and national security setback.
*The proposed Palestinian state would become the Palestinian straw that would break the pro-US Hashemite back.
*The Palestinian track record of the last 100 years suggests that the proposed Palestinian state would be a rogue entity, adding fuel to the Middle East fire, undermining US interests.
