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.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 19, 2023
State Department policy
*The June 2023 banning of all Israeli research and scientific entities in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights from the mutually-beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects, such as BIRD, BARD and BSF, reflects the return of the State Department to the center stage of foreign policy making.
*This ban is consistent with the State Department’s systematically erroneous and counterproductive policy on critical Middle East issues, as documented by this video and this article.
For example:
*The State Department provided an essential tailwind to the Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran and the toppling of the Shah, who was “America’s policeman in the Gulf.” Foggy Bottom contended that the Ayatollahs would be moderate, anti-Soviet, pro-US, preoccupied with tractors and not with tanks, and refrain from the global exportation of the Islamic Revolution….
*The State Department considered Saddam Hussein as a potential ally (until the day of his 1990 invasion of Kuwait), worthy of an intelligence-sharing agreement, financial assistance, and the supply of advanced dual-use systems. It communicated to the ruthless despot that a military invasion of Kuwait would be treated as an intra-Arab matter.
*Foggy Bottom welcomed the 2010 turbulence on the Arab Street – which is still raging – as a “Facebook and youth revolution” and the “Arab Spring,” failing to realize that it has been an Arab Tsunami.
*The State Department establishment has opposed the Abraham Accords because they bypassed the Palestinian issue, centering on Arab interests,. However, all of the State Department’s own peace initiatives have crashed on the rocks of Middle East reality, because they dwelt on the superficial assumption that the Palestinian issue was the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a crown jewel of Arab policy making and a core cause of regional turbulence.
*Since January 2021, the State Department has resumed its role as the chief foreign policy maker, as evidenced by the shift from unilateral policy making – based on an independent US national security action – to multilateral policy making, seeking a common denominator with the anti-US UN and international organizations, as well as with Europe, which has lost its will to flex a muscle against Iran’s Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism.
*In July 2023, reflecting its multilateral policy, the US rejoined UNESCO, following the 2011 congressional suspension of the annual US contribution to the organization, and the 2018 US withdrawal from UNESCO for falsely disclaiming the 4,000-year-old Jewish roots in the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria – the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture and language, as documented by a litany of archeological findings throughout the area.
In fact, the rejoining of UNESCO commits the US to transfer to UNESCO all its arrears, which amount to some $600mn.
Legal status of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria
The State Department claims that banning Israeli research and scientific entities in Judea and Samaria from the mutually beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects is consistent with international law. The State Department claims that international law considers Judea and Samaria an “illegal occupied” area, and that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 mandates an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
Is it true?
*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of Yale University Law School and Undersecretary of State, who co-authored the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242: “[Under international law], Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa…. [According to Resolution 242], Israel is required to withdraw ‘from territories,’ not from ‘the territories,’ nor from ‘all the territories,’ but from some of the territories, which included the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights…. Proposed resolutions calling for withdrawal from ‘all the territories’ were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable 8-15-mile-wide lines… but to ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories….”
*Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice, Deputy Legal Advisor at the State Department and Prof. of International Law at Johns Hopkins University stated: “[The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… as indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, the blockade of the port of Eilat and the amassing of troops in Sinai… [and] Jordan-initiated hostilities against Israel…. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1950 were unlawful…. Modification of the 1949 armistice lines [by Israel] were lawful….”
*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following binding internationally ratified documents:
<The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [on both sides of the Jordan River]…. Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….;”
<The April 24, 1920 San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and carved the boundaries of over 20 countries in the Middle East;
<The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine, ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, and dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights;
<The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine, which means that Jewish rights in Palestine are legal and may not be transferred;
<The November 29, 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution was non-binding and superseded by the Mandate for Palestine.
The bottom line
*The State Department’s determination that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria constitutes “illegal occupation” has been based on mistaken and misleading interpretation of international law. This determination has yielded false expectations among rogue elements in the Middle East (e.g., Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorists and Iran’s rogue Ayatollahs), which has undermined the attempts to minimize regional instability and advance the cause of peaceful coexistence.
*The decision to punish Israel, by blackballing research institutions in Judea and Samaria – while courting the rogue Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and the hate-education Palestinian Authority – is interpreted as an erosion of US’ regional stature by pro-US Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. These regimes have expanded their defense and commercial cooperation with Israel irrespective of the Palestinian issue. In additon, they have also been subjected to US pressure; they oppose the US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, and they are concerned about the lack of a determined US response to Iran’s aggression (which has pushed them closer to China and Russia).
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
November 26, 2025
*Hamas compliance? Hamas’ compliance with the Gaza Ceasefire, in adherence to President Trump’s 20 points, would require Hamas to abandon its core vision/ideology, forfeit its military and political powerbase; thus, desisting from being Hamas. But, Hamas’ compliance with the Gaza Ceasefire, in adherence to its own core vision and ideology, which transcends financial considerations, is a déjà vu, as demonstrated by all previous Gaza ceasefires.
*Gaza ceasefire – déjà vu. The current Gaza ceasefire is the 6th ceasefire concluded with Hamas since the 2007 Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip (2008, 2012, 2014, 2019 and 2021). No ceasefire has induced Hamas – which is a branch ofthe Muslim Brotherhood – to embrace peaceful coexistence; neither to adopt good faith negotiation, nor to abandon its Muslim Brotherhood ideology/vision of toppling all national Muslim regimes (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco). Furthermore, they have not relinquished their goal of establishing a universal Muslim society with Islam as the only “divinely-ordained legitimate” religion, bringing the “infidel” West to submission, and eradicating the “illegitimate” vanguard of the USA in the Middle East – the Jewish State.
*Hamas negotiation? All previous Gaza ceasefires documented that Hamas’ perception of negotiation and ceasefire is not driven by Western concepts/values, but by a fanatical, apocalyptic vision. They leverage the negotiation process as a step to avoid obliteration, stall for time to restore terror capabilities, and then launch another terror offensive in their determined pursuit of a fanatical vision (irrespective of the cost). In contrast, the US perception of negotiation and ceasefire is driven by a vision of conflict resolution and dramatically enhanced standard of living, aimed at reconciliation and eventual peaceful coexistence. Western negotiation is perceived by Hamas as weakness.
*Hamas’ rehabilitation? A prerequisite forHamas’ rehabilitation – in addition to the obliteration of its military and political infrastructures – are sweeping structural and cultural changes, such as the uprooting of anti-Western and anti-Jewish hate education, hateful Friday sermons and hate-filled media, which have acted (since the 1993 establishment of the Palestinian Authority) as the most effective production line of Palestinian/Islamic terrorists.
*Securing a boon, rather than a bane. The uprooting of Hamas’ educational, terroristic and political infrastructures would result in a boon, bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence, which would reduce anti-Western Islamic terrorism, minimize regional instability, and therefore, constrain the maneuverability of China and Russia. On the other hand, the survival of Hamas would afflict the US with a bane, by adrenalizing the veins of the epicenter of anti-US regional and global Islamic terrorism, destabilizing every pro-US Arab regime, undermining the safety of Middle Eastern oil exportation (which impacts the price at the pump), and threatening the shipping lanes between Asia and Europe.
*The anti-US threat of the Ayatollah regime transcends Gaza! the Ayatollah regime is rapidly restoring and upgrading its conventional, ballistic and nuclear capabilities, leveraging the eagerness of China, Russia and North Korea to demonstrate the potency of their military systems and underground fortification capabilities, irrespective of their failure in June 2025. Furthermore, the Ayatollah regime – which played a lead role in the preparation for the October 2023 terror offensive – has intensified its involvement in the terror platform of the Sinai Peninsula (which is contiguous to Gaza!), and the attempts to topple Jordan’s pro-US Hashemite regime. The Ayatollah’s success would trigger a volcanic ripple effect regionally (the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel) and globally. Iran’s Ayatollah regime is the leading patron of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terrorists in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America and on US soil. Moreover, the Ayatollah regime is the chief epicenter of global anti-US Islamic terrorism, drug trafficking (in collaboration with Latin American drug cartels and anti-US governments), money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems. While the Ayatollah regime is the head of a venomous octopus, Gaza is only one of its global tentacles, including the US soil itself, as stated by the FBI, the Homeland Security Department and the Director of Intelligence.
*Iran and the US goal of ending wars! The US goal of minimizing, preventing and ending wars and terrorism requires an experience-based, rather than speculation-based, policy making. It mandates the uprooting of the chief epicenter of regional and global wars and terrorism: the Ayatollah regime, which aims to bring “The Great American Satan” to submission. Refraining from regime-change in Iran (which experienced regime-change in 1953 and 1978) – while adhering to the 47-year-old failed policy of negotiation and (reversible and bypassable) economic sanctions – would pave the road to the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power, which would be a global catastrophe, dwarfing the cost of regime-change.
*Would a Palestinian state advance or undermine US interests? US policy on the Palestinian issue should not be driven by honest brokerage, pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian sentiments. It should be driven by US interests, based on the reality of march-of-facts (that tends to be frustrating), not on alternate reality of conventional wisdom (that tends to be convenient).
While Western policy makers have embraced the proposed Palestinian state, relying on moderate Palestinian talk and speculative, subjective future scenarios (e.g., a reformed and peaceful Palestinian government), Arab leaders rely on objective, well-documented Palestinian past track record. They are aware that in the Middle East: “on words one does not pay custom.”
Arabs are aware of the Palestinian rogue intra-Arab track record,which is replete with subversion, terrorism and treachery. Therefore, they have showered Palestinians with embracing talk, but indifferent-to-negative walk. Since 1948, they have refrained from tangible steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would add fuel, not water, to the Middle East fire, yielding a major bonanza to Iran’s Ayatollah regime, the Muslim Brotherhood, China and Russia, but dealing a major setback to regional stability, all pro-US Arab regimes and the US’ own interests.
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.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
July 19, 2023
State Department policy
*The June 2023 banning of all Israeli research and scientific entities in East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights from the mutually-beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects, such as BIRD, BARD and BSF, reflects the return of the State Department to the center stage of foreign policy making.
*This ban is consistent with the State Department’s systematically erroneous and counterproductive policy on critical Middle East issues, as documented by this video and this article.
For example:
*The State Department provided an essential tailwind to the Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran and the toppling of the Shah, who was “America’s policeman in the Gulf.” Foggy Bottom contended that the Ayatollahs would be moderate, anti-Soviet, pro-US, preoccupied with tractors and not with tanks, and refrain from the global exportation of the Islamic Revolution….
*The State Department considered Saddam Hussein as a potential ally (until the day of his 1990 invasion of Kuwait), worthy of an intelligence-sharing agreement, financial assistance, and the supply of advanced dual-use systems. It communicated to the ruthless despot that a military invasion of Kuwait would be treated as an intra-Arab matter.
*Foggy Bottom welcomed the 2010 turbulence on the Arab Street – which is still raging – as a “Facebook and youth revolution” and the “Arab Spring,” failing to realize that it has been an Arab Tsunami.
*The State Department establishment has opposed the Abraham Accords because they bypassed the Palestinian issue, centering on Arab interests,. However, all of the State Department’s own peace initiatives have crashed on the rocks of Middle East reality, because they dwelt on the superficial assumption that the Palestinian issue was the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a crown jewel of Arab policy making and a core cause of regional turbulence.
*Since January 2021, the State Department has resumed its role as the chief foreign policy maker, as evidenced by the shift from unilateral policy making – based on an independent US national security action – to multilateral policy making, seeking a common denominator with the anti-US UN and international organizations, as well as with Europe, which has lost its will to flex a muscle against Iran’s Ayatollahs and Sunni Islamic terrorism.
*In July 2023, reflecting its multilateral policy, the US rejoined UNESCO, following the 2011 congressional suspension of the annual US contribution to the organization, and the 2018 US withdrawal from UNESCO for falsely disclaiming the 4,000-year-old Jewish roots in the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria – the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture and language, as documented by a litany of archeological findings throughout the area.
In fact, the rejoining of UNESCO commits the US to transfer to UNESCO all its arrears, which amount to some $600mn.
Legal status of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria
The State Department claims that banning Israeli research and scientific entities in Judea and Samaria from the mutually beneficial US-Israel binational commercial research and development projects is consistent with international law. The State Department claims that international law considers Judea and Samaria an “illegal occupied” area, and that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 mandates an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
Is it true?
*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, a former Dean of Yale University Law School and Undersecretary of State, who co-authored the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242: “[Under international law], Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa…. [According to Resolution 242], Israel is required to withdraw ‘from territories,’ not from ‘the territories,’ nor from ‘all the territories,’ but from some of the territories, which included the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan Heights…. Proposed resolutions calling for withdrawal from ‘all the territories’ were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable 8-15-mile-wide lines… but to ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories….”
*Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice, Deputy Legal Advisor at the State Department and Prof. of International Law at Johns Hopkins University stated: “[The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… as indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, the blockade of the port of Eilat and the amassing of troops in Sinai… [and] Jordan-initiated hostilities against Israel…. Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1950 were unlawful…. Modification of the 1949 armistice lines [by Israel] were lawful….”
*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following binding internationally ratified documents:
<The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, which called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people [on both sides of the Jordan River]…. Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….;”
<The April 24, 1920 San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and carved the boundaries of over 20 countries in the Middle East;
<The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine, ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, and dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights;
<The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine, which means that Jewish rights in Palestine are legal and may not be transferred;
<The November 29, 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution was non-binding and superseded by the Mandate for Palestine.
The bottom line
*The State Department’s determination that Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria constitutes “illegal occupation” has been based on mistaken and misleading interpretation of international law. This determination has yielded false expectations among rogue elements in the Middle East (e.g., Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorists and Iran’s rogue Ayatollahs), which has undermined the attempts to minimize regional instability and advance the cause of peaceful coexistence.
*The decision to punish Israel, by blackballing research institutions in Judea and Samaria – while courting the rogue Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and the hate-education Palestinian Authority – is interpreted as an erosion of US’ regional stature by pro-US Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. These regimes have expanded their defense and commercial cooperation with Israel irrespective of the Palestinian issue. In additon, they have also been subjected to US pressure; they oppose the US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, and they are concerned about the lack of a determined US response to Iran’s aggression (which has pushed them closer to China and Russia).
Israel’s and the US’ counter-terrorism
*Islamic and Palestinian terrorism consider Israel as a critical beachhead – and a proxy – of the US in the Middle East and a significant collaborator with the pro-US Arab regimes. They perceive the war on “the infidel Jewish State” as a preview of their more significant war on “the infidel West” and their attempts to topple all pro-US Sunni Arab regimes. Therefore, Islamic and Palestinian terrorism has been engaged in intra-Arab subversion, while systematically collaborating with enemies and rivals of the US and the West (e.g., Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, Ayatollah Khomeini, Latin American, European, African and Asian terror organizations, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba). The more robust is Israel’s war on terrorism, the more deterred are the terrorists in their attempts to bring the “infidel” West to submission.
*Islamic and Palestinian terrorism has terrorized Jewish communities in the Land of Israel since the late 19th century, adhering to an annihilationist vision as detailed by the Fatah and PLO charters of 1959 and 1964 (eight and three years before 1967), as well as by the hate-education system, which was installed by Mahmoud Abbas in 1993 following the signing of the Oslo Accord.
*Israel battles Palestinian terrorism (Hamas and the Palestinian Authority) and Islamic terrorism (Iran and Hezbollah), which are not preoccupied with the size – but with the eradication – of the “infidel” Jewish State from “the abode of Islam.”
*Israel and the West fight against deeply-rooted and institutional Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, that is inspired by 1,400-year-old rogue values, which are perpetrated by K-12 hate-education, mosque incitement and official and public idolization of terrorists.
*Israel and the West combat terrorism, that has astutely employed 1,400-year-old Islamic values such the “Taqiya’ ” – which promotes double-speak and dissimulation, as a means to mislead and defeat enemies – and the “Hudna’,” which misrepresents a temporary non-binding ceasefire with “infidels” as if it were a peace treaty.
*Israel and the West confront Islamic and Palestinian terrorism, which is politically, religiously and ideologically led by despotic and rogue regimes, rejecting Western values, such as peaceful-coexistence, democracy, human rights and good-faith negotiation.
*Israel and the West face off against Palestinian and Islamic terrorism, which does not allow lavish financial and diplomatic temptations to transcend intrinsic, fanatic, rogue and annihilationist vision. Moreover, terrorists bite the hands that feed them.
*Israel and the West are not assaulted by despair-driven terrorism, but by hope-driven terrorism – the hope to bring the “infidel” to submission. The aspiration of these terrorists contradicts peaceful-coexistence.
*Israel and the West clash with terrorists, who view gestures, concessions and hesitancy as weakness, which inflames terrorism.
*Israel and the West struggle against terrorism, which is not driven by a particular Israeli or US policy, but by a fanatic vision. Thus, Islamic terrorism afflicted the US during the Clinton and Obama Democratic Administrations, as well as during the Bush and Trump Republican Administrations.
*The US State Department has embraced a “moral equivalence” between Palestinian terrorists – who systematically and deliberately hit civilians, while sometimes hitting soldiers – and Israeli soldiers, who systematically and deliberately hit terrorists, while sometimes, unintentionally, hitting civilians. It emboldens terrorism, which threatens all pro-US Arab regimes, undermining regional stability, benefiting US’ rivals and enemies, while damaging the US.
War on terrorism
*The bolstering of posture of deterrence – rather than hesitancy, restraint, containment and gestures, which inflame terrorism – is a prerequisite for defeating terrorism and advancing the peace process.
*The most effective long-term war on terrorism – operationally, diplomatically, economically and morally – is not a surgical or comprehensive reaction, but a comprehensive and disproportional preemption, targeting the gamut of terroristic infrastructures and capabilities, draining the swamp of terrorism, rather than chasing the mosquitos.
*Containment produces a short-term, false sense of security, followed by a long-term security setback. It is the terrorists’ wet dream, which does not moderate terrorism, but adrenalizes its veins, providing time to bolster its capabilities – a tailwind to terror and a headwind to counter-terrorism. It shakes the confidence in the capability to crush terrorism. Defeating terrorism mandates obliteration of capabilities, not co-existence or containment.
*Containment aims to avoid a multi-front war (Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Iran), but it erodes Israel’s posture of deterrence, which brings Israel closer to a multi-front war under much worse conditions.
*Containment erodes Israel’s posture of deterrence in the eyes of the relatively-moderate Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, the Sudan, Jordan and Egypt), which have dramatically enhanced cooperation with Israel due to Israel’s posture of deterrence against mutual threats, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs, the “Muslim Brotherhood” and ISIS terrorists).
*Containment is also a derivative of White House’s and the State Department’s pressure, subordinating national security to diplomatic priorities. It undermines Israel’s posture of deterrence, which plays into the hand of anti-Israel and anti-US rogue regimes. Precedents prove that Israeli defiance of US pressure yields short-term tension, but long-term strategic respect, resulting in expanded strategic cooperation. On a rainy day, the US prefers a defiant, rather than appeasing, strategic ally.
*The 2002 comprehensive counter-terrorism Israeli offensive, and the return of Israel’s Defense Forces to the headquarters of Palestinian terrorism in the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) – and not defensive containment and surgical operations – resurrected Israel’s effective war on Palestinian terrorism, which substantially curtailed terrorists’ capabilities to proliferate terrorism in Israel, Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula.
*The containment option intensifies terrorists’ daring, feeds vacillation and the self-destructive “don’t rock the boat” mentality. It erodes steadfastness and confidence in the capabilities to withstand the cost of terrorism, and feeds the suicidal perpetual retreat mentality.
*The addiction to containment is one of the lethal by-products of the 1993 Oslo Accord, which has produced a uniquely effective hot house of terrorism, highlighted by the importation, arming and funding of some 100,000 Palestinian terrorists from Tunisia, the Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria to Gaza, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, who have unprecedentedly radicalized the Arab population of pre-1967 Israel, established a K-12 hate education system, launched an unparalleled wave of terrorism, and systematically violated agreements.
The bottom line
*The 30 years since the Oslo Accord have featured unprecedented Palestinian hate-education and wave of terrorism. It has demonstrated that a retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria has boosted terrorism; that the Palestinian Authority is not committed to a peace process, but to the destruction of the Jewish State; and that terrorism requires a military, not political, solution. A successful war on terrorism behooves a preemptive offense, not defense, containment and reaction; and that fighting in the terrorists’ own trenches is preferable to fighting in one’s own trenches. No Israeli concessions could satisfy international pressure; and diplomatic popularity is inferior to strategic respect. Avoiding a repeat of the critical post-Oslo errors requires a comprehensive, disproportional, decisive military campaign to uproot – not to coexist with – terroristic infrastructures.
*The historic and national security indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which dominate the 8-15-mile sliver of pre-1967 Israel – and the necessity to frustrate Palestinian terrorism, behooves Israel to eliminate any sign of hesitancy and vacillation by expanding the Jewish presence in this most critical area. It will intensify US and global pressure, but as documented by all Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion, through Eshkol, Golda Meir, Begin and Shamir, defiance of pressure results in the enhancement of strategic respect and cooperation.
*The Palestinian track record during the 30 years since the 1993 Oslo Accord has highlighted the violent, unpredictable and anti-US rogue nature of the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, which would force the toppling of the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River. It would transform Jordan into an uncontrollable, chaotic state in the vein of Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, triggering a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula (south of Jordan), which could topple the pro-US, oil-producing Arab regimes. This would reward Iran’s Ayatollahs, China and Russia, while severely undermining regional and global stability and US economic and national security interests.
Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, reiterates his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.
*According to Western conventional wisdom, the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would promote the cause of peace, stabilize the Middle East and advance Western interests.
*However – just like its policy toward Iran’s Ayatollahs – Western conventional wisdom overlooks the rogue intra-Arab Palestinian track record in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait, the despotic and corrupt nature of the Palestinian Authority and its abhorrent hate-education, and the impact of such a track record upon the rogue nature of the proposed Palestinian state. The West takes lightly the adverse impact of such a rogue state upon the Middle East, the survival of pro-Western Arab regimes (e.g., Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula entities) and vital Western interests.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arabs are aware of the Palestinian track record – just as they are aware of the Ayatollahs’ track record – and are certain that the proposed Palestinian state would resemble the non-controllable, lawless and terroristic Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya much more than the moderate United Arab Emirates. Therefore, they have limited their support of Palestinians to a very positive talk, while conducting a lukewarm-to-negative walk.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arabs have never flexed their military muscle (and hardly their financial and diplomatic muscle) on behalf of Palestinians. For example, no Arab-Israel war was ever launched on behalf of Palestinians, and no Palestinian war on Israel was ever assisted by Arab military.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arabs have experienced the Palestinian trait of brutally-biting the (Arab) hand that feeds them: Egypt in the early 1950s, Syria in the 1960s, Jordan in 1968-1970, Lebanon in 1970-1982, Kuwait in 1990.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, which considers the Palestinian issue as a primary/central concern in the Middle East, the Arab conduct reflects the conviction (notwithstanding the pro-Palestinian Arab rhetoric) that the Palestinian issue is not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, neither a crown-jewel of Arab policy-making, nor a core cause of Middle East turbulence.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom and expectations, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan did not precondition their peace treaties with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, which assumes that the Palestinian issue is central to Arab policy-making, Israel-Arab peace accords have been based on primary Arab interests – such as the lethal threats of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism, the need to diversify their economies and Israel’s effective posture of deterrence – which do not include the Palestinian issue.
*Contrary to all Western peace proposals (other than the Abraham Accords), which failed due to their preoccupation with the Palestinian issue, the six successful Israel-Arab peace treaties bypassed the Palestinian issue, denied the Palestinians a veto power, and were preoccupied with primary Arab national security interests, not with the Palestinian issue.
*While Western conventional wisdom assumes that the Palestinians – as well as Iran’s Ayatollahs – are amenable to peaceful-coexistence, democracy and good faith negotiation, Arabs recognize Palestinians as a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, betrayal and ingratitude.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, Arabs accord much prominence to Palestinian collaboration with rogue, despotic anti-Western entities, such as Nazi Germany, the USSR and the Soviet Bloc, Iran’s Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, Asian, African, European and Latin American terror organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.
*Western conventional wisdom pressures Israel to sacrifice Middle East reality on the altar of wishful-thinking and oversimplification.
*Western conventional wisdom expects Israel to follow in the footsteps of the pro-Palestinian Arab talk, while taking lightly the Arab walk and Middle East reality.
*Western conventional wisdom urges Israel to ignore the 120-year-long anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism, hate-education and mosque incitement, notwithstanding dramatic Israeli concessions (e.g., the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement, which were followed – as expected – by waves of terrorism and hate-education). While the West assumes that Palestinians are preoccupied with the size of the Jewish State, the Palestinian track record has documented that they are preoccupied with the uprooting of the Jewish State from “the abode of Islam.”
*While Western governments accord Palestinian leaders Red Carpet receptions, Arabs welcome Palestinian leaders with Shabby Doormat receptions (if at all…).
*Western policy in the Middle East – as reflected by Western policy toward Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Palestinian issue – has been systematically wrong. For example, providing a critical tailwind to the Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran; embracing Saddam Hussein until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait; heralding Arafat as a messenger of peace; toppling Gaddafi, which transformed Libya into a platform of anti-Western Islamic terrorism and civil wars; welcoming the volcanic eruption on the Arab Street as an “Arab Spring” and “Facebook Revolution,” etc..
*Will Western conventional wisdom adjust itself to the Middle East and Palestinian reality, or will it persist in its suspension of disbelief? Sustaining the Western suspension of disbelief will add fuel to the Middle East fire, intensify threats to pro-Western Arab regimes, and further undermine commercial and national security Western interests.
The August 2022 Israeli war on Gaza-based Palestinian terrorists serves as a wake up call for Israeli and Western policy makers and public opinion molders, who are determined to observe/assess the volcanic and treacherous Middle East through the accommodating and relatively-peaceful Western lenses.
For example:
*The August 2022 war on Palestinian terrorism is a wake up call to the Israeli and Western “Palestine-Firsters.” Once again, Arab countries showered the Palestinians with an embracing-talk, but refrained from a supportive walk, militarily, financially or politically. Hence, the 2022 Arab walk was consistent with the Arab conduct during all previous military clashes between Israel and Palestinian terrorism: the First and Second Intifada of 1987-1993 and 2000-2005, the 1982-85 war against the PLO in Lebanon, and the four wars against the Gaza-based Hamas terrorists in 2008-9, 2012, 2014 and 2021.
*During the last few days, I participated in several TV panel-discussions with experts from Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. All of them concurred with my perspective on the non-centrality of the Palestinian issue in Middle East affairs, displaying indifference or hostility toward the Palestinians. They echoed the Arab image of Palestinians as a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude, as documented by the Palestinian intra-Arab track record.
*In contrast to Western conventional wisdom, Arab policy makers are convinced that the proposed Palestinian state would be a pro-Iran, pro-Russia and pro-China rogue/terrorist entity, fueling domestic and regional turbulence, and intensifying the existing threats to the survival of every pro-US Arab regime.
*The August 2022 war against the Gaza-based Palestinian terrorism is a wake up call to Israeli and Western policy-makers and public opinion molders, who have adhered to the convenient, but illusive, worldview of a diplomacy-based “New World Order” and a “New Middle East.”
They have been infatuated with the application of Western scenarios of peaceful-coexistence, human rights, democracy and a “Marshall Plan-like” enticements to Middle Eastern rogue entities. But, these noble and tempting Western values are dramatically superseded by religion, history, ideology and ethnicity in shaping the 1,400-year-old violent, intolerant, unpredictable, frustrating and inconvenient intra-Arab Middle East reality.
In fact, the unprecedented financial and strategic benefits showered upon the Palestinians by the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 uprooting of Israel from Gaza yielded – as expected – unprecedented waves of terrorism, which has been driven by the vision to eradicate Jewish sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.” Similarly, the mega-billion-dollar financial bonanza accorded to Iran’s Ayatollahs by the 2015 JCPOA yielded – as expected – an unprecedented beefing-up of the Ayatollahs’ regional and global anti-US rogue conduct, aimed at bringing to submission “the Great American Satan.”
*The August 2022 Israeli war on Palestinian terrorism demonstrated that Israel’s policy of diplomacy – coupled with a periodical major military reaction to Palestinian terrorism – yielded a dramatically stronger Palestinian terrorism, with thousands of missiles covering most of Israel, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Preemption facilitated the August 2022 elimination of most top Islamic Jihad terrorists. Preemption – and not reaction – should guide Israel’s war on Palestinian terrorism, destroying – preemptively – the storage of missiles and other lethal systems, as well as all manufacturing and smuggling facilities of such systems. Preemptive elimination – and not reaction – should be executed against the leaders of Palestinian terrorism, preempting their systematic and deliberate targeting of civilians.
*The August 2022 Israel war on the Iran-supported Palestinian terrorists (which include Hamas and Islamic Jihad) highlights the fact that the Iranian threat to regional and global stability is not limited to nuclear, but includes the threat of Iran-supported subversion and terrorism in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East at-large, central Asia, Africa and Latin America from southern Chile to the US-Mexico border.
*The August 2022 war was a battle between Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists, who – just like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood – are not driven by despair and frustration. They are driven by the vision of establishing a universal Islamic society, which mandates the toppling of all national Muslim regimes, and bringing the West (especially the US) to submission.
They view the Jewish State as an effective outpost of the West in “the abode of Islam,” which plays a central role in global trade, oil production and the battle against anti-Western Islamic terrorism.
*The August 2022 war has highlighted Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of terrorist groups (e.g., the anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and Palestinian terrorists) and rogue regimes (e.g., the anti-US Iran’s Ayatollahs), which pose a clear and present lethal threat to all pro-US Arab regimes, such as Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.
Moreover, Israel’s posture of deterrence was not enhanced because of its peace accords with a growing number of Arab countries. Arab countries concluded peace accords with Israel because of Israel’s enhanced posture of deterrence.
*The military, intelligence and technological capabilities demonstrated by Israel during the August 2022 war on Palestinian terrorism, have reinforced its role as an effective force-multiplier for the US in a critical region (between Europe-Asia-Africa and the Mediterranean-Red Sea-Indian Ocean-Persian Gulf), which has been an epicenter of anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking and the proliferation of advanced military systems throughout the globe, including Central and South America.
*The August 2022 military clash between Israel and the Iran-supported Palestinian terrorists demonstrated the advantage/necessity of preemptive military initiatives against rogue entities, especially when the diplomatic option fails to advance the cause of peaceful-coexistence, while bolstering the capabilities of the rogue entities.
For instance, the diplomatic option has dominated US policy toward Iran’s Ayatollahs since their ascension to power in February 1979. It has provided a vigorous tailwind to the Ayatollahs anti-US strategy and a robust headwind to all pro-US Arab regimes and to the national security and homeland security of the US.
*Will US policy-makers adhere to their own conventional wisdom or to the track record of their policy? Will they stick by their Western-oriented diplomatic option, or switch to the Middle East-oriented regime-change and military preemption options? While the latter entails some cost, it would be dwarfed by the cost of facing a nuclear Iran!
Western red carpet vs. Arab shabby rug…
The two-state solution
“President Biden underscored his strong commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the best path to reach a just and lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
“US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Washington backed a two-state solution to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Would a Palestinian state resolve or exacerbate the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
Would a Palestinian state enhance or erode Middle East stability?
Would a focus on the Palestinian issue bolster or cripple the expansion of the Israel-Arab peace process?
Would a Palestinian state advance or undermine US interests?
The “two-state solution” policy is based on the following assumptions:
*The unresolved Palestinian issue is crucial for the Arab countries and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict;
*The proposed Palestinian state would adhere to peaceful-coexistence with the Jewish State, and would not join the ranks of rogue regimes;
*Land-for-peace is a prerequisite for the resolution of the Palestinian issue, requiring an Israeli retreat from land (the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria), which is the cradle of Jewish history and pivotal to Israel’s national security;
*A dramatic Israeli territorial concession, buttressed by a game-changing international financial package, would entice the Palestinians to abandon the goal to eliminate the Jewish State;
*The Palestinians are amenable to a permanent (not tactical) peaceful-coexistence with the Jewish State;
Are such assumptions consistent, or inconsistent, with the Palestinian track record?
Western red carpet vs. Arab shabby rug
Western governments are preoccupied with contemporary Palestinian diplomacy, according Palestinians red-carpet receptions. They prefer to speculate on future positive Palestinian behavior, rather than be preoccupied with the rogue intra-Arab Palestinian track record. They court the Palestinians, while pressuring Israel.
On the other hand, the history-driven Arabs – who neither forget nor forgive – are mindful of the Palestinian track record, and therefore accord Palestinians shabby rug receptions. The Arabs have concluded that a Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, while valuing Israel as a potent force against rogue entities such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, they have expanded commercial and security cooperation with Israel, and refrain from flexing military or substantial financial muscles on behalf of the Palestinians.
In fact, no Arab-Israeli war erupted due to – or on behalf of – the Palestinians, and no Arab countries intervened militarily in Israel’s wars against Palestinian terrorism in Lebanon, Judea and Samaria and Gaza.
The intra-Arab Palestinian track record has been a role-model of subversion, terrorism and ingratitude. In the mid-1950s and mid-1960s, they were involved in terrorism in Egypt and Syria; in 1970, they triggered a civil war in Jordan, attempting to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime; and in the 1970s, they were involved in terrorism and a series of civil wars in Lebanon. In 1990, they collaborated with – and publicly praised – Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which was the most generous Arab host of 400,000 Palestinians, including Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat and their families. Hence, the expulsion of most Palestinians from Kuwait in the aftermath of the First Gulf War.
Notwithstanding Jordan’s Hashemite regime talk on behalf of Palestinians, Jordan’s military and security forces are aware that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the River, triggering ripple effects which could topple all pro-US regimes in the Arabian Peninsula, adversely impacting the global oil market and US national security.
In addition, the Palestinian track record features systematic close ties with enemies and adversaries of the US, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, international terrorist organizations, Iran’s Ayatollahs, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China and Russia.
Land-for-peace or land-for-terror?
The 1993 Oslo Accord showered the Palestinians with unprecedented authority, which was not accorded to them by Jordan or Egypt, when the two countries occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It established a five-year-venue to a Palestinian state. However, instead of land-for-peace, the relocation of the PLO headquarters from Tunisia, Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen to Judea, Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem introduced the concept of land-for-terror and land-for-hate-education.
Moreover, the 2005 Israeli uprooting of its civilian and military presence from Gaza has triggered four Hamas wars and a systematic wave of unprecedented Hamas terrorism.
Furthermore, in November 1947, the UN recommended the partitioning of the area west of the Jordan River between Jewish and Arab states, in violation of Article 80 of the 1945 UN Charter and the September 1922 League of Nations, which were committed to establishing a Jewish National Home in the entire area. The local Arabs and the surrounding Arab states rejected the 1947 Partition Plan and launched a war to annihilate the Jewish State.
In July 1937, the British Peel Commission recommended the establishment of a Jewish state over 18% – and an Arab state over 75% – of the area west of the Jordan River. The plan was rejected by the Arabs, who escalated terrorism.
Palestinian vision documented by education curriculum
Notwithstanding Palestinian diplomatic and public relations statements, the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian worldview, vision and territorial goal has been Mahmoud Abbas’ K-12 education curriculum, which has become (since 1993) a most effective multiplier of terrorism, suicide bombing and anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-peace fanaticism.
The 2020-2021 school textbooks of the Palestinian Authority highlight antisemitism, repudiation of Jewish history, dehumanization of Jews and the Jewish State, rejection of peaceful-coexistence with Israel, inciting to martyrdom and Jihad (“holy war”) “in the service of Allah,” heralding suicide bombers and terrorism in general, glorification of women-terrorists as role models, and promoting geographic maps with Israel replaced by an Arab Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Peaceful-coexistence with Israel?
On the eve of the September 13, 1993 signing of the Oslo Accord on the White House lawn, Arafat told the Jordanian TV that the accord was an interim agreement, consistent with the PLO’s June 1974 Phased Plan. The latter legitimized the establishment of a Palestinian beachhead on any part of British Mandate Palestine, as a step to eliminate the Jewish State and takeover the whole of Palestine.
Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat reiterated the Palestinian Phased Plan on August 14, 2009, November 16, 1998, January 30, 1996 and May 10, 1994, drawing inspiration from Mohammed’s Hudaybiyya Treaty – a major precept of traditional and contemporary Islam and Arab policy-making.
The Hudaybiyya Treaty was concluded between Mohammed and his Mecca enemies in 628 AD. However, while the treaty was perceived by Mecca as a permanent peace, Mohammed considered it as a truce (not a final peace) and a means (not a goal) to achieve the Islamic imperialistic goal. Thus, Mohammed was able to regroup, breach the treaty and overwhelm the misled and tricked enemy. It has become a tactical role model for Muslim leaders, especially when confronting the “infidel.”
Contemporarily, the Palestinian vision was codified by the charters of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah and PLO in 1959 and 1964 – before Israel regained control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem and Gaza – highlighting the goal “to liberate the whole of Palestine.” In other words, the core issue has always been the annihilation – not the size – of the Jewish State, which is deemed illegitimate in “the abode of Islam.”
The Palestinian vision is not driven by despair, but by a pre-1967 commitment “to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”
The Palestinian issue and expanding the Israel-Arab peace process
The “Palestine Firsters” – who believe in the centrality of the Palestinian issue in the Middle East – introduced a litany of peace initiatives, which were crashed against the rocks of Middle East reality.
At the same time, Israel concluded a series of peace accords with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan, which bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoided the trap of a Palestinian veto and focused on Arab – not Palestinian – interests.
In conclusion
A wide gap exists between the Palestinian track record, on the one hand, and Washington’s well-intentioned two-state-policy, on the other hand.
Contrary to the expectations of Washington’s policy-makers, Middle East reality documents that a Palestinian state would add a rogue regime to the stormy region, intensify terrorism and war, inflame regional instability, exacerbate the Israel-Palestinian conflict, undermine the expansion of the Israel-Arab peace process, generate tailwind to rogue entities and cripple US interests.
An Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 8-15-mile sliver along the Mediterranean, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would obliterate Israel’s posture of deterrence, and would transform Israel from a unique force-multiplier – to a strategic liability – for the US, depriving the US of “the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board.”
Hamas and war on terrorism
Arabs stance on Palestinian terrorism
Since 1948, the Arabs have emanated pro-Palestinian talk – which has captured the attention of Western media and policy makers – while avoiding the pro-Palestinian walk. Thus, no Arab war against Israel was ever launched on behalf of the Palestinians.
In the history-driven Middle East, memory is long: Palestinian intra-Arab treachery is not forgotten, nor forgiven.
Root cause of Palestinian terrorism
Moreover, Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Fatah were established in 1964 and 1959, in order to “liberate” pre-1967 Israel, not “the West Bank” and East Jerusalem, as documented by Mahmoud Abbas’ hate-education curriculum.
Islam divides the world into the “abode of Islam” and those who have yet to accept – or be subordinated to – Islam as the sole legitimate religion, or be eliminated. Thus, Hamas defines Israel as an illegitimate “infidel” sovereignty in the “abode of Islam,” which must be uprooted or brought to submission.
The root cause of Palestinian terrorism is not the size – but the existence – of the Jewish State. Palestinian terrorism is driven by Israel’s existence, irrespective of Israel’s policies. For example, in 1993 (Oslo) and 2005 (disengagement from Gaza), in a self-destruct attempt to create a “new Middle East,” Israel provided the Palestinians with unprecedented self-rule and a venue to independence. However, as expected in the real Middle East, and based on the Arab experience with Palestinians, these critical Israeli policies yielded unprecedented waves of Palestinian hate education, incitement and terrorism.
It has been suggested that the next Prime Minister of Israel will be proscribed from annexing parts of Judea and Samaria – for the next three years – due to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal commitment to President Trump to refrain from annexation. This ostensible commitment was never ratified by Israel’s Legislature.
Does a personal commitment by an Israeli prime minister to a US president tie the hands of succeeding Israeli prime ministers?
Not according to the tradition of democratic societies, which aims to avoid Executive tyranny, limiting the power of presidents and prime ministers through a system of checks and balance.
For example, international accords reached by US presidents require ratification by two thirds of the Senate. Therefore, in 2018, President Trump was able to withdraw from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Accord (JCPOA), since it was never ratified by the Senate. Moreover, the US is not committed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed in 1999 by President Clinton, but has yet to be ratified by the Senate.
Furthermore, the 1975 assurance of President Ford to Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin “to give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights,” did not commit any of the succeeding presidents, since it was not ratified by the Senate. A similar fate met President Eisenhower’s 1957 non-ratified assurance issued to Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol, which implied US willingness to deploy its military in the face of Egyptian violations of agreements in the Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula (which triggered the 1967 War).
On June 19, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War, Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol and his Cabinet offered “to conclude peace agreements with Egypt and Syria, based on the pre-1967 lines with due consideration to Israel’s security requirements.” Egypt and Syria rebuffed Israel’s unprecedented lavish offer. However, this generous Israeli proposal did not preclude Israeli Prime Minister Begin – who was a member of the 1967 Cabinet – from applying Israeli law to the topographically and geographically overpowering Golan Heights in 1981.
Should future Israeli prime ministers be constrained by the equally- reckless proposals, submitted by four previous Israeli prime ministers, who offered a sweeping retreat from the Golan Heights? Do past Israeli careless peace proposals – which were rejected by Syria – carry more weight than Israeli law and Middle East reality, which has highlighted the erratic, unpredictable, violent and tenuous nature of the Middle East, in general, and Syria, in particular?
In the 2000/2001 Camp David and Taba Summits, Prime Minister Ehud Barak – the shortest term-serving Israeli prime minister – overwhelmed President Clinton and Yasser Arafat by offering to withdraw from 97% of Judea and Samaria, re-divide Jerusalem, transfer some parts of pre-1967 Israel to the Palestinian Authority, and negotiate a return of some Palestinian refugees. That incredible offer – which would have returned Israel back to the pre-1967 nine to fifteen-mile sliver dominated by the mountains of Judea and Samaria – was rejected by the Palestinians.
In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert’s equally reckless peace proposal was rejected by Mahmoud Abbas.
Should future Israeli prime ministers sacrifice Israel’s existential national security requirements – in the volcanic Middle East, which has yet to experience intra Arab peaceful coexistence – on the altar of past foolhardy non-ratified Israeli proposals?
Rather than refraining from the annexation of the Jordan Valley and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which constitute Israel’s most critical line of defense and the cradle of Jewish history, religion and culture – future Israeli prime ministers are advised to follow in the footsteps of Prime Minister Begin. Prime Minister Begin applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights in 1981, despite his own support of the aforementioned 1967 peace proposal, and in defiance of brutal pressure from President Reagan, including the suspension of a promising defense cooperation agreement. Begin’s defiance triggered short-term friction and acrimony with the US, but yielded long term appreciation for Israel’s posture of deterrence and enhanced Israel’s national security.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
April 26, 2026
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
April 26, 2026
*500,000 Arabs (away for over a year) are included in the census, contrary to global norms. 325,000 were included in the 1997 census. 400,000 in 2005, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. 100,000 overseas births added to the census in 1995-2014, according to the Palestinian Undersecretary of Interior. The number grows steadily due to births.
*380,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted – by Israel and by the Palestinian Authority. The number grows steadily due to births.
*Over 200,000 Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly counted. The number expands steadily due to births.
*A 447,000 net-emigration of West Bank Arabs (since the 1997 Palestinian census) is ignored by the Palestinian Authority. In recent years, a 20,000 annual average net-emigration has been documented by Israel’s Population and Migration Authority in land, air and sea international passages.
*A 32% artificial inflation of Palestinian births was documented by the World Bank (page 8, item 6) in a 2006 audit.
*The Judea & Samaria Arab (West Bank) fertility rate declined from 9 births per woman in the 1960s to less than 3 births in 2026, reflecting a sweeping urbanization, a growing female enrollment in higher education, rising marriage age, increased use of contraceptives and youth’s emigration.
*The number of deaths is under-reported for political and financial reasons.
*An artificial inflation of 1.75 million documents a population of 1.5 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, not the official 3.25 million.
In January 2026: a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel, benefitting from a tailwind of fertility and net-immigration, while Arab demography is westernized.
No Arab demographic time bomb; but, a Jewish demographic momentum.
More data in these articles and this short video.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 3, 2026
*The assumption that “D-Day” like economic sanctions can force the collapse – or a dramatic moderation – of the Ayatollah regime, overlooks the centrality of theological fanaticism in the shaping of the Ayatollah’s vision, strategy, policy and education system, as well as its 47-year-war on the US. The Ayatollah’s war against the USA has been conducted – unrelated to Israel’s existence – in the Middle East, Latin America and on US soil.
*47 years of US-led economic sanctions and negotiation have transformed Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a leading anti-US epicenter of war, terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering. Moreover, it has catapulted the Ayatollah regime from a secondary/tertiary power in 1979 to a global power in 2026, with a strategic footprint from the Persian Gulf through Africa to Latin America and the US homeland.
*Furthermore, economic sanctions and negotiation have bolstered the Ayatollah’s tactic of stalling for time, expecting the mid-term election to weaken President Trump, diverting his attention away from international issues, softening US policy toward Iran, and leading to a non-hawkish Administration in Washington.
*The assumption that the Ayatollah regime is driven by the Western “Money Talks,” ignores the fact that in Tehran Ideology Walks, outweighing financial and diplomatic inducements.
*Refraining from regime-change in Iran has been interpreted – regionally and globally – as indecision and weakness, benefitting China, Russia and North Korea, emboldening them to expand their strategic footprint throughout the globe, including Latin America. The focus on the cost of regime-change has led to underestimating the following catastrophic cost of no-regime-change:
^Eventual emergence of the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power;
^Erosion of the US posture of deterrence;
^Emboldened Ayatollah regime, China, Russia and anti-US Islamic terrorism; ^Growing instability of pro-US Arab regimes, especially the oil-producing; ^Frustrated Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait getting closer to China and Russia.
*The apocalyptic nature of the Ayatollah regime has produced exceptional resilience in the face of economic and military adversity. The entrenched belief in a cataclysmic divine intervention is embedded in the Ayatollah’s Constitution, school curriculum (which is the most authentic reflection of the Ayatollah’s state of mind), mosque sermons and official media. Thus, the Ayatollah is mandated to conduct Jihad (Holy War), bring the “infidel” West to submission, and expand the Islamic Revolution globally. This must be stained with “infidel” blood, requiring “believers” to assume suffering and martyrdom. These are actionable and operational doctrines, culminating in chaos and conflict, paving the way for the Deliverance – the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared in the 10th century, and is currently represented by the Ayatollah, the “Supreme Leader.” In 2026, Iran’s Twelver Shia is embraced by a vast majority of Shia Muslims: a 60% majority in Iraq, 35% minority in Lebanon and a 12% minority in Saudi Arabia, mostly in the oil-rich Eastern Province. Martyrdom has been underscored by Islam, with martyrs promised a place in heaven, as documented in Quran 3: 169-171 – “Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead; they are alive with their Lord, well provided for….” It has been supplemented by Ayatollah Khomeini’s legacy, which has promoted the deliberate-martyrdom (Istishhad), heralding “the great martyr Imam Husayn ibn Ali,” who was killed in the 680 AD Battle of Karbala. In fact, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)has incorporated the Mahdist apocalyptic ideology into its training programs, preparing the ground for the Mahdi’s return, and confronting the “apostate” Sunnis and the “infidel” West.
*The “Economy of Resistance” has resulted in a 60% control of the Iranian economy by the IRGC and state-linked foundations, featuring black-market smuggling, illicit land and sea oil trade, and bypass mechanisms, consolidating the domestic economy into the hands of the ruling apparatus.
*The “axis of sanctions evasion/circumvention” has leveraged Chinese, Russian and North Korean anti-US strategy, including deep barter and non-dollar trade systems, Chinese purchase of discounted Iranian crude via land, export via the Caspian Sea ports, “ghost fleets” and third-party (trade-triangulation), shell companies, ship-to-ship transfers, while Russia trades critical military hardware, satellite intelligence, and nuclear technology in exchange for Iranian drones and ballistic systems. 47 years of economic sanctions have developed deep Iranian institutional expertise in sanction evasion.
*When applied to totalitarian, ideologically-entrenched regimes – certainly apocalyptic regimes – economic sanctions have caused severe hardship on the population (not the regime!), but have failed to generate either regime moderation, or regime collapse. For example, the 1979-2026 US and UN maximum-pressure-economic-sanctions against the apocalyptic Ayatollah regime has resulted in expanded commercial and military Iranian capabilities, and exacerbated the repression of protestors and religious and ethnic minorities; the 1990-2003 UN economic boycott and oil embargo against Iraq’s non-apocalyptic Saddam Hussein resulted in intensifying domestic oppression; the 1950s-2026 US/UN financial and trade embargoes activated against the non-apocalyptic North Korea have yielded famine, upgraded thermonuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as more ruthless despotism; the 1960-2026 US trade and financial embargo on the non-apocalyptic Cuba, has resulted in severe economic decline and a more brutal central authority; the 2022-2026 comprehensive Western sanctions against the non-apocalyptic Russia rerouted energy trade to Asia, transitioned Russia to a wartime economy controlled by Putin’s solid authority, but has failed to stop or slowdown the war against Ukraine.
*Economic measures alone have failed to induce ideologically entrenched, survival-at-all-cost, ruthless, apocalyptic regimes to abandon their core theological or strategic imperatives. They never considered sacrificing their ideology and strategy on the altar of an abundant windfall. In the arm-wrestling with the Ayatollah regime, “Money Talks” has been resoundingly defeated by “Ideology Walks.”
*Economic sanctions and negotiation do not substitute for regime change. They reinforce the Ayatollah regime, and undermine the strategic posture of the US, which is exposed as a sprinter, unable to sustain a required marathon. Sustaining such a US policy threatens the existence of all its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East, who have had the machete of the Ayatollah at their throats since 1979.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
February 27, 2024
Secretary of State Antony Blinken represents conventional wisdom when claiming that “It’s been longstanding US policy… that new settlements are… inconsistent with international law.”
However, conventional wisdom is frequently demolished by the march of facts.
For instance:
*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, who was the co-author of the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, served as Undersecretary of State and was the Dean of Yale University Law School: “Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa.”
*According to UN Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from territories, not the territories, nor from all the territories, but some of the territories, which included Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Moreover, according to Prof. Rostow, “resolutions calling for withdrawal from all the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable [9-15 mile-wide] lines… but to secure and recognized boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967….”
*Former President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, stated: “Between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967 (according to Article 52 of the UN Charter), on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine…. It follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful…. [The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… [as] indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of [Egyptian] troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the UN Emergency Force…[and] Jordan’s initiated hostilities against Israel…. The 1948 Arab invasion of the nascent State of Israel further demonstrated that Egypt’s seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful….”
*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following 4 authoritative, binding, internationally-ratified documents, which recognize the area for what it has been: the cradle of Jewish history, culture, language, aspirations and religion.
(I) The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, calling for “the establishment in Palestine (a synonym to the Land of Israel) of a national home for the Jewish people….”
(II) The April 24, 1920 resolution, by the post-First World War San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, entrusted both sides of the Jordan River to the British Mandate for Palestine, for the reestablishment of the Jewish Commonwealth: “the Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was one of over 20 Mandates (trusteeships) established following WW1, responsible for the boundaries of most Arab countries.
(III) The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine was ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by its 6th article: “[to] encourage… close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands….” The Mandate was dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights, while guaranteeing the civic rights of all other religious and ethnic groups. On July 23, 1923, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which included the Mandate for Palestine.
(IV) The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine into the UN Charter. Accordingly, the UN or any other entity cannot transfer Jewish rights in Palestine – including immigration and settlement – to any other party. According to Article 80 of the UN Charter and the Mandate for Palestine, the 1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its legal owner, the Jewish state. Legally and geo-strategically the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, since they are not “foreign territory,” and Jordan did not have a legitimate title over the West Bank. Moreover, the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria violated international law and was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan.
*The 1949 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of populations to areas previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power. However, Israel has not forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan’s sovereignty there was never legal.
*The November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a recommendation, lacking legal stature, superseded by the Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice (non-peace) Agreements between Israel and its neighbors delineated “non-territorial boundaries.”
*The term “Palestine” was a Greek and then a Roman attempt (following the 135 CE Jewish rebellion) to eradicate Jews and Judaism from human memory. It substituted “Israel, Judea and Samaria” with “Palaestina,” a derivative of the Philistines, an arch enemy of the Jewish people, whose origin was not in Arabia, but in the Greek Aegian islands.
*The aforementioned march of facts demonstrates that Secretary Blinken’s conventional wisdom on the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is based on gross misperceptions and misrepresentations, which fuels infidelity to law, undermining the pursuit of peace.
*More on the legality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria in this article by George Mason University Law School Prof. Eugene Kontrovich.
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”
September 17, 2026
More on Jewish holidays: Smashwords, Amazon
*Modeled on Yom Kippur and other Biblical fast days, the Early Pilgrims’ and Founding Fathers’ “Day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer” suspended business to confess collective wrongdoing and petition for mercy through soul-searching. Thus, the Second Continental Congress proclaimed a fast day on July 20, 1775, and repeated it through the war, calling for collective repentance and prayer to petition King George III to end the bloodshed, as the Revolutionary War began; President John Adams issued national fast days in 1798 and 1799; President James Madison did so during the War of 1812. General George Washington strictly enforced the religious observance and banned unnecessary labor and recreation for troops under his command.
*Yom Kippur is observed on the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei, starting on the evening of September 20, 2026. It is referred to as a Super Sabbath (Shabbat Shabbaton in Hebrew), concluding 10 soul-searching days, personal and collective accountability spiritual self-awareness and self-enhancement, beginning on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the Jewish year.
*Ten has a special significance in Jewish tradition: God’s abbreviation is the 10th Hebrew letter (Yod – י); the 10 Commandments; the 10 Plagues of Egypt; Yom Kippur on the 10th day of Tishrei; the 10 spheres of the spiritual universe, highlighting the Biblical Creation; 10 reasons for blowing the Shofar (ram’s horn) on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur; the 10% Biblical gift to God (tithe); the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tevet commemorates the beginning of the 586-589 BCE siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar; 10 Martyrs (Jewish leaders) were tortured/murdered by the Roman Empire; 10 generations between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham; Abraham passed 10 divine tests; a 10-person-quorum (Minyan in Hebrew) is required for a collective Jewish prayer service; 10 sons of Haman and 10 Nazi leaders were hung; etc.
*According to Leviticus 23:26-32: “The Lord said to Moses, that the tenth day of this seventh month [Tishrei] is the Day of Atonement…. Do not do any work on that day…. This is a lasting ordinance for generations to come….” Yom Kippur highlights second-chance-eligibility and renewal through repentance, commemorating the day of divine forgiveness for the sin of worshipping the golden calf idol, and the introduction of the Moses-made second set of the Two Tablets (Ten Commandments). Mankind is urged to learn from mistakes, and refrain from the recurring human fallibility: the temptation to sacrifice spiritual values on the altar of convenience.
*The astrological sign of the months of Tishrei is Libra (♎), which symbolizes the scales of justice, truth, optimism, humility and tolerance. Libra is ruled by the planet Venus (Noga – נגהin Hebrew – is the name of my oldest granddaughter), which represents divine light and compassion.
*The Hebrew word Kippur [כיפור] means atonement/repentance – a derivative of the Biblical word Kaporet [כפורת], which was the dome/cover of the Holy Ark in the Sanctuary, and the word Kopher [כופר], which was the cover/dome of Noah’s Ark and the Holy Altar in the Jerusalem Temple.
Yom Kippur resembles a spiritual cover/dome, which separates between spiritualism and materialism/mundane. The Kippah [ [כיפהis the skullcap – a spiritual dome – which covers one’s head during prayers.
*Asking forgiveness of fellow human-beings is a major feature of Yom Kippur, transferring human behavior from acrimony and vindictiveness to forgiveness and peaceful coexistence. The wronged party must accept a sincere apology. Ritual alone does not substitute for repair. It is consistent with the philosophy of Hillel the Elder, a leading 1st century BCE Jewish Sage: “The essence of the Torah is: do not do unto your fellow person that which is hateful to you; the rest [of the Torah] is commentary.” Criminals and sinners are invited to participate in Yom Kippur services.
*Fasting is a key feature of Yom Kippur, reducing material pleasure in order to focus on one’s soul-searching, and enhancing empathy with the needy. The Hebrew spelling of fasting [צומ] is the root of the Hebrew word ((צמצומ for reducing and the Hebrew word for a camera’s focus (צמצמ).
However, Judaism opposes ascetism and self-torment, and therefore views genuine repentance as a critical engine of elevating individuals from despair to hope, from abuse to caring, from intolerance to tolerance, from violence to comity, from isolation to integration, from ignorance to knowledge and from forgetfulness to commemoration.
*There are six annual Jewish fasting days:
(a) The 10th day of the month of Tishrei is Yom Kippur.
(b) The 10th day of the month of Tevet commemorates the beginning of the 586-589 BCE siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
(c) The 17th day of the month of Tammuz commemorates the 586 BCE and 69 CE breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonian and Roman Empires, as well as the breaking of the Tablets by Moses upon confronting the Golden Calf lapse of faith.
(d) The 9th day of the month of Av is the most calamitous day in Jewish history, commemorating the destruction of the first (586 BCE) and second (70 CE) Jewish Jerusalem Temples, by the Babylonian and Roman Empires respectively; the beginning of the Jewish exile from the Land of Israel; the Ten Spies’ bankruptcy of faith; the crushing of the 132-135 CE Bar Kokhbah Revolt by the Roman Emperor Adrianus (600,000 Jewish fatalities); the pogroms of the First Crusade (1096-1099) in Germany, France, Italy and Britain; the expulsion of the Jews from Britain (1290) and Spain (1492); the eruption of the First World War (1914); and the beginning of the 1942 deportation of Warsaw Ghetto Jews to the Treblinka extermination camp.
(e) The 3rd day of the month of Tishrei commemorates the murder of the Jewish Governor of Jerusalem, Gedalyah Ben Achikam, by another Jew, Yishmael Ben Netanyah (586 BCE).
(f) The 13th day of the month of Adar is the Fast of Queen Esther – one day before the Purim holiday – commemorating Queen Esther’s three-day-fast prior to her appeal to the Persian King Ahasuerus to refrain from exterminating the Jews (around 480 BCE).
*According to Judaism, the human tongue can be lethal, and therefore, ill-speaking of other people (“evil tongue” in Hebrew) may not be forgiven.
*Yom Kippur is concluded by blowing the Shofar (a ritual ram’s horn), which represents a moral wakeup-call, optimism, determination, humility and peace-through-strength (the peaceful ram deters enemies through its horns). The blowing of the Shofar commemorates the saving of Isaac by a ram; the receipt of the (second) Tablets/Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai (even the sin of the Golden Calf does not foreclose restoration); the re-entry to the Land of Israel and the conquest of Jericho by Joshua; as well as Gideon’s victory over the much larger Midianite military. The Hebrew word Shofar שופר]] means “to enhance,” “top quality,” glory and spiritual pleasure [שפר, שופרא].
*The Biblical Scroll of Jonah – which is the fifth book in The Twelve Prophets – is read on Yom Kippur, underscoring repentance, prayer/faith, justice and forgiveness. The Prophet Jonah (“dove” in Hebrew), son of Amitai (“truth” in Hebrew and the name of my 4th grandchild) transformed the sinful Assyrian population of Nineveh into a pious society; thus, displaying social responsibility.
*A Memorial Candle in memory of one’s parents is lit on Yom Kippur, reaffirming “Honor thy father and mother,” providing an opportunity to mend fences with – and ask forgiveness of – one’s parent(s).
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative”
February 24, 2026
*While the United Arab Emirates uprooted all anti-Jewish and anti-Israel elements from its school curriculum, the Friday mosque sermons, and its official media – replacing them with pro-Jewish and pro-Israel elements – Qatar has sustained its anti-“infidel”, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel school curriculum, consistent with its Friday incitement mosque sermons and controlled media.
*Are Qatar’s worldview and conduct consistent with the values and interests of the USA? Is Qatar’s policy consistent with the US’ attempts to end/minimize wars and terrorism? Does it qualify Qatar as an honest broker? Is Qatar a partner in the defense of Western democracies in the face of Sunni and Shiite Islamic terrorism?
*Qatar’s shifty diplomatic pronouncements (Talk) has been incompatible with Qatar’s permanent school curriculum (Walk), which reflects most authentically its worldview, values, vision and conduct. It reflects and shapes the minds of Qatar’s ruling minority (10%-15%), and is fully-controlled by the ruler (Emir), Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who oppresses the 85%-90% majority of foreign workers.
*A February 2026 review of Qatar’s 2025-26 school curriculum, conducted by Impact-se, documents “anti-semitic narratives, religious intolerance toward non-Muslims, and legitimization of violent jihad,… demonstrating no substantive curricular reform since the 2021–2022 school year….
“In July 2024, the US Department of State’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom criticized Qatar’s national curriculum for continuing to ‘include content that was antisemitic in nature.’ Despite this, the same material was reprinted and continues to be taught in the 2025–2026 school year….
“Disrespect towards non-Muslims is expressed through terminology such as ‘Infidels’ and ‘pagans/polytheists,’ through derogatory portrayals of non-Muslims, and through discussions of punishment for disbelief in Islam…. Non-Islamic nations such as the US and European countries are occasionally treated with suspicion….
“Textbooks continue to teach antisemitic content…. portraying Jews as materialistic, arrogant, deceitful, and hostile to Islam. Jews are further associated with traits such as lying, scheming, fleeing in fear, spreading discord, breaching agreements, and excessive attachment to material wealth, thereby reinforcing an image of Jews as fundamentally untrustworthy…. Antisemitic tropes depict Jews as cynically manipulating global affairs… denying Jewish historical ties to Israel/Palestine and the right to self-determination….
“Violent interpretations of jihad prevail as religious ideals…. Textbooks praise the upbringing of children ‘to love jihad,’ and students are taught that God rewards those who fight and die for Islam by granting them entry into Paradise….
“Israel’s establishment is framed as occupation…. Israel is erased from maps, and normalization is condemned…. Poems exhort students to draw swords, engage in jihad, and sacrifice their lives fighting against ‘the Zionist enemy….’
For example:
*Islamic Education, Grade 11, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, p. 46 condemns Christianity and Judaism as religions which “have been corrupted”, and that polytheistic elements “have been inserted into them.”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 124, 129 presents two possible infinite outcomes one can expect when dying: Muslims (“Believers”) will reside in Heaven; non-Muslims (“Infidels”) will suffer in Hell.
*Islamic Education, Grade 10, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 18–19 “accuses Jews of failing to uphold the Torah they were given by Allah…. instructing students to specifically avoid ‘resembling Jews….”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 26–28 suggests that “Moses and Jesus are both Islamic prophets who were initially rejected by their people, according to the Qur’an…. Jews are evil…. The Jewish people are forever cursed by Allah…. None is more evil than people who have been invited to Islam and rejected it….”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 70–71. A chapter about the Battle of Khaybar, fought between the Muslim forces of the Prophet Muhammad and the Jewish Arabian tribe of Banu Nadir… portrays the Jewish people as inherently hostile to Islam and Muslims. A repeated emphasis on the Jewish nature as historic enemies of Muslims…”
*Islamic Education, Grade 6, Vol. 2, 2025–2026, p. 139. “An Islamic education lesson teaches that one of the ways to measure a good Muslim woman is raising children to sacrifice their lives [martyrdom], in what is understood to be violent Jihad.”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 72–73 teaches the Battle of Khaybar, fought between the forces of the Prophet Muhammad and the ancient Jewish Arabian tribe of Banu Nadir in 629 CE, concluded by teaching students that the sublime goal of Jihad is to bring non-Muslims to convert to Islam.
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 22, 25, 28, 103 teaches that God loves Jihad warriors who “fight” (yuqātilūn) for His sake, favoring a violent interpretation of Jihad. God defends Islam against the non-Islamic world.
The bottom line: A prerequisite for Qatar’s constructive role in advancing peace and combatting terror isa thorough structural overhaul of its prevailing culture, which is preconditioned upon the uprooting of its hate and terror-driven school curriculum.
