The Arena, Abba Eban Institute, IDC, November 1, 2018, https://bit.ly/2JvJbth
https://bit.ly/2rgyMMh

Trump: a coattail – or an anchor chained – President?

The November 2018 mid-term election will determine the future maneuverability of President Trump, and will shape the dominant worldview of the strongest legislature in the world, which is co-determining and co-equal to the executive branch, and Israel’s systematic and most effective ally in face of pressure by all US Presidents from Truman through Obama.

The coming mid-term election will be – once again – a referendum on the popularity of a sitting President: 49% approval rating (50% disapproval) of President Trump, according to a November 1 Rasmussen Reports; 40% (54% disapproval) according to an October 28 Gallup poll; 43.9% (53% disapproval) according to an October 31 RealClear Politics.

Will Trump be a coattail-President elevating the Republican party to mid-term election gains in the House and Senate, as has happened on rare occasions, such as the 1934 election (President Roosevelt), 1998 (President Clinton) and 2002 (President G.W. Bush)?

Or, will Trump be an anchor-chained President pulling the Republican party down to significant losses – and even to minority status in one/both Chambers – as has usually been the case: President Obama (2014 and 2010), President G.W. Bush (2006), President Clinton (1994), President G.H. Bush (1990), President Reagan (1986 and 1982), President Carter (1978), President Ford/Nixon (1974), etc.?

Since 1950, a sitting President’s party has lost an average of 24 House seats in the mid-term election, which is the minimum required for a Democratic House majority in 2019.  The current balance is: 241 Republicans and 194 Democrats.

The Senate hurdle – facing the Democrats – is much higher, since the 35 Senate seats up for the coming November election consist of 9 Republicans and 26 Democrats, 10 of whom are in states won by President Trump in 2016 (only 1 Republican incumbent from a state won by Hilary Clinton in 2016), and 13 Democratic incumbents from states with a republican governor (no Republican incumbent from a state governed by a Democrat).

While sustaining the Republican majority in the House and Senate would maintain President Trump’s relative-freedom of operation, a loss of one/two Chambers would tie his hands internally and globally, commercially and militarily, due to the power of the US Legislature, which was deemed by the Founding Fathers as the “secret weapon” against a potential tyranny of the Executive.

The centrality of the US constituent and Congress

The unique power of the US Legislature – compared to all other democracies – was crafted by the 1789 US Constitution, which enshrined the concept of liberty (impacted by the Biblical concept of Jubilee, as inscribed on the Liberty Bell), by ensuring the co-equal, co-determining and independent status of the Legislature, as defined by the first article of the Constitution.

At the same time, the Constitution limits the power of the President, who – unlike other Western democracies – is not a super legislator, does not determine the legislative agenda, nor the identity of the legislators and the leaderships of the House and Senate, committees and subcommittees.

The natural ultra-ambition of the Executive branch is neutralized (in the US) by a complete separation of power among the co-equal and co-determining Legislature, Executive and Judiciary; an elaborate system of checks and balances; endowing the Legislature with the Power of the Purse and Oversight of the Executive; and the co-existence of the Federal government side-by-side with the governments of the 50 States. This transforms the American voters into the strongest constituents in the globe, directly determining the fate of their legislators, and the level of Presidential maneuverability, every two years.

Therefore, legislators are loyal, first and foremost, to their constituents, lest they follow in the footsteps of Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley (defeated in the 1994 general election) and Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (defeated in the 2014 primaries), who were substantially more engaged with national party issues, than with the concerns of their district constituents. In fact, the clout of constituents – who opposed the increase of imports – caused 2/3 and over 1/2 of the Democratic House Representatives to vote against Democratic President Clinton’s Free Trade Agreements with China (in 2000) and Canada (in 1993) respectively.

The US Constitution provides Congress with the power to limit, amend, suspend, rescind, fund/defund and investigate Presidential policies, establish and abolish government agencies (e.g., in 1947 and 2001, Congress established the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security respectively), initiate and terminate the development of military systems, confirm/reject appointments to top government positions, ratify/reject international treaties, covenants and agreements, impose/remove sanctions on foreign countries, etc.

Amending the US Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both Chambers in addition to 3/4 of the Legislatures of the 50 States – a majority which is extremely difficult to assemble, and therefore only 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been approved so far.

Legislators prefer to focus on district and state issues – which preoccupy their constituents – rather than national security and foreign policy issues, which attract the attention of a slim percentage of the constituency.  However, the Legislature can flex its awesome muscle and severely limit or overrule a President – on domestic, national security and foreign policy issue – when a President acts like a monarch, ignores the Legislature, implements a significantly failed policy, or departs sharply from the worldview of US voters.

Globalization has expanded the number of congressional districts, which depend on foreign trade and the global arena, hence the substantially expanded number of legislators involved in international-oriented legislations.

Limiting the Commander-in-Chief

While the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) refers to the President as the Commander-in-Chief, his maneuverability can be heavily constrained by Congress.

For example, in 1974, Congress legislated – in defiance of the Administration – the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which facilitated the Aliyah (immigration) of one million Soviet Jews to Israel.  In 1964, Congress passed the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” which authorized President Johnson to launch the military involvement in Vietnam, but in 1973 – in defiance of President Nixon – the Church-Case Amendment terminated the US military involvement in Southeast Asia, as did the Clark Amendment (1976) and the Boland Amendment (1984) – in defiance Presidents Ford and Reagan respectively – to the US military involvement in Angola and Nicaragua, respectively. In 1986, Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto of the Comprehensive Apartheid Act, which paved the road to ending South Africa’s Apartheid regime. In 1999, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. The 2012 Defense budget included Congressional sanctions, which halved Iran’s oil export, contrary to President Obama’s policy. In 2012, in opposition to President Obama’s stance – Congress reduced foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt by $450MN. In 2015, the Senate refused to ratify the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA), thus enabling President Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. In 2017/2018, Congress enacted the Russian Sanctions Bill, notwithstanding President Trump’s opposition.

Congress and Israel

Being the most authentic representative of the US constituency, both Congressional chambers reflect the special attitude by the American people toward the Jewish State since the 17^th century’s Early Pilgrims. According to the 2018 annual Gallup poll of country-favorability, Israel benefits from a 74% favorability (71% in 2017).  Israel is perceived as a special ally, morally and strategically, in a region with is vital to the US economy, national and homeland security.

For instance, in 1891 – six years before the First Zionist Congress – 431 top US personalities, including the Chief Justice, the House Speaker, additional Congressional leaders, Governors, Mayors and businessmen, signed the (William) Blackstone Memorial, calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel. In 1947/48, the State Department, Pentagon and CIA, along with the NY Times – in contradiction to public opinion and Congress – lobbied brutally against the establishment of the Jewish State. In 1957, leaders of the US Senate and House (led by then Senate Majority Leader LBJ) forced President Eisenhower to retreat from imposing sanctions on Israel (in an attempt to force an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza), but they were “outflanked” by Israel’s full withdrawal…. During 1990-1992, Congress (led by the late Senator Daniel Inouye – D-HI) expanded US-Israel strategic cooperation unprecedentedly, notwithstanding the systematic, aggressive opposition by President G.H. Bush and Secretary of State Jim Baker. In 2014, Congress thwarted President Obama’s attempt – during the Protective Edge war in Gaza – to withhold $225MN, which were committed to Israel’s acquisition of Iron Dome’s missiles.

The 400 year old roots of the special American attitude toward the Jewish State; the track record of Israel as a uniquely unconditional, reliable, effective ally, militarily, economically, scientifically and morally; as well as Israel’s role/potential in face of the mounting challenges and threats to the US and the Free World, provide for the sustained Congressional support of enhanced US-Israel strategic cooperation, in spite of the retirement of a relatively-large number of pro-Israel legislators, and the expected election of a few potentially-hostile new legislators.

The US public, in general, and the 2019 incoming Congress, in particular, will approach Israel, by and large, in accordance with Israel’s proven and potential contribution – to the US – in facing the threats of the anti-US Iran’s Ayatollahs; Sunni and Shite terrorism (from the Middle East to Latin America); and the need to bolster the pro-US Arab regimes, which have the Ayatollahs’ machete at their throats.

The incoming Congress will become, increasingly, aware of Israel’s proven capabilities (already benefitting the US and the pro-US Arab regimes) in the areas of intelligence, counter-terrorism, conventional warfare, counter-Cyber warfare, upgrading and developing military systems, groundbreaking hi-tech innovations, irrigation, agriculture, etc.

The November 2018 midterm election will produce the 116^th Congress, which will determine the domestic and international maneuverability of President Trump, including US-Israel relations, which have been transformed from a one-way street to a mutually-beneficial, two-way street relations, increasingly benefitting the US militarily and economically.

The Jewish Political Studies Review, Volume 29, Numbers 3-4, September 2018
https://bit.ly/2MJkHN4

Demographic reality defies conventional wisdom  

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Jewish State is not facing an Arab demographic time bomb; but, benefits from a robust Jewish demographic tailwind of births and net-immigration.

For example, between 1995 and 2017, the number of Israeli Jewish births surged by 74%, from 80,400 to 140,000, while the number of Israeli Arab births grew by 19% during the same period – from 36,000 to 43,000 births.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, the trend of Israeli emigration has slowed down.  Thus, the number of Israelis staying abroad for over a year was expanded by 6,300 in 2016 (the lowest in ten years – a derivative of the growth of Israel’s economy), compared to 8,200 in 2015 and 14,200 additional emigrants in 1990. At the same time, Israel’s population surged from 4.8 million in 1990 to 8.8 million in 2018.

Since the end of the 19^th century, the Jewish-Arab demographic balance has systematically defied the demographic establishment’s assessments and projections.

For instance, in March 1898, Shimon Dubnov, a leading Jewish historian and demographer, projected 500,000 Jews in the Land of Israel by 1998, defining Theodore Herzl’s Zionist vision as “a messianic wishful thinking.”  However, Herzl was the ultimate realist and Dubnov was off by 5.5 million Jews!

In October 1944, the founder of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS), and the luminary of Israel’s demographic and statistical establishment, Prof. Roberto Bachi, projected 2.3 million Jews in Israel in 2001, a 34% minority. Bachi’s projection reflected the demographic establishment’s underwhelming assessment of Jewish fertility and immigration (Aliyah) and the overwhelming assessment of Arab fertility. In 2018, there are seven million Jews in Israel, a 65.5% majority in the combined area of pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), enjoying an effective demographic tailwind.

During the 1980s, the ICBS sustained its traditional, minimalist assessment of Aliyah, dismissing the potential of an Aliyah wave from the USSR. But, in defiance of the demographic and statistical establishments – and due to a most assertive, pro-active Aliyah policy by Prime Ministers Ben Gurion, Eshkol, Meir, Begin and Shamir – one million Soviet Jews immigrated to Israel.

In 2000, consistent with demographic political correctness, the ICBS projected a gradual decline of Jewish fertility rate from 2.6 births per woman to 2.4 in 2025.  However, by 2017, the Jewish fertility rate was bolstered to 3.16 births per woman and 76.5% of all Israeli births were Jewish, compared to 69% in 1995.

The Westernization of Arab demography

In 1969, Israel’s Arab fertility rate (nine births per woman) was six births higher than Israel’s Jewish fertility rate. However, that gap was erased by 2015 (3.11 births each), and in 2016/17 the Jewish fertility rate was higher than the Arab rate (3.16 births per woman and 3.3 when both Jewish spouses were Israeli-born). Moreover, the Arab fertility rate in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is 3 births per woman, compared to 5 in 2000.   In fact, in 2018, Israel’s Jewish fertility rate is equal to Jordan’s, while exceeding the fertility rates in all Arab countries other than Yemen, Iraq and Egypt.

The rise of Jewish fertility reflects the enhanced optimism, patriotism, attachment to roots, communal responsibility and a substantial decline in the number of abortions. Furthermore, while conventional wisdom assumes that the surge of Israel’s Jewish fertility rate was triggered by the Ultra-Orthodox community, reality documents a moderate decline of the Ultra-Orthodox fertility rate (due to the growing integration in the job-market and academia) – while a substantial increase of the fertility rate has been demonstrated by Israel’s secular sector, which is the largest sector of the population.

At the same time, the Westernization of Arab fertility (in Israel, Judea and Samaria and throughout the Middle East) is a derivative of the following phenomena:

*Intense urbanization has transformed the 70% rural Arab population in Judea and Samaria in 1967 to a 75% urban population in 2018;

*Most Arab women in Israel, Judea and Samaria have pursued dramatically enhanced education, increasingly completing high school and pursuing higher education;

*Rather than getting married at the age of 15 and beginning reproduction at 16 – as did their mothers and grandmothers – contemporary Arab women tend to delay and shorten that process;

*Arab women have improved their social status, seeking to advance their own careers, thus ending their reproductive period at the age of 45, rather than 55, resulting in less births;

*Rapidly declining teen-pregnancy;

*Rapidly expanding family-planning;

*Youthful male emigration, among Judea and Samaria Arabs, has widened the gap between the number of Arab males and females there;

*Arab women in Israel, Judea and Samaria, just like Arab women throughout the Arab World have substantially expanded the use of contraceptives.

According to a June, 2012 study by the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau (PRB), 72% of 15-49 year old Palestinian married women prefer to avoid pregnancy, trailing Morocco (78%), ahead of Jordan (71%) and Egypt (69%).  A growing number are using contraception, as family planning services have expanded in the Arab region.

Auditing, rather than echoing, the official Palestinian data

In contrast to the Israeli and global demographic establishment, this essay audits – rather than reverberate/amplify – the official data of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). The essay examines the records of the PCBS against the data published by the Palestinian Departments of Health, Education and Interior, the Palestinian Election Commission, The World Bank, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s Authority of International Passages, etc.

Unlike the demographic establishment, this essay does not indulge in projections, which are subjective by definition, impacted by a litany of unpredictable domestic and international social, economic and geo-political factors. Instead, this essay focuses only on well-documented and verifiable birth, death and migration data.

Since 2004, “The America-Israel Demographic Research Group” – consisting of three Americans and six Israelis, including this writer – has documented significant inaccuracies and misrepresentations by the PCBS, totaling over one million Arabs in Judea and Samaria and about half a million in Gaza.  For instance:

1. On February 26, 1998, upon completing the first Palestinian census, the Head of the PCBS, Hasan Abu-Libdeh, stated at a press conference: “We counted 325,000 persons living outside the Palestinian lands for more than one year.” The inclusion of such a contingency in a census is prohibited by international standards, until – and if – the overseas residents return for, at least, 90 days. Furthermore, such a contingency expands systematically through births (which exceed deaths). This malpractice was confirmed by the 1998 website of the PCBS: “The de-facto approach was adopted with some exceptions: All Palestinians studying abroad irrespective of the study period…. Palestinians who live abroad for more than one year, and who have a usual place of residence in the Palestinian territories….”

It was further reaffirmed on October 14 2004, when the Palestinian Election Commission stated that 200,000 overseas residents – over the age of 18 – were on the roster of eligible voters. Since in October 2004, 18 was the median age, the number of overseas residents, included in the census, expanded to 400,000 persons. On October29, 2014, the Palestinian Undersecretary of the Interior, Hassan Ilwi, told the Ma’an News Agency: “Since 1995, we have registered about 100,000 children born abroad.”

2. A double-count of the 330,000 Jerusalem Arabs (whose number expands systematically due to births) has taken place since the 1997 Palestinian census, because they are included in the official count of both Israeli and the the Palestinian Authority.
3. Over 100,000 Arabs (mostly from Judea and Samaria) have been doubly-counted – by Israel and the Palestinian Authority – as a result of marrying Israeli Arabs, which accorded them an Israeli status (permanent residents or citizens). This contingency is, also, growing due to births.
4. A 32% inflated number of births was documented by a September 7, 2006 study by The World Bank.
5. Deaths have been under-reported as evidenced by the 2007 census, which included Arabs born in 1845…. Moreover, in 2009, the PCBS reported 1,900 deaths in Gaza, while claiming that 1,391 Arabs were killed during Operation Cast Lead…. A June 10, 1993 study by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (which stopped auditing the Palestinian numbers in 1996) echoed studies conducted during the Ottoman and British rule of the area, indicating: “If the Palestinian population registration is accurate, then Palestinian life expectancy is higher than life expectancy in the USA….”
6. A 280,000 net-emigration has been documented, since the 1997 Palestinian census, by Israel’s International Passages Authority, which controls all land, air and sea passages to/from Israel, Judea and Samaria (and Gaza until the “disengagement” of 2005), while the PCBS claims zero net-migration…. The 1950-1967 documentation by Jordan and Egypt reveals that net-emigration has been systematic in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, except for the 1993-95 Oslo-driven importation, by Israel, of some 100,000 Palestinians from terrorist camps in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, the Sudan and Lebanon. In recent years, the scope of net-emigration from Judea and Samaria has been 20,000 annually.

According to a 1946 document, compiled by Israel Trivus and submitted by David Ben Gurion to “The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry” (“No Arab majority in the Land of Israel“), should one accept the official British Mandate Statistics – which echoed the Arab numbers with no scrutiny (as is the current practice) – then Arab natural increase in the Land of Israel is the highest in human history, dramatically higher than customary in the Arab World.

The 2018 demographic reality

Contrary to political correctness, which has embraced demographic fatalism – repeatedly frustrated by reality – this essay has embraced due-diligence, documenting the reality of Jewish demographic momentum.

In 2018 – irrespective of the international norm to regurgitate official demographic numbers without due diligence – there are 1.85 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria (not 3 million as claimed by the PCBS), 1.6 million Israeli Muslim Arabs, 130,000 Israeli Druze, 130,000 Israeli Christian Arabs and seven million Jews – a 65.5% Jewish majority in the combined area of pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria, compared with a 9% Jewish minority in 1900 and a 39% minority in 1947.  While Arab demography has experienced powerful Westernization, Jewish demography has benefitted from a robust demographic tailwind of fertility and an annual net-immigration of 25,000-30,000 in recent years.

The latter has been the most critical engine of growth of the Jewish State, representing a core value of the Zionist idea: the Ingathering (Aliyah) to the Homeland. In 2018, there is a unique window of opportunity for another wave of Aliyah from France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Britain, additional European countries, Argentina, the USA, etc.  Such a wave would follow the waves, which have enriched the Jewish State, every 20 years, since 1882, provided that Jerusalem revives the pro-active Aliyah policy, which was implemented by all Prime Ministers until 1992, but replaced by a pro-active absorption policy since 1992.

In 2018, Israel is the only Western democracy and advanced economy, endowed with a relatively-high rate of fertility, which facilitates the sustained growth of the economy, as well as a potential expansion of the military ranks – if necessary – while boosting the level of national optimism.

Against the backdrop of the aforementioned demographic documentation, the suggestion that the Jewish State is facing an Arab demographic time bomb, is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading.  Or both….

BREAKING DEFENSE the online defense magazine,  https://bit.ly/2xrfwfI

Israel faces increasingly tight restrictions on its Foreign Military Financing (FMF) from the U.S., as Breaking Defense readers know. In the past, when the US provided Israeli with grants under the FMF program, Israel could convert 25 percent of the aid from dollars into shekels to buy Israeli products and support local R&D. The new 10-year FMF agreement signed in 2017 decrees that that will gradually drop to zero. In this commentary, former minister for congressional affairs at Israel’s Embassy here, Yoram Ettinger, argues that America gets a great deal in return for the aid and assistance it provides Israel. Read on! The Editor.

General Omar Bradley, the first Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, said in July, 1950, in the aftermath of Israel’s War of Independence: “The Israeli army would be the most effective force south of Turkey, which could be utilized for delaying action [extending the strategic hand of the USA]….” General Bradley’s assessment was rejected by the State Department and the Pentagon, which opposed the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State, contending that it would be decimated by the Arabs, a burden upon the US and probably an ally of the USSR.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan wrote in the Washington Post, on August 15, 1979: “The fall of [the Shah of] Iran has increased Israel’s value as perhaps the only remaining strategic asset in the region, on which the US can only rely….Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow’s designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national wellbeing…. Israel is not a client but a very reliable friend…. American policy-makers downgrade Israel’s geopolitical importance as a stabilizing force, as a deterrent to radical hegemony and as military offset to the Soviet Union….”

In 2018, General Bradley’s and President Reagan’s assessments are vindicated, as the pro-US Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman, as well as Jordan and Egypt, seek further strategic ties with Israel.  They view Israel as a most effective ally in the face of lethal threats posed by the anti-US Ayatollahs, ISIS and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, irrespective of the unresolved Palestinian issue – which they never considered a crown jewel – and their fundamental reservations about the existence of an “infidel” Jewish State in “the abode of Islam.”

In 2018, Russia lends credence to General Bradley and President Reagan, recognizing Israel’s enhanced strategic posture, accepting Israel’s military operations against the rogue Ayatollahs and Hezbollah terrorists in Syria, which has been a Moscow satellite since the late 1960s.

Moscow recognizes the impact of the Israel’s posture of deterrence on the Washington-Moscow balance of power: the 1967 Six Day War terminated the lethal offensive by pro-USSR Egypt against Saudi Arabia and other pro-US oil-rich Arab countries; a 1970 Israeli military mobilization forced the rollback of the pro-Soviet Syrian invasion of the pro-US Jordan; the 1967 and 1973 Israeli military victories over Soviet-armed Egypt and Syria provided the US military with a rare study of Soviet military systems and Soviet battle tactics; the June 1982 (first ever!) destruction of 29 of the most advanced Soviet surface-to-air missile batteries and the downing of 83 Soviet MIGs employed by Syria, and sharing with the US innovative battle tactics and technology; the 1981 and 2007 Israeli destruction of the nuclear reactors in pro-Soviet Iraq and Syria, which spared the US a nuclear confrontation in 1991 and a much more traumatic Middle East; etc..

70 years since the reestablishment of the Jewish State, notwithstanding the minute size of its population and area, the Jewish State has emerged as a uniquely stable, democratic, reliable, creative and effective ally of the US in the Middle East and beyond, commercially, militarily, scientifically and technologically.

The potential of Israel’s strategic contribution to US military and commercial interests has been bolstered by the Israeli experience and state of mind, which are top heavy on patriotism, attachment to roots, collective responsibility, ingenuity and defiance of the jugged cutting edge of nature, militarily and commercially.

The transformation of US-Israel relations from a one-way-street to a mutually-beneficial two-way-street, has occurred despite the tactical, short-term US-Israel disagreements over the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. The significant compatibility between the strategic, long-term regional and global challenges and threats facing both nations has transcended such disagreements.

In 2018, the US-Israel strategic compatibility is underlined by their national security orientation, allocating 3.6% and 4.7% of their budget, respectively, to defense, which is much more than any European country: Britain 2.1%, France 1.8%, Germany 1.1% and Italy 1.1%, etc..

Moreover, in 2018, Israel’s Air Force features the US-developed and manufactured F-35 stealth combat plane, serving as a battle-tested laboratory for the US Air Force and manufacturer (Lockheed Martin), as it has been for the manufacturers of the F-15, F-16, missiles and missile launchers, tanks, armed personnel carriers and hundreds of additional US military systems. Israel has shared with the US lessons learned by Israeli pilots, who fly under a do-or-die state of mind, which has stretched the performance of the US-made aircraft beyond conventional standards.  Such lessons have enhanced the capabilities of the US Air Force and the quality of the next generation of the F-35, saving the manufacturer many years of research and development, enhancing the US competitiveness in the global market, increasing US exports and expanding US employment. In other words, the annual transfer of $3.8BN to Israel (which funds the acquisition of US military systems) is not “foreign aid” to – but a highly profitable investment in – Israel.

In 2018, in response to growing sophisticated online and offline threats posed by Arab/Islamic countries and beyond, Israel has become a leading developer/producer in the area of cyber-technology, second only to – and in close collaboration with – the US. Israel is the site of 15%-20% of the global venture capital raised by cybersecurity companies, aiming to defend critical infrastructures, while preempting rogue regimes. On January 30, 2018, General David Petraeus, former CIA Director, stated: “the [US-Israel] collaboration reaches new heights, far beyond what is being published in the media…. Our cooperation has harmed significantly Iran’s nuclear program….”

In 2018, Israel is the chief source of intelligence (for the US) on the volatile, tectonic Middle East (and beyond), which has been a highly-complex platform of global terrorism, inherent instability, unpredictability, tyranny, domestic and regional intra-Arab/Islamic violence and intolerance, tenuous and shifty regimes, and consequently tenuous and shifty policies and agreements.

In fact, the nature of the Middle East highlights Israel’s unique qualities as a systematic, democratic, effective, strategic ally of the US, whether led by right or left of center coalition governments.  The nature of the Middle East was demonstrated by the violent toppling of a series of pro-US Arab/Islamic regimes by anti-US elements.  For example, the 1952 toppling of Egypt’s King Farouk; the 1958 toppling of Iraq’s King Faisal; the 1969 toppling of Libya’s King Idris (Wheelus Air Base, in Libya, was the largest US military facility outside the US); the 1979 toppling of Iran’s Shah; the 2011 toppling of Egypt’s Mubarak; the 2014-15 toppling of Yemen’s Hadi; and it is not over yet….

The reference to Israel, as “the largest US aircraft carrier, deployed in a most critical region, with no Americans on board” – made by a former Supreme Commander of NATO and Secretary of State, the late General Alexander Haig – reverberates an assessment made in 1923 by the British Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, a top intelligence officer in the western region of the Middle East: “I’ve always considered the Land of Israel to be the key to the defense of the Middle East…. When a Jewish State will be established, Britain shall benefit from air force, naval and land bases…as well as Jewish fighting capabilities…which will secure its long-term regional interests…. Unlike the Arabs, Jews are reliable and do comply with agreements…. The British policy in the Middle East bets on the wrong horse, when appeasing the Arabs….”

Will President Trump adhere to – or ignore – past experience?

Will President Trump defy the State Department’s and “elite” media’s traditional quid-pro-quo (and self-defeating, artificial connection) between the enhancement of the mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation, on the one hand, and Israeli retreats from critical terrain, which would exacerbate regional instability, intensify threats to pro-US Arab regimes and undermine US national and homeland security?

Will President Trump continue to expand US-Israel strategic cooperation, by focusing on the wider strategic context of the Middle East, or will he follow in the failed footsteps of Europe, which has largely sacrificed Middle East geo-strategic reality on the altar of oversimplification, quick-solution state-of-mind, appeasement and the misperceived role of the Palestinian issue?!

More data on US benefits: https://bit.ly/2A95lic,  https://bit.ly/2GGecaB,

“Israel Hayom”

All US (Israel-Arab) peace initiatives, initiated by Democratic and Republican Presidents, aimed at advancing the cause of peace, while enhancing the US strategic stature. However, all failed on both accounts.

The well-intentioned US peace initiatives were doomed to failure by the tendency to downplay the complex intra-Arab/Muslim Middle East reality, since they conflicted with the eagerness to advance peace ASAP, wishful-thinking and oversimplification.

US peace initiatives were the casualties of the inherent conflict between Western eagerness for quick-fix and short-term convenience, on the one hand, and the long-term and complicated nature of the intricate reality and national security, on the other hand.

US peace initiatives were frustrated by the tectonic forces which have shaped the well-documented intra-Arab/Muslim labyrinth since the birth of Islam in the 7^th century: explosive unpredictability, violence, intolerance (religiously, ethnically, politically and socially), absence of peaceful-coexistence domestically and regionally, minority/rogue regimes, disregard of civil liberties, brutal domestic fragmentation (tribally, ideologically and religiously) and the tenuous/provisional nature of regimes, policies and agreements.

Moreover, the US peace initiatives were further derailed by the politically-correct assumptions that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been “The Middle East Conflict” and that the Palestinian issue has been the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a core-cause of Middle East turbulence and a crown-jewel of Arab policy-making.

Such assumptions have been dashed against the rocks of Middle East reality, as highlighted by the 2010 eruption of the still-raging Arab Tsunami (erroneously named “the Arab Spring”), which has been totally unrelated to the dramatically less significant Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue.

Furthermore, the preoccupation with the Palestinian issue – at a time when the Middle East and the US are confronted with significantly more pivotal national and homeland security challenges/threats – has damaged the US posture of deterrence and its regional and global standing.

All US peace initiatives attempted to force Israel into making major concessions to the Arab/Palestinian side, thus rewarding systematic Arab aggression, which encouraged further aggression. These initiatives exhibited the self-defeating moral equivalence between (Arab) aggressors and the intended (Israeli) victim; between the most effective, unconditional strategic ally of the US (Israel), and a close ally of enemies and rivals of the US, such as Nazi Germany, the USSR, the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela (the Palestinians); and between the role model of counter-terrorism (Israel) and a role model and a major training ground of anti-US terrorists and a shrine of hate-education (the Palestinians).

The subversive and terroristic track record of the Palestinians, and their closest allies, sheds light on the inherent contradiction between the need to minimize Middle East instability and violence, on the one hand, and the attempt to establish a Palestinian state, on the other hand.

US peace initiatives have forced the Palestinians, in particular, and the Arabs, in general, to outflank the (“infidel”) US from the maximalist/radical side, thus further intensifying conflict and disagreements.

Contrary to the well-meant goal of the US peace initiatives, this added fuel – not water – to the fire, exacerbated instability and undermined US diplomatic and geo-strategic posture and interests. One may note that in spite of the US presidential recognition of the PLO, its support for the idea of a Palestinian state and sustained pressure on Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the US has been systematically terrorized by Shite and Sunni Islamic terrorism.

While all US (Israel-Arab) peace initiatives have failed (e.g., the 1970 Rogers Plan, the 1973-75 Kissinger initiatives, the 1982 Reagan Plan, the 1989-92 Bush/Baker initiatives, the Clinton initiatives, the G.W. Bush initiatives and the Obama/Kerry initiatives), Middle East reality has highlighted the indispensable role of the US as a facilitator – not initiator – of peace initiatives, which were launched directly between Israel and Arab entities.  Thus, it was the critical US support of the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan initiated peace processes – during their intermediary and mature stages – which propelled them to fruition.

Furthermore, the cardinal US role in facilitating and coalescing Israel’s enhanced cooperation with pro-US Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula – which has not been preconditioned upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians – has projected a realistic US policy in the Middle East. It has been a policy which recognizes the order of regional and global priorities, highlighting the intensified lethal threats of Iran’s Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism to the US’ homeland and national security, as well as to every pro-US Arab regime in the region, none of which is related, directly or indirectly, to the Palestinian issue.

Will the US benefit from the lessons of its many well-intentioned (Israel-Arab) peace initiatives by avoiding past errors?!

Will the US leverage its peace-making experience by focusing on its game-changing, constructive role as a facilitator, rather than an initiator?!

Will US policy-makers adhere to the life-saving advice, shared with drivers in West Texas: When smothered by lethal sandstorms (the Arab Tsunami…), don’t get preoccupied with the tumbleweeds on the road (the Palestinian issue…)?!

“Israel Hayom”

The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), on the one hand, and human rights, on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron, as underlined by the country-membership of the Council.

Moreover, since its establishment in 2006, and just like its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the HRC has been dominated by non-democratic regimes, which have been hostile to the US.

For example, the anti-US, pro-Ayatollahs member-state Venezuela has robbed its opposition-led legislature of any effective power, jailing political opponents and prosecuting civilians in military courts. The Democratic Republic of Congo is ruled by a ruthless president who is holding on to power beyond the constitutionally mandated two-term limit, repressing, silencing and murdering opponents. Pakistan features a proliferation of military courts with death sentences for members of the opposition, unaccountability for human rights violations, the absence of a free press, no tolerance of religious minorities and women’s rights and is fertile ground for anti-US Islamic terrorism. In Afghanistan, neither the government nor the Taliban opposition adheres to human rights, which has resulted in a massive toll of murders and executions, many of them carried out by government-supported illegal gangs. Another member of the HRC, Burundi, which has been accused by the HRC, itself, of crimes against humanity and refuses to cooperate with the HRC investigation. Burundi is ruled by a president, whose term has been extended beyond constitutional limits, and whose security organs have followed a routine of kidnapping, torture, arbitrary arrests, executions and the “disappearance” of citizens. The repressive Cuban regime has sustained arbitrary arrests of opposition leaders, human rights leaders and free press activists.

Other member-states of the HRC – despite their non-democratic regimes and questionable-to-horrendous track records on human rights – are Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Ivory Coast, Angola, Iraq, Ethiopia, Ecuador, Tunisia, Qatar, China, etc.

The US withdrawal from the HRC exposed the reality of the latter, which leveraged the US participation to legitimize anti-US regimes, undermining US interests throughout the globe, while advancing the interests of US rivals and enemies.

The US withdrawal has sent a message to the UN, and other entities which have benefitted from US commercial and military support. They realize that US participation in – and support of – global initiatives should not be taken for granted, but will be preconditioned upon pro-US conduct.

Such a policy is consistent with the US departure from the non-ratified 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Agreement), which rewarded the anti-US Ayatollahs with immediate, tangible, sweeping benefits in return for verbal, intangible gestures, while the Ayatollahs’ machete is at the throat of Saudi Arabia and all other pro-US Arab regimes, entrenching their foothold in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The US departure from the 2015 Nuclear Agreement and the HRC bolsters confidence among US allies and deters rogue regimes, thus reducing the scope of global instability and violence.

US policy toward the HRC – which has been an authentic reflection of the UN at large – sends a message to the UN, raising somber doubts about the future of US financial support for that organization, unless the UN deviates from its modus operandi, which has provided tailwinds to anti-US rogue regimes and organizations, while benefitting from the hospitality and financial generosity of the US. Thus, the UN may forfeit part, or all, US foreign aid, which amounts to 20% of its annual budget, including 25% of UNRWA’s budget, which has funded visceral hate-education and glorification of terrorists.

In 2008, the HRC reflected the deeply-rooted worldview of its key members, by appointing Richard Falk – known for his systematic contempt for US policy – to a 6-year term as a Special Rapporteur. The appointment was approved by a consensus of the 47 members of the HRC. In 2008, Falk accused the US government of a cover-up concerning 9/11, including the supposed implication of neoconservatives in the attack. In 2013, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terrorism, Falk wrote in the Foreign Policy Journal: “Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return…. How many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?”

The track record of the Human Rights Council, on the one hand, and the national security and homeland security of the US, on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron. Hence, quitting the HRC enhances the interests of the US and the Free World.

TheEttingerReport.com, https://bit.ly/2JDlaTG

The geo-strategic ripple effects of the 2018 US nuclear negotiation with North Korea and the 1994 US nuclear agreement with Pyongyang have been closely scrutinized by Iran’s Ayatollahs.  Similarly, North Korea has studied the geo-strategic consequences of the 2015 US-led nuclear accord with the Ayatollahs (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

The track record of the nuclear negotiations with the Ayatollahs and North Korea verifies a clear and direct interconnection between the two processes.  Moreover, the nuclear agreements with both the Ayatollahs and North Korea were largely shaped by the State Department establishment, in general, and Wendy Sherman, the former Chief Negotiator and Acting Deputy Secretary of State, in particular.

Furthermore, the overall conduct of both rogue regimes – as far as abandoning or advancing nuclearization, ending or expanding terrorism, subversion and ballistic capabilities – has been immensely impacted by the US negotiation posture. Thus, the less assertive and more eager is the US, and the more reluctant it is to use the military option, the less deterred and the more radicalized are Iran and North Korea.

They consider concessions made by the US and other Western democracies to be a sign of weakness, especially when the concessions are tangible and immediate – in return for future reciprocity – ignoring the tenuous, violent, unreliable and lawless track record of the two rogue regimes.

For example, according to the 1994 Agreed (nuclear) Framework and subsequent agreements (negotiated until 2001), North Korea was supposed to dismantle its nuclear program and to refrain from developing, testing, producing and selling ballistic missiles (hardware and technology), which exceed a 300-mile range. In defiance of those agreements, North Korea has dramatically enhanced its non-conventional capabilities, sharing some of its nuclear technologies with Iran and Syria. It led to the erection of a nuclear reactor in Syria, which was destroyed by Israel in 2007.

On October 18, 1994, President Clinton stated: “…This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital America objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. This agreement is good for the US, for our allies and for the safety of the entire world….” However, in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. The US response – in an attempt to salvage the nuclear (supposedly disarmament) accord – featured additional concessions, such as the removal of North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism.  This further eroded the US posture of deterrence, intensified Pyongyang’s intransigence and infuriated and undermined the national security of Japan and other allies of the US.

Since the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran Nuclear Agreement), the Ayatollahs have radicalized and intensified their military involvement in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as their subversive and terrorist operations, aiming to topple all pro-US Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula (primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain), Jordan and Egypt, as well as multitude of pro-Western regimes in Asia and Africa, and entrenching their anti-US presence in Latin America.

Since July 2015, The Shia’ Ayatollahs have escalated their subversive efforts to annex the Saudi-supported island of Bahrain, which they consider an Iranian province, where a 70% Shia’ majority is ruled by the Sunni House of Khalifa. In the process, Teheran has smuggled military systems to its terrorist network in Bahrain.

Since July 2015, the Ayatollahs have bolstered their military assistance to the anti-Saudi Houthi (mostly Shia’) rebels in Yemen. They consider Yemen – Saudi Arabia’s southern neighbor – a platform to launch missiles into Saudi Arabia, in an attempt to destabilize and topple the House of Saud. Simultaneously, the Ayatollahs have expanded their incitement of – and subversive initiatives in – the oil-rich, Shia’-dominated regions of Al Hassa’ and Qatif in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia.

Will President Trump avoid – or repeat – the critical errors committed by his predecessors in dealing with North Korea and the Ayatollahs?

Has President Trump recognized the well-documented rogue, unreliable, violent and lawless track record of the Ayatollahs and North Korea, which requires a drastic and tangible transformation, ideologically and geo-strategically, domestically, regionally and globally?

Does President Trump realize that bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence – including a viable military option – is a critical prerequisite to a constructive agreement with rogue regimes?

Has President Trump concluded that flawed agreements with rogue regimes are dramatically worse than no agreements?

Is President Trump aware of the interconnection between agreements concluded with North Korea and the Ayatollahs, on the one hand, and the global US posture of deterrence and the homeland security and national security of the US and its allies, on the other hand?

 JCPA’s Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 28, #3-4, March 24, 2018, https://bit.ly/2IB1Z9i

US-Israel relations have surged commercially and militarily since Israel’s establishment in 1948, and Israel enjoys a 74% favorability rating according to the 2018 annual Gallup poll of favorability (compared to 21% for the Palestinian Authority). This positive state of relations has been achieved despite the systematic pressure by all US Presidents – from Truman through Obama – and in spite of persistent criticism of Israel by the Department of State, the New York Times and the Washington Post (all three opposed the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State) and other representatives of the “elite” US media.

US-Israel relations have dramatically expanded in defiance of conventional common sense, but consistent with – and nurtured by – the 400 year old ideological, moral, cultural, religious and historical foundations of the United States, which have enriched the US-Israel saga, featuring a unique people-to-people, bottom-up relationship, with elected officials representing the wish of most constituents.

For example, on March 5, 1891 – antedating Theodore Herzl and the 1897 First Zionist Congress – US President, Benjamin Harrison, received the William Blackstone Memorial, which called for the reestablishment of the Jewish State in the Land of the Bible: “Palestine for the Jews.”   The Memorial was signed by over 400 distinguished Americans, such as the Chief Justice, additional Supreme Court Justices, future President William McKinley, senators, congressmen (including the Speaker of the House and the Chairmen of the Ways and Means and International Relations Committees), Governors, mayors, university presidents, businessmen, clergy and media editors.

The signatories of the “Blackstone Memorial” were overwhelmingly Christian movers and shakers, who signed the document well before the emergence of the Jewish political lobby, reflecting the Biblical, Judeo-Christian roots of the USA.

The seeds of the “Blackstone Memorial” – and the special affinity of the American people toward the Jewish State – were planted in 1620, when the early Pilgrims, stepped off the Mayflower, referring to themselves as “the people of the modern day Exodus,” who departed from the “modern day Egypt (Britain),” experienced the “modern day Parting of the Red Sea (the Atlantic Ocean),” arriving in “the modern day Promised Land (America).”

Hence, the well-over 1,000 sites in the US (towns, cities, national parks and deserts) bearing Biblical names, such as 18 Jerusalems, 32 Salems (the ancient name of Jerusalem), 34 Beth Els, 24 Shilos, 18 Hebrons, 12 Jerichos, Zions, Bethlehems, Mizpahs, Rehoboths, Carmels, Gileads, Moabs, etc.

The prominent stature of the Bible and the Hebrew language among the early Pilgrims was demonstrated in 1640 by the first book written and printed in the New World, The Bay Psalm Book, which transcribed biblical psalms into metered verses. The seals of three of the first ten universities bear Hebrew inscriptions: Yale (אורים ותומים the power of the Jewish High Priest), Columbia University (יהוה Jehovah and אוריאל Uriel – one of God’s Guardian Angels) and Dartmouth College (אל שדי one of God’s names).

The special sentiments toward the reconstruction of the Jewish Homeland in the Land of Israel, were further cultivated by the 18^th century Founding Fathers, who considered themselves to be “the people of the modern day Covenant.” The iconic symbol of independence, the 1752 Liberty Bell highlights a verse from Leviticus, 25:10: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” This verse refers to the Jubilee – the cornerstone of the Biblical concept of liberty, a cardinal value in the history of the 50 States – which is commemorated every 50 years.

In fact, the cement of the American Revolution was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (January 10, 1776): “For the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon and the Prophet Samuel expressly disapproves of government by kings….”

The President of Yale University (1778-1795), and a founder of Brown University, Ezra Stiles, taught Hebrew, urging graduating students to be able to recite Psalms in the original language, “because that is what St. Peter will expect of you at the Pearly Gates.” He called for “the reestablishment of the twelve Tribes in Palestine.”

According to Prof. Daniel Elazar – the founder of the “Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs” (JCPA) – the concept of the US Constitution was inspired by the Bible, in general, and the Covenant between God and Abraham and Jacob, in particular. The term “Federal” was a derivative of the Latin word “foedus,” which is the Biblical Covenant. Moreover, Prof. Elazar opined that the first ever continental republic was not ruled by an imperial ruler, but “through a system of dispersed democratic majorities, coupled with nationwide representation of both individuals and constituent states… [similar to] the federation of [the twelve] tribes of ancient Israel.”

According to Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1830 Democracy in America, the US practiced separation of religion and state, not religion and society. While a government-sponsored religion risked discrediting religion, a society devoid of religion risked immorality and oblivion. According to de Tocqueville, religion and liberty are mutually-inclusive. In 1967, Prof. Robert Bellah wrote that the US has a civil religion – a set of ethical principles based on the Bible, mostly Deuteronomy. The US benefits from Bible (not libertarianism) driven liberty, which is responsibility – not rights – driven liberty for the common good.

In 1925, President Coolidge stated: “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy….”

In 1935, President FDR indicated that “it would be difficult to appraise the far-reaching influence of [the translation of the Bible] upon the speech, literature, moral and religious character of our people and their institutions….”

In fact, the Bible had a profound impact on the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers (Moses, Aharon, the 70 Elders, the tribal Presidents), Checks and Balances, the requirement that the chief executive must be a native, that the capital city should not belong to any tribe/State, the abolitionist movement (“Let My People Go,” “Go Down Moses”) and the general public discourse in the USA.

In 1863, President Lincoln stated: “The rebirth of Israel as a nation-state is a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.” On June 30, 1922, the US House and Senate ratified the League of Nation’s “Mandate for Palestine,” which codified the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, in the entire area west of the Jordan River.  President Harding added his signature on September 21, 1922.  In 1925, the House, Senate and President Coolidge ratified the 1924 Anglo-American Treaty, which approved the “Mandate for Palestine.” In 1943, a Joint Resolution by the Alabama State Legislature declared: “Urgent need for a Jewish Homeland.”

On May 14, 1948, the US radio icon and world traveler, Lowell Thomas, told his listeners: Today, as the Jewish State is established, Americans read through the Bible as a historical reference book.”

On December 24, 1968, Apollo 8, the first manned mission to the moon entered the lunar orbit, and the three astronauts recited Genesis 1:1-10, in the most watched TV broadcast at the time: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form….”

In 2001, Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R-KY) welcomed the newly-elected President G.W. Bush: “Mr. President, we trust that you shall lead us in the best tradition of Joshua and Caleb.” Pastor Nathan Baxter asked President Bush, during the inauguration prayer at the National Cathedral, to unite the American people just like King David united the Jewish People.

In 2008, Senator Byrd (D-WV), the President Pro-Tem and a legislative giant, announced retirement from the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, by quoting Ecclesiastes 3:1: “To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.”

In 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the floor manager of Obamacare, complimented Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) during a press conference: “Senator Reid displayed the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the endurance of Samson.”

In 2014, President Obama justified his decision to defer deportation of five million illegal immigrants by quoting Exodus 22:21: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

In 2017 there were about 20 million copies of the Bible sold in the US, which is almost double that of the 1950s.

In 2018, the role played by the Bible in the shaping of the US core values, legal and political systems, public discourse and general state-of-mind is still significant, as demonstrated by the November 17, 2017 opening in Washington, DC (three blocks from Capitol Hill) of the largest Museum of the Bible in the world (430.000 square foot), featuring more than 40,000 artifacts, including 613 Torah Scrolls.

In 2018, the statues of Joshua, King David and Judah the Maccabee stand at West Point Military Academy among “The Nine Worthies,” the nine top warriors in human history. The other “Worthies” are Alexander the Great, Hector, Julius Caesar, Godfrey of Bouillon, King Arthur and Charlemagne. The battle cry of the Maccabees – “Whoever trusts God; join me!” – inspired the official motto of the US: “In God We Trust.” Since 1996, the US postal service has issued, annually, a Chanukah stamp, commemorating an event – the 2^nd century BCE rebellion of the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire, the few against the many – which inspired the Founding Fathers’ revolt against the British Empire.

In 2018, the bust of Moses faces the Speaker of the House (surrounded by 22 other busts of historical Law Givers, who stare at Moses), is found at the Rayburn House Office Building’s Subway Station and in the main reading room in the Library of Congress. Statues and engravings of Moses and the Ten Commandments are featured in the Supreme Court. Moses and/or the Ten Commandments feature in the US Federal Courthouses in Cleveland, OH and Indianapolis, IN; the Supreme Courts in Harrisburg, PA, St. Paul, MN, Lansing, MI and Knoxville, TN; the county courthouses in Cleveland, OH, West Chester, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, Ft. Wayne, IN and Jackson, MS; the Appellate Court in Brooklyn, NY; the Boston Public Library and the State Capitol in Lincoln, NE; etc.

Ten Commandments monuments have been erected on the grounds of the state capitols in Texas (1961), Oklahoma (2012), and Arkansas (2017). On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 6-foot-high Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol.

According to Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Religion has been closely identified with our history and government…. Acknowledgements of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our nation’s heritage are common throughout America…. Since 1935, Moses has stood, holding two tablets that reveal portions of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, among other lawgivers in the south frieze [of the US Supreme Court….] Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn the metal gates lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom as well as the doors leading into the Courtroom. Moses also sits on the exterior east façade of the [US Supreme Court] holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments…. Since 1897, a large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul, has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress’ Jefferson Building. A medallion with two tablets depicting the Ten Commandments decorates the floor of the National Archives. Inside the Justice Department, a statue entitled ‘The Spirit of Law’ has two tablets representing the Ten Commandments lying at its feet. In front of the Ronald Reagan Building stands another sculpture that includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments. So too, a 24-foot-tall sculpture, outside the Federal Courthouse, depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments and a cross. Moses is also prominently featured in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives…. Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader, and the Ten Commandments have undeniable historical meaning….”

In 2018, the official seals of the US, the President, the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives and all the Executive Departments – as well as the US dollar – feature the eagle with thirteen stars for the original thirteen Colonies, arranged in the shape of the Star of David, which is also the shape of the US Sheriff’s Badge.

Since 1949, the US-Israel crises have always been “V”-shaped (quick to deteriorate and quick to rebound), not “U”-shaped (quick to deteriorate and prolonged to rebound), due to the healthy foundations/tissues of the bilateral relationship, transcending the Palestinian issue, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, Iran, etc..

The extraordinary enhancement of the US-Israel relationship, irrespective of the White House and State Department pressuring Israel, derives from the unique 400-year-old foundation, laid down by the Bible-inspired Early Pilgrims and nurtured by the Judeo-Christian-driven Founding Fathers and the American people, rather than by policy-makers and public opinion molders.

The unique foundations of the US-Israel saga were forged prior to the evolution of an organized Jewish community, the Holocaust, the establishment of Israel and the appearance of AIPAC on the American scene. These foundations have nurtured a covenant between the American people, their state and federal representatives, on the one hand, and the Jewish State, on the other hand. It accords Israel a unique standing: a foreign, but also a value-driven domestic issue.

The Ethics of the Fathers, a second century compilation of Jewish ethical teachings, sayings and proverbs suggests: “Conditional love is tenuous; unconditional love is eternal.” Similarly, Israel is the only unconditional ally of the US, wholeheartedly reciprocating the value-driven unconditional identification, by the American people, with the Jewish State.

www.TheEttingerReport.com, May 7, 2018, https://bit.ly/2roRHCm

A 6-minute video on the Ayatollas’ threat to the US: https://bit.ly/2zNDmUX

A 6-minute video on the Ayatollahs’ anti-US curriculum: https://bit.ly/2EuJwJm

1. The tyrannical Ayatollah regime – oppressing Iran’s majority – is driven by a megalomaniacal ideology, clearly reflected by its K-12 curriculum, brainwashing Iran’s youth for full commitment to the “divine battle” against the US, “the Great Satan,” the “infidel” Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, etc.
2. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology – the leading sponsors of Islamic terrorism – is the commitment to global supremacy of Shite Islam through Jihad (“Holy War”), which is the permanent state of relations between “the believers” and the “apostates” and the “illegitimate infidels.” Hence, agreements with infidels are tenuous and non-binding. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology is bolstered by a sacred allegiance to the fulfillment of the 2,600 year old Persian-Iranian regional and global imperialistic aspiration.
3. The Ayatollahs’ super-geo-strategic goal, which supersedes economic and social matters, is the domination of the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and beyond, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.
4. The Ayatollahs’ super-hurdle/enemy is the USA, “the Great Satan.” Irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ anti-Israel rant, the Jewish State is their second-rate target, since it does not play a major role in determining the future of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.  In fact, the Ayatollahs’ machetes are at the throat of each pro-US Arab regime in the Persian Gulf region.
5. The Ayatollahs pursue super-capabilities (in collaboration with North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, etc.) – ballistic and nuclear – in order to deter and defeat the super-enemy/hurdle and advance the super-goal, in adherence to their super-ideology. The Ayatollahs’ pursuit of super-capabilities has accelerated the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional military systems in the Middle East and beyond, adding fuel to global instability and violence.
6. The Ayatollahs’ super-tactic, while communicating with the West, has been the Taqiyya: Islam-sanctioned dissimulation, deception and concealment of inconvenient data, aimed at protecting “believers” from “hostile” elements via illusive agreements. President Rouhani demonstrated his Taqiyya proficiency during his 2002 negotiation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating: “We are not pursuing nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons….”
7. The Ayatollahs’ advanced ballistic capabilities and terrorist network are sufficient to deal a major blow to the US national and homeland security, as well as economy – possibly forcing the US and NATO out of the Persian Gulf – by toppling the pro-US Arab “apostate” regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (Iran’s “province #14”), the UAE, Kuwait and Oman. Furthermore, the Ayatollahs’ advanced non-nuclear capabilities could solidify the expansion from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean; dominate the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula along with the critical straits of Hormuz (Persian Gulf) and Bab al-Mandeb (Red Sea); intensify global Islamic terrorism; exacerbate political and military subversion in Africa, Asia and Latin America; enhance the Ayatollahs’ impact on the flow and price of oil, which would bankroll Teheran’s megalomaniac regional and global aspirations.
8. The Ayatollahs’ nuclear capabilities may be required to extract further dramatic concessions from the US and NATO and rollback their military presence to their Western bases.
9. Against the backdrop of the Ayatollahs’ track record, tactics and goals, the architects of the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) have failed to realize that peaceful-coexistence and compliance with agreements, on the one hand, and the nature of the Ayatollahs, on the other hand, constitutes a classic oxymoron. Moreover, leopards don’t change spots, only tactics. Therefore, they failed to include in the JCPOA the following elementary-preconditions to the Ayatollahs’ abundant economic benefits, which are required in order to transform the nature of the Ayatollahs and reach a constructive agreement:
   *A permanent commitment to refrain from the development – or acquisition – of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (including ballistic missiles);
   *The transfer of the complete research, development and production infrastructure of weapons of mass destruction to the USA (following in the footsteps of the December 2003 Libyan precedent);
   *Terminating and dismantling all agencies and units involved in subversive, terrorist and military operations outside Iran;
   *Uprooting the Ayatollahs’ K-12 hate-education and other forms of incitement (in mosques, media, etc.) against “apostates” and “infidels,” which have shaped the worldview of an increasing number of Iranians.  This has, also, carved the roadmap to the attainment of the Ayatollahs’ super-goals, and has served as the production-line of soldiers, willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of such goals.
10. The term “effective sanctions” against Iran, on the one hand, and global political reality, on the other hand, constitutes another oxymoron, playing into the hands of the Ayatollahs. The sanction-option will not divert the Ayatollahs from pursuing their megalomaniacal, principle-driven super-goal. It will not transform them into a peaceful-coexisting entity. Moreover, Russia and China (which consider the US an arch-rival), and some countries in Asia, Latin America and Europe, cannot be expected to implement anti-Ayatollahs sanctions in accordance with the US. At the same time, international deliberations over sanctions have provided the Ayatollahs more time to advance (and acquire) additional ballistic and nuclear technologies
11. Forty years of US economic sanctions against North Korea – which does not harbor Iran-like megalomaniacal aspirations – have failed to topple the regime or prevent its nuclearization. Fifty years of sanctions against Cuba have, also, reaffirmed the constraints of sanctions against rogue regimes, which subject their people to ruthless dictatorships and ideological brainwashing.
12. Preemption/prevention – and not deterrence or retaliation – may be the only effective means to spare the US and the globe the devastating cost of a mega-military confrontation against the Ayatollahs.
13. An effective preemption should not be limited to critical nuclear facilities, but should simultaneously devastate Iran’s missile and air defense capabilities, thus minimizing the scope of Iran’s potential retaliation.
14. An effective preemption must not involve the occupation of Iran, thus distinguishing itself from Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran, which coalesced all Iranians against a threat to their sovereignty.
15. An effective preemption would provide a tailwind to the substantial domestic opposition, which was disillusioned by the lack of Western support in 2009. A credible threat to topple the regime, and not diplomatic engagement and appeasement – perceived by the Ayatollahs as battle fatigue and retreat – is required to uproot the Ayatollahs’ core ideology and policy.
16. The cost of military preemption would be dwarfed by the cost of a confrontation with a ballistic and/or nuclear Iran. The Ayatollahs regime which sacrificed 500,000 of its own children in order to clear minefields, during the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, is capable of pursuing its megalomaniacal goal, irrespective of the cost.
17. The elimination of the Ayatollahs’ clear and present threat to the national and homeland security of the US, the pro-US Arab regimes, the Middle East at-large, including Israel, NATO countries and the rest of the globe, constitutes a most crucial test for the leader of the Free World: the USA.

*Will the USA avoid the devastating pitfalls of the JCPOA (please see item #8)?”

*Will the USA approach the Ayatollahs realistically, insisting upon a thorough transformation of the Ayatollahs’ domestic, regional and global nature?
*Will the US and the Free World be willing to demonstrate their willingness to pay a price – if necessary – for sparing themselves the terrorism, conventional and nuclear wrath of the Ayatollahs?

*Will the USA sacrifice wishful-thinking, oversimplification and short-term gratification on the altar of realism, complexity and long-term homeland and national security?