*A major goal of President Biden’s July, 2022 visit to the Middle East – in addition to increasing the Saudi and Emirati oil production – is the restoration of the US stature as a reliable strategic ally of the pro-US Arab regimes, and stop their drift toward Russia and China.
*At the same time, Biden pursues a JCPOA-like agreement with Iran’s Ayatollahs and embraces the Muslim Brotherhood.
*However, the attempt to restore the US’ strategic reliability, while aiming for a JCPOA-like accord with Iran’s Ayatollahs and embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, constitutes a contradiction in terms, since all pro-US Arab regimes view Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood as lethal threats. Moreover, they are convinced that a JCPOA-like accord would bolster (as did the 2015 JCPOA) the Ayatollahs’ regional and global subversion, terrorism, fueling of civil wars, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems to rogue entities in the Middle East and beyond. They are also frustrated by the State Department’s underestimation of the fanatic vision of the Muslim Brotherhood, and taking lightly its terror network throughout the Middle East and beyond (e.g., India and Thailand).
*Contrary to President Biden and the State Department establishment, the pro-US Arab regimes are fully aware that Iran’s Ayatollahs are not amenable to peaceful coexistence with their Arab Sunni neighbors; neither to abandoning their fanatic, religious, imperialistic vision in return for a financial and diplomatic bonanza; nor to compliance with agreements. They have concluded that the rogue 43-year-old track record of Iran’s Ayatollahs – since rising to power in February 1979 – is irreconcilable with good-faith negotiation.
*The visit may awaken Biden and Secretary of State Blinken – who have prodded Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt on account of human rights and their involvement in the Iran-fueled civil war in Yemen – to Middle East reality. The visit may alert them to the fact that the choice facing the US is not between Arab countries, which respect or violate human rights, but between pro-US and anti-US Arab countries, which violate human rights.
*President Biden’s visit will reaffirm the return of the State Department – since January 2021 – to the center stage of US foreign policy-making, as it was until January 2017, notwithstanding Foggy Bottom’s systematic blunders in the Middle East.
*For example, the State Department opposed the Abraham Accords, which were forged in defiance of its (Palestinian-centered) Middle East perspective. Thus, the Abraham Accords were concluded because their architects recognized the secondary role of the Palestinian issue in the Middle East. Therefore, they did not focus on the Palestinian issue, but on Arab national security and economic interests, in the face of lethal Iranian and Muslim Brotherhood threats, and the need to diversify/modernize the economy of the oil-producing countries.
*The Abraham Accords – similar to Israel’s prior peace accords with Egypt and Jordan and consistent with intra-Arab priorities – bypassed the Palestinian issue, and therefore, avoided a Palestinian veto. On the other hand, the State Department establishment has ignored the wide gap between the Arab (supportive) talk and (harsh) walk on the Palestinian issue. Therefore, it has misconstrued the Palestinian issue as the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a core cause of Middle East turbulence and a crown-jewel of Arab policy-makers. Therefore, all State Department Israel-Arab peace proposals have failed, wrecked on the rocks of Middle East reality.
*Hence, the attempt to expand the scope of the Israel-Arab peace process, on the one hand, and the State Department’s preoccupation with the Palestinian issue, on the other hand, constitute a thundering oxymoron.
*When assessing the validity of State Department proposals, which may be submitted during President Biden’s visit, Israel should study additional examples of critical State Department blunders, such as its early embrace of Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Bashar Assad, as well as Foggy Bottom’s reference to the eruption of the 2010-2011 turbulence/Tsunami on the Arab Street (which is still raging) as “Youth and Facebook Revolution” and “the Arab Spring.” In addition, in 1948, the State Department ferociously opposed the establishment of the Jewish State, which it expected to be pro-Soviet, too weak to withstand Arab military offensive, undermining US national security interests and a burden for the US. In 1981 and 2007 the State Department brutally attempted to stop, and then condemned, Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors, which spared the US, the Middle East and the world at-large much devastation.
*President Biden may attempt to impose upon Israel a quid-pro-quo – consistent with the State Department’s “Palestine Firsters” – requiring Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, in return for enhanced strategic cooperation with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries (which regard Palestinians as a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude).
*President Biden and Secretary Blinken should be reminded that concessions to rogue entities whet their appetite and intensifies terrorism, as documented by the unprecedented waves of Palestinian terrorism following Israel’s dramatic concessions in 1993 (Oslo Accord) and 2005 (disengagement from the Gaza Strip). Furthermore, Egypt (1950s), Syria (1966), Jordan (1970), Lebanon (1970s) and Kuwait (1990) made major civic and financial concessions to the Palestinians, which resulted in Palestinian terrorism against their Arab hosts, including civil wars in Jordan and Lebanon and Palestinian participation in Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
*President Biden will try to convince Israel to concede the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and allow the establishment of a Palestinian state. President Biden should be advised that based on the Palestinian rogue track record, a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River. It would be replaced by a radical, anti-US regime, triggering an anti-US ripple effect into the Arabian Peninsula, toppling pro-US Arab regimes, transferring the supply of Persian Gulf oil to anti-US entities, and bolstering the geo-strategic stature of Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China at the expense of dire US interests.
Israeli control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria deters rogue entities and advances US interests; the proposed Palestinian state would radicalize the region, undermining US interests.
*Israel will be asked to authorize a US Consulate in Jerusalem, acting as the US Embassy to the Palestinian Authority. Such a demand would be in violation of the US 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which defines Jerusalem as the undivided and exclusive capital of Israel. It would be interpreted – regionally and globally – as succumbing to Arab/Muslim pressure, thus further eroding the US posture of deterrence.
*When considering President Biden’s demands for Israeli concessions, Israel’s Prime Minister Lapid should study the conduct of previous Israeli Prime Ministers, who fended off US Presidential pressure, experienced a short-term setback in the US-Israel relationship, but gained in long-term US strategic respect for defiance of odds and adherence to a principle-driven stance.
*While expressing much respect to President Biden and Secretary Blinken and their demands, Israeli leaders should realize that the US democracy features Congress as a co-equal, co-determining branch of government, the most authentic representative of the American people, the most powerful legislature in the world, which has the power to both propose and dispose in the areas of foreign and defense policies, and has expressed its deep reservations with regard to US policy on Iran (e.g., Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Robert Menendez’ February 2022 floor speech). While most US Presidents have pressured Israel, Congress has been a systematic supporter of enhancing the mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic and commercial cooperation.
.
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).”
Presidents propose and Congress disposes
On September 23, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted 420:9 to replenish the Israeli-developed defensive “Iron Dome” missiles, which are increasingly manufactured – and eventually exported – by the US defense company Raytheon, that benefits from the battle-tested “Israeli laboratory.”
The overwhelming vote reflects Congressional realization that the “Iron Dome”:
*Enhances Israel’s posture of deterrence, which is critical to the survival of all pro-US Arab regimes and minimization of regional instability;
*Reduces the need for full-scale Israeli wars on Palestinian and Islamic terrorism;
*Provides an alternative to Israeli military ground-operations against Palestinian terrorists, which would entail substantial Israeli and Palestinian fatalities;
*Represents joint US-Israel interests, militarily and technologically, in the face of mutual threats (e.g., Islamic terrorism) and mutual challenges (e.g., developing world-class, game-changing technologies).
*Constitutes another example of the systematic support by Congress of enhanced US-Israel cooperation.
The decisive role played by Congress in the replenishment of the “Iron Dome” underscores the cardinal rule of the US political system: The President proposes, but Congress disposes.
The involvement of Senators and House Representatives in foreign policy and national security-related issues has surged since the Vietnam War, Watergate and Iran Gate scandals, the dismantling of the USSR (which transformed the world from a bi-polar to a multi-polar) and rapidly-expanding globalization.
In fact, former Secretary of State, Jim Baker, complained about the growing congressional assertiveness in the area of foreign policy: “You can’t conduct foreign policy with 535 Secretaries of State….” Former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, criticized Congress for micromanaging the defense budget: dictating how much to spend on particular weapons, imposing detailed requirements and programmatic restrictions, venturing into policy-setting and requesting that the Department of Defense submits mountains of reports.
Congressional muscles
The US Congress is the most powerful legislature in the world, and it has demonstrated its co-equal, co-determining muscle in the areas of foreign and defense policies on many occasions, such as:
*Imposing sanctions against foreign countries in defiance of Presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump (e.g., Egypt – 2012, Iran – 1996-97 and 2013, Russia – 2017);
*Non-ratification of the 2015 JCPOA, which enabled withdrawal by the US;
*The 2009 non-closure of the Guantanamo Detention Camp was led by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (NV-D), in defiance of President Obama.
*The 2009 non-confirmation of Charles Freeman to the Director of National Intelligence was led by Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D);
*The 1999 non-ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in defiance of President Clinton and the international community;
*The unprecedented expansion of US-Israel strategic cooperation took place despite stiff opposition by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker;
*The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act overrode President Reagan’s veto;
*The 1984 Boland Amendment aborted President Reagan’s financial and military aid to anti-Communist elements in Nicaragua;
*The 1983 blocking of President Reagan’s attempted coup against the Surinam pro-Soviet regime;
*The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act mandated congressional authorization of surveillance of persons and organizations, which may threaten national security;
*The 1975/76 Tunney (CA-D) and Clark Amendments stopped financial and military covert support of the opposition to the pro-Soviet regime in Angola;
*The 1973 Church-Case Amendment ended funding of military involvement in Southeast Asia;
*The 1973 War Powers Act overrode President Nixon’s veto;
*The Jackson-Vanik Amendment preconditioned aid to Moscow upon free immigration.
Congress empowered by the Constitution
As documented in the aforementioned paragraphs, one is advised to note that while Congress is preoccupied with District and State issues, it has the power to both propose and dispose in the areas of foreign and defense policies.
The US Constitution aspires for a limited government and a non-monarchical president, and therefore does not limit Congress to overseeing the budget. It provides the Senate and the House of Representatives with the power to act on strategic issues and policy-setting.
The Constitution accords Congress ”the power of the purse,” oversight of government operations, ratification of treaties, confirmation of key appointments, declaration of war, funding of military operations and cooperation with foreign entities, creation and elimination of government agencies, imposing sanctions on foreign governments, etc.
In other words, the President is the “commander in-chief” within constraints, which are set by Congress.
According to the annual February 2021 Gallup’s country favorability rating, Israel is the 7th most favorable country among Americans, enjoying a 75% very/mostly favorability rating.
Israel’s favorability of 75% – compared to 66% in 2013, 69% in 2019 and 74% in 2020 – is above its 65% average since 2001, and just shy of its exceptional 79% favorability recorded during the 1991 Gulf War, when the US public was exposed to Iraqi missiles hitting Israel.
According to Gallup, “In the latest poll, 85% of Republicans view it favorably, compared with 77% of independents and 64% of Democrats.”
Iran (13%) and the Palestinian Authority (30%) trail Cuba (45%), and are among the least favorable countries, along with North Korea (11%), China (20%), Iraq (21%), Afghanistan (21%) and Russia (22%).
Israel trails Canada (92% favorability), Great Britain (91%), France (87%), Japan (84%), Germany (84%) and India (77%).
However, unlike these countries, Israel’s 75% favorability is in defiance of systematic criticism (of Israel) by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other key members of the US media establishment, as well as by State Department spokespersons and the United Nations.
Israel’s high favorability rating occurs despite the spike in anti-Israel activities on US campuses, as well as the recent erosion of Israel’s stature on Capitol Hill (especially on the House side), which has been Israel’s consistent ally since 1948.
For example, the incoming chairwomen of the two most critical House Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense (funding US-Israel defense cooperation projects) and Foreign Operations (funding foreign aid and multinational cooperation projects) are two of the most anti-Israel legislators, Congresswoman Betty McCullum (D-MN) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) respectively. Both have repeatedly ignored Palestinian hate-education, the 70-year-old Palestinian inter-Arab terrorism (e.g., the murder of Jordan’s King Abdullah in 1951) and the 100-year-old anti-Jewish terrorism (e.g., the 1920 and 1929 pogroms), and the systematic association of the Palestinians with rivals and enemies of the US (e.g., Nazi Germany, the USSR, North Korea and Iran’s Ayatollahs). They have urged the Administration to precondition foreign aid to Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.
Moreover, the incoming chairman of the Senate Full Appropriations Committee is the very powerful Senator (“Cardinal”) Pat Leahy (D-VT), an habitual, moderate critic of Israel.
Furthermore, the Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus is chaired by the radical anti-Israel Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and its whip is the vehemently anti-Israel Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN). The Caucus consists of 90 House Members – among them Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the chairwoman of the Full Appropriations Committee and Adam Smith (D-WA), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee – compared to 68 in 2012 and 96 Members in 2018.
Still, consistent with the worldview of most Americans, 331 House Members signed an April 22, 2021 letter to the chairwoman and lead Republican of the Full Appropriations Committee, urging a fully-funded foreign aid package to Israel. The letter was sponsored by Congressman Ted Deutsch (D-FL), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee, and Congressman Mike McCaul (R-FL), the lead Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The letter reads: “We urge you to support foreign assistance funding, including full funding for Israel’s security needs…. Our aid to Israel is vital and cost-effective expenditure, which advances important US national security interests in a highly challenging region. For decades, presidents of both parties have understood the strategic importance of providing Israel with security assistance. As America’s closest Mideast ally, Israel regularly provides the US with unique intelligence information and advanced defensive weapons systems. Israel is also actively engaged in supporting security partners like Jordan and Egypt, and its recent normalization agreements with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco will help promote regional stability and deal with common challenges from Iran and its terrorist proxies…. Just as foreign assistance is an investment in advancing our values and furthering our global interests, security aid to Israel is a specific investment in the peace and prosperity of the entire Middle East.”
On February 4, 2021, the Senate reaffirmed the intrinsic identification, by most Americans, with Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, when voting 97:3 in favor of an amendment to the COVID-19 budget resolution, which underscored the intention to keep the US Embassy in Jerusalem.
The amendment was introduced by Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), and was opposed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Carper (D-Del). In 1995 and 2017, the Senate voted 93:5 and 90:0 to place the US Embassy in Jerusalem.
Intel’s CEO, Pat Gelsinger, reflects the overall appreciation of Israel, by most constituents and legislators, as a most effective, reliable, democratic and innovative force-multiplier, benefitting the US, militarily and commercially: “I have been visiting Israel for 40 years and every time it excites me anew to see how Intel Israel has grown from 4 employees in 1974 to more than 14,000 today. I see in Intel Israel a microcosm of Intel worldwide, leading in innovation, research, development and production on an extensive scale, and we are investing accordingly. Our continued investment in expanding our existing research and development centers and enlarging production capacity in Israel, as well as the acquisitions we have conducted with (Israel’s) Mobileye, which leads the world in solutions to assist autonomous driving, (Israel’s) Moovit and (Israel’s) Habana Labs, which leads the world in Artificial Intelligence, promise an exciting future for Intel and Israel for decades to come.”
The Israeli challenge
Since 1948, the US Legislature has systematically supported the US-Israel relationship, and pro-actively promoted enhanced US-Israel cooperation: militarily, industrially, technologically, scientifically, agriculturally, irrigation, space, etc. This Congressional position has been consistent with the worldview of most voters; and, sometimes inconsistent with the Executive Branch.
Congressional affinity toward Israel was demonstrated in February 2021, when the Senate voted 97:3 to fund and maintain the US Embassy in Jerusalem, Israel.
Moreover, in July 2019, the House of Representatives voted 398:17 to condemn the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement.
However, the 17 House Representatives, who supported the anti-Israel BDS, included Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN). The former is the new chairperson of the most critical Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which overseas foreign aid and international commercial cooperation. The latter is the chairperson of the equally critical Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which oversees the defense budget, including global defense cooperation. These two prominent Congresswomen have been among Israel’s roughest critics on Capitol Hill.
In 2021, they represent an expanding minority among American voters, in general, and on Capitol Hill, in particular, constituting a major challenge for American and Israeli allies of the highly productive US-Israel collaboration.
They represent a growing segment of the US population, as well as legislators and staffers, who are estranged from the 400-year-old historical, cultural, moral and civic foundations of the US-Israel kinship; unfamiliar with Israel’s role as a unique force-multiplier for the US, and its contribution to the US defense industries, high tech sector, armed forces, counterterrorism and intelligence. They overlook the US-Israel mutual threats and challenges, which transcend the Palestinian issue; inattentive of the adverse effect on US interests of the proposed Palestinian state, and are oblivious to the Arab view of the Palestinians as a role model for intra-Arab terrorism, subversion and treachery. They are indifferent to Palestinian hate-education, which mirrors the Palestinian vision and breeds terrorists. They are uninformed about the enhancement of US interests by Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights. And, they are unaware of the deep incompatibility between Western values and norms, on the one hand, and the unpredictable, violent, treacherous Middle East reality, on the other hand.
American and Israeli supporters of US-Israel cooperation, should present their case on Capitol Hill and throughout the US, by focusing on “What’s in it for the USA in its ties with Israel?!” rather than on “What’s in it for Israel?”
The clout of Congress
The US President is the Commander-in-Chief, but only as authorized and appropriated by Congress. According to the Constitution, the President proposes, but Congress disposes.
US Senators and House Members serve in the most powerful legislature in the world – which is the most authentic representative of the American people – playing a critical role in the shaping of US policy, domestically and internationally.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the US Constitution established the Legislature as a co-equal and co-determining branch of government on domestic and foreign policy. Unlike other democracies, US legislators derive their potency from the constituent, not from party bosses. They are, mostly, accountable to the constituent, not to their party leadership and/or the President.
In order to avoid a monarch-like, excessive Executive the framers of the Constitution limited presidential indiscretion, diffused the power of government, and encouraged arm-wrestling, constructive tension, collective decision-making and shared-responsibility between the decentralized 535-member Legislature and the highly-centralized one-man Executive.
Thus, the Constitution limits the power and the term of the President, while establishing a uniquely powerful Legislature, which can serve unlimited terms, regulate, amend, suspend, overrule and effectively supervise and check the Executive. Furthermore, Congress is empowered to initiate programs/policies in the areas of national security and foreign policy through the “power of the purse,” authorization and termination of military involvement, ratification or rejection of treaties, confirmation and rejection of senior appointments, establishing and abolishing Executive departments and agencies, veto-override, impeachment, etc.
While House Representatives (especially) and Senators are preoccupied with district and state matters, which are the top concern of their constituents, they possess effective muscle in the area of international relations, which is flexed whenever they deem it necessary.
For example, in 2017 and 2012, Congress legislated sanctions on Russia and Egypt, in defiance of Presidents Trump and Obama. Most sanctions against foreign countries were initiated by Congress. In 2015, the Senate refused to ratify the Iran nuclear accord (JCPOA), thus, enabling the US to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. On July 15, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, chaired by Senator Durbin (D-IL), appropriated for the Iron Dome missile defense US-Israel program twice as much as requested by President Obama. On August 1, 2014, during Israel’s war against Hamas terrorists, Democratic Senators forced President Obama to de-link a $225mn funding of additional Iron Dome batteries to Israel from the $2.7bn Immigration and Border Security Bill. In 2012, Congress cut foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, and imposed additional sanctions on Iran, despite presidential opposition. On February 17, 2011, Democratic Senators forced President Obama to veto a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel’s settlements policy. In May, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) foiled President Obama’s attempts to close down the Guantanamo detention camp. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected Obama’s appointment of Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. Since 1999, the Senate has not ratified President Clinton’s Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. In 1990-1992, Congress significantly expanded US-Israel defense cooperation in spite of President Bush’s and Secretary Baker’s opposition. In 1986, Congress imposed severe sanctions on South Africa, overruling President Reagan’s veto. In 1984, 1976 and 1973, notwithstanding opposition by Presidents Reagan, Ford and Nixon, Congressional legislation led to the termination of US military involvement in Nicaragua (the Boland Amendment), Angola (the Clark Amendment) and Southeast Asia (the Church-Case Amendment) respectively. In 1973, Congress overrode President Nixon’s veto of the War Powers Act, which limits presidential authority to commit US forces abroad without Congressional consent. In 1974, Congress passed the pivotal Jackson-Vanik Amendment, despite fierce opposition by President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger.
The bottom line
While American and Israeli supporters of the win-win US-Israel cooperation should cultivate lines of communications with President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State Sherman, National Security Advisor Sullivan and other prominent foreign policy and national security Executive players, there should very frequent communications with US legislators and staffers.
The latter have demonstrated their effective impact in the areas of foreign policy and national security as a co-equal and co-determining branch of government.
While all Presidents, during 1948-2017, pressured Israel, Congress has systematically supported Israel and bolstered US-Israel military and commercial cooperation, expressing the worldview of most US constituents, even when it conflicted with presidential policy.
Will supporters of the US-Israel strategic cooperation upgrade communications with the US Legislature, and rise to the challenge presented by the recent erosion of support on Capitol Hill?
Bipartisan support track record
According to the March 2020 annual Gallup poll of country favorability, Israel benefits from a 74% favorability (90% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats), compared to a 23% favorability of the Palestinian Authority (9% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats).
With the dawn of the Biden Administration, Israel enjoys bipartisan support among most US voters and, therefore, among members of the US House of Representatives and Senate. However, one should not ignore the gradual – and recently accelerated – erosion of this support.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Israel’s national security policy – and especially its confrontational opposition to the 2015 Iran accord (JCPOA) – is responsible for the erosion of the bipartisan support.
However, US-Israel relations have experienced a number of raucous confrontations between US presidents and Israeli prime ministers – some of them harsher than the Obama-Netanyahu “Iran showdown” – but that did not fracture bipartisan support of Israel.
For example, in 1948-49, during and following Israel’s War of Independence against a military invasion by five Arab countries, Prime Minister Ben Gurion confronted a most brutal pressure by the White House, State Department, Pentagon and CIA to refrain from the application of Israel’s law to “occupied” West Jerusalem and parts of the Galilee, the coastal plain and the Negev. The US Administration claimed that Israel’s “intransigence” would severely undermine US-Arab relations, threaten the supply of Arab oil, serve Soviet interests and further destabilize the Middle East (all of which were resoundingly repudiated by reality).
Yet, in defiance of the Truman Administration, Ben Gurion expanded the area of the Jewish State by 35%. He was aware of bipartisan support for the renewed Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel, which reflected the worldview of US voters and their representatives on Capitol Hill. This worldview was consistent with the legacy of the Early Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers – the framers of the Federalist Papers, the Federalist system, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights – and the abolitionist movement, all inspired by the Biblical Exodus and Mosaic values.
For example, in 1891, over 400 prominent Americans, including House and Senate leaders, the Chief Justice and other Supreme Court Justices, governors, mayors and leading businessmen signed the Blackstone Memorial, which called for the restoration of the Jewish State in the Jewish Homeland.
Also, in 1922, the Henry Cabot Lodge (Senate) and Hamilton Fish (House) bicameral and bipartisan Joint Resolution was unanimously approved and signed by President Harding – despite the harsh opposition by the State Department and the New York Times – endorsing the reestablishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Furthermore, 1981 featured the major rift between President Reagan and Prime Minister Begin over the Israeli destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights and Israel’s war on PLO terror headquarters in Lebanon. These confrontations triggered a suspension of the delivery of F-16 aircraft to Israel and the suspension of a major US-Israel strategic pact and arms deals. Yet, bipartisan support persisted and the mutually-beneficial defense relations were renewed, reflecting US awareness of the historical and cultural common denominator between the US and the Jewish State, which has emerged – since 1967 – as the most effective, reliable and democratic force-multiplier for the US.
1989-1992 featured a ruthless campaign conducted by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker to discredit Prime Minister Shamir, who was more hawkish and steadfast than Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, US national security and technological challenges in the increasingly stormy world and Middle East – against the backdrop of a vacillating Europe and vulnerable pro-US Arab regimes – highlighted Israel’s unique military and technological capabilities and its contribution to the national security and economy of the US. This reality overshadowed the bitter Bush-Shamir friction, generating bipartisan congressional initiatives, which uniquely expanded US-Israel defense and commercial cooperation.
Bipartisan support threatened
As indicated, bipartisan support of Israel has been a derivative of US history, values and civic experience, which are shared and cherished by most Americans (Democrats and Republicans alike), dating back to the 1620 ten-week Mayflower’s “modern-day parting of the sea,” followed by the legacy of the Founding Fathers. The latter catapulted the US to the leadership of the Free World, economically, educationally, scientifically, technologically, agriculturally, militarily and democratically – a global role model of liberty.
The stronger the affinity of the American people to the legacy of the Founding Fathers, the more enduring is their identification with – and support of – the Jewish State.
This bipartisan support of Israel was buttressed following the Holocaust of WW2.
Bipartisan support gained further momentum with the emergence of Israel as the largest US aircraft carrier,” which requires not a single American on board, deployed in the most critical junction between Europe, Asia and Africa, the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.
However, the time factor (245 years since the American Revolutionary War) has scaled down the overall attachment to the legacy of the Founding Fathers. This trend has been intensified by the dramatic demographic and ideological changes of the last few decades, which have been accompanied by bitter and growing political and social polarization. The latter has also infected bipartisan support of Israel.
These developments have provided a tailwind to those who have attempted to belittle, and even discredit, the legacy of the Founding Fathers, as well as the special US-Israel ties.
The more tenuous the connection of Americans to US history, in general, and the legacy of the Founding Fathers, in particular, the more uncertain their historical and geo-strategic support of the Jewish State.
Moreover, the diminished stature of the legacy of the Founding Fathers has reduced the common-denominator between Democrats and Republicans; thus, eroding bipartisan collaboration, in general, and bipartisan support of Israel, in particular.
Stopping the erosion of – and reinforcing – bipartisan support requires addressing US concerns, in general, and the major cause of the erosion, in particular: the changing US society, culture and order of priorities.
Thus, Israel and Israel’s friends in the US should shift the focus from “What’s in it for Israel” to “What’s in it for the USA” – from Israeli to US concerns.
For instance:
*The annual $3.8bn is not foreign aid to – but investment in – Israel, yielding the US taxpayer a few hundred percent annual rate-of-return;
*1620-2021: The 400 year old American roots of the US-Israel bond;
*Iran’s Ayatollahs are a mutual threat to both the US and Israel;
*Israel in the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria advances US interests;
*The impact of the proposed Palestinian state on US interests;
*Etc.
Notwithstanding the progressive erosion of bipartisan support of Israel, support for Israel still epitomizes the majority of the US constituency and members of the House and the Senate, who are aware of the shared values, history, threats and challenges, which bind the US and its unabashed, unconditional, effective, reliable and democratic ally, Israel.
Just like the unique giant Sequoia redwood tree, the unique tree of bipartisan support of Israel is 400 years old, reveals deep roots, a strong trunk and a fire-resisting bark, which have made it possible to grow impressively, while fending off a multitude of assaults, including the recent erosion.
.
Mida Magazine, https://bit.ly/2Z8TtZo
Israel and the November 2020 Congressional election
The outcome of the November 2020 election to the US House of Representatives and Senate will greatly impact US national security policy, in general, and US-Israel relations, in particular.
This impact will be intensified by more “Progressive Democrats” in the House of Representatives – currently, 95 out of 233 Democrats – who share the following worldview (which is a prime-challenge for Israel’s public diplomacy):
*A drastic cut in the defense budget;
*Multinational – rather than unilateral – military actions;
*Embracing the UN and disavowing peace-through-strength in favor of pliability;
*Cosmopolitan, rather than national, worldview, dismissing Biblical roots of the US Constitution, civil rights, governance and culture.
*Embracing Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood, and devaluing pro-US Arab regimes, which are threatened by the Ayatollahs and the Brotherhood;
*Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, not by anti-US Islamic fanaticism, and should be addressed diplomatically and legally, rather than militarily;
*Underestimating Iran’s threat to the Middle East and the world at-large;
*Ignoring Israel’s unique role as a force-multiplier in face of mutual threats;
*Overlooking the fact that the US-Israel mutual threats and challenges transcend disagreements over the Palestinian issue;
*Disregarding the intra-Arab Palestinian track record and its impact on the US;
*Considering Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines as a prerequisite to peace;
*Ignoring the benefits to regional stability and US interest derived from Israel’s control of the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria;
*Subordinating harsh Middle East reality to well-intentioned oversimplification;
Thus, the moderate Democrat and steadfast pro-Israel Congresswoman Nita Lowey, the powerful Chairwoman of the House Full Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, who opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, is retiring from Congress. She will be succeeded in Congress by Mondaire Jones who is supported by the leadership of “Progressive Democrats.” The three leading candidates to chair the most powerful Appropriations Committee (Marci Kaptur, Rosa DeLauro and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) – assuming that the Democrats will retain the House majority – are closer to the “Progressive Democrats” than to Nita Lowey, when it comes to Israel. Two of the leading candidates to chair the Foreign Operations Subcommittee are Congresswoman Betty McCullum (who may chair the Defense Subcommittee, which appropriates much of the US-Israel defense cooperation) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who are among the fiercest critics of Israel in the House of Representatives.
The moderate Democrat and staunchly pro-Israel Congressman Eliot Engel, the veteran Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who opposed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, was defeated in the Democratic primary by Jamaal Bowman, a Progressive Democrat, supported by anti-Israel individuals and organizations. Should the next Chairman be pro-Israel (e.g., Congressman Brad Sherman, who opposed the Iran agreement), his – and the Committee’s – position on Iran, the Middle East and Israel will be heavily impacted by the growing weight of the “Progressive Democrats.”
Similar – but more moderate – changes may take place in the Senate, should the Democrats become the majority party, replacing the slate of pro-Israel Republican Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen (Republicans and Democrats defend 23 and 12 seats respectively, with 8 vulnerable Republican seats and only 2 vulnerable Democratic seats).
Hence, the most veteran, effective, liberal Democratic Senator, Pat Leahy, a supporter of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, opponent of the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and a consistent (low key) critic of Israel, would be the next President Pro-Tempore and a leading candidate to be the next Chairman of the most powerful Appropriations Committee (unless he prefers the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee), and certainly the next Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which oversees foreign aid and various cooperation initiatives with Israel.
The veteran, moderate Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, a supporter of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, and a moderate supporter/critic of Israel, opposing the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, would be the leading candidate to the chairmanship of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
The long-serving, moderate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed, a supporter of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, opponent of the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem and – like most Democrats in both Chambers – calling for Israel’s withdrawal from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would be a leading candidate to become the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which is involved in all US-Israel military aspects.
Senator Bob Menendez, the veteran, moderate and systematic supporter of Israel (in defiance of President Obama, opposing the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement!) would become the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, but would be subjected to heavy pressure by the “Progressive Democrats.”
The co-equal and co-determining Legislature
Contrary to conventional wisdom, both Chambers of Congress – which constitute the most powerful Legislature in the world and the most authentic representative of the constituents – are not a second-class branch of government. They are co-equal to the Executive, possessing the muscle to check, defy, oversee, overrule, direct, investigate, suspend, fund and defund the Executive on domestic, foreign and national security issues.
For example, Congress initiates most sanctions against foreign countries, and on many occasions in defiance of the President. In 2017, Congress legislated sanctions on Russia despite President Trump. In 2015, the Senate refused to ratify the nuclear agreement with Iran, thus enabling Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018. In 2014, Congress foiled President Obama’s attempts to delay the funding of additional Iron Dome missile defense systems during Israel’s war (“Protective Edge”) against Hamas terrorists. In 2012, despite Obama’s opposition, Congress cut foreign aid to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government by $450MN and imposed additional sanctions on Iran. In 2002, Congress forced President Bush to transform the Office of Homeland Security into a Department of Homeland Security. Since 1999, the Senate has refrained from ratifying President Clinton’s Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. In 1990-1992, Congress substantially expanded US-Israel strategic cooperation in defiance of President Bush and Secretary Baker. In 1986, Congress overruled President Reagan’s veto and imposed sanctions, which led to the downfall of South Africa’s Apartheid regime. In 1984, 1976 and 1973, in spite of opposition by Reagan, Ford and Nixon, congressional legislation led to the end of US military involvement in Nicaragua (the Boland Amendment), Angola (the Clark Amendment) and Southeast Asia (the Church-Case Amendment) respectively. In 1973, Congress overrode President Nixon’s veto of the War Powers Act, limiting presidential powers to commit US forces abroad without congressional approval. In 1974, Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment – over President Nixon’s opposition – which led to over a million Jewish immigrants to Israel.
The power of Congress is stipulated by the US Constitution, which aims at securing civil liberties by highlighting the centrality of the constituents, while precluding excessive Executive power. Thus, US presidents are constrained by checks and balances, limited government and a strict separation of powers among the Legislature (which is accorded the first article in the Constitution), Executive and Judiciary. Therefore, unlike European and Israeli leaders, US presidents are not super-legislators, nor do they determine the congressional agenda or congressional leadership.
Moreover, Congress possesses the Power of the Purse, the authority to impeach, establish and abolish Executive departments, confirm Supreme Court Justices and ambassadors, etc.
The President proposes, but Congress disposes.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but only as authorized and appropriated by Congress, which has been a systematic supporter of the mutually-beneficial US-Israel cooperation.
The 2020 annual Gallup poll of country-favorability documents a 74% favorability for Israel, compared to a 23% favorability for the Palestinian Authority. This fact highlights the significant potential/challenge of enhanced ties between the American people and their representatives on Capitol Hill and the Israel.
Will Israel’s public diplomacy rise to the challenge posed by the current ideological trends in the US?
“Israel Hayom“
Israel Ambassador to the USA, Ron Dermer, is correct to recommend welcoming a visit to Israel by House Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – the first two US Muslim Congresswomen – “out of respect for the US Congress and the great US-Israel alliance.”
Israel’s high respect of both chambers and both parties in the US Congress supersedes Israel’s deep reservations about the two legislators’ support of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel; their identification with Palestinian and Islamic terror organizations (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood); their embrace of themes perpetrated by Palestinian hate-education, which have denied Israel’s right to exist; and their determination to weaken the 400-year-old bonds between the American people and the Jewish State, and undermine the mutually-beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation.
In fact, the worldview of these two legislators departs sharply from the vast majority of the legislators on Capitol Hill, as well as in the US State Legislatures, 27 of which have already adopted anti-BDS legislation. It was evident on July 23, 2019, when the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly (398:17) passed the anti-BDS House Resolution 246.
Thus, Israel displays tolerance of criticism and respect towards Congress, which has systematically enhanced the unique US ties with the Jewish State and the two-way-street US-Israel cooperation – sometimes in defiance of US Presidents – long before the 1948 establishment of Israel and the 1951 establishment of AIPAC. For example, in 1891 – six years before the first Zionist Congress and 57 years before the establishment of the Jewish State – the bipartisan House and Senate leadership joined some 400 Supreme Court Justices, Governors, mayors, university presidents, newspaper editors, clergy, and leading businessmen, signing the Blackstone Memorial, which called for the establishment of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel.
In addition, Israel is aware of the co-equal, co-determining muscle of the US Legislature, as displayed by coercing the Executive to end US military involvement in Southeast Asia, Angola and Nicaragua, overriding the Administration when forcing the USSR/Russia to allow free emigration, end the support for South Africa’s Apartheid Regime, etc.
Israel realizes that tolerating criticism does not reflect vacillation, but open-mindedness and an opportunity to highlight critical data, as was the case in prior visits of US legislators known for their criticism of Israel.
For example, Senator William Fulbright (AK-D, 1945-1975), the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (a heavy-weight compared to these two freshmen Congresswomen), stated on June 9, 1967: “They [Israel] know they have control of the Senate politically, and therefore whatever the Secretary [of State] tells them, they can laugh at him….” Senator Fulbright advocated economic pressure on Israel as a means to force a retreat to the pre-1967 lines.
Senator Chuck Percy (IL-R, 1967-1985), as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, supported President Ford’s and Secretary of State Kissinger’s reassessment of their Middle East policy (opposed by 76 Senators), including the use of foreign aid and withheld arms sales as a means to force an Israeli withdrawal from parts of the Sinai Peninsula. Senator Percy considered Yasser Arafat “a moderate leader” (during the early 1980s), while criticizing Israel’s supposed “intransigence,” contending that close US-Israel ties undermine US-Arab relations.
At the same time, leading US legislators known for their criticism of Israel have demonstrated open-mindedness, always welcoming visits – to their Capitol Hill office – by Israeli leaders and diplomats, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who paid frequent visits to many Capitol Hill offices before becoming Israel’s top Executive (e.g., 8th term Senator Pat Leahy from Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee).
Moreover, Senator Bob Dole (KS-R, 1961-1997) and his top staffers held many meetings with Israelis, irrespective of the Senator’s full identification with Secretary of State Jim Baker’s tough criticism and pressure of Israel; his call for a 5% cut in foreign aid to Israel; his close ties with Saddam Hussein, whom he considered an ally of the US (until the day of the August, 1990 invasion of Kuwait); and contending that Israel was partly responsible for the 1990 murder of Colonel Higgins by Hezbollah terrorists.
Obviously, a respectful attitude, by Israel, toward the US public and its representatives on Capitol Hill requires Israel to provide a well-documented profile of the two Congresswomen’s Palestinian interlocutors (the Palestinian Authority): hate-educators in K-12 and in the mosques; subversion and terrorism against Arab regimes; long-lasting ties with anti-US elements in the Middle East and beyond; posing a clear and present threat to every pro-US Arab regime and the US itself.
The US mindset on Israel – unlike the US attitude toward other countries – is a bottom-top phenomenon: a derivative of the US public worldview, which feeds legislators in the House and Senate and policy-makers in the White House.
The US mindset on Israel draws its strength from the religious, ethical, moral and cultural roots of the US society, which were planted in 1620 and thereafter upon the arrival of the Early Pilgrims, and bolstered by the Founding Fathers, who authored the US Constitution in 1787.
For example, the Early Pilgrims referred to their 6-8 week sail in the Atlantic Ocean as the “Modern Day Exodus” and “Parting of the Sea.” Their destination was “the Modern Day Promised Land.” Hence, the hundreds of US towns, cities, parks and deserts bearing Biblical names such as Zion, Jerusalem, Salem, Bethel, Shilo, Bethlehem, Dothan, Hebron, Gilead, Carmel, Rehoboth, Boaz, Moab, etc.
Furthermore, the Philadelphia Liberty Bell, which represents the Founding Fathers’ concept of liberty, features an inscription from Leviticus, 25:10, which presents the Biblical core of liberty – the Jubilee: “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land and all the inhabitants thereof.” Moreover, Yale University’s seal is inscribed in Hebrew letters: אורים ותומים, which was the power of the High Priest during the Exodus from Egypt. And, the seal of Columbia University features the four Hebrew letters of God: יהוה (Jehovah) and one of God’s Angels: אוריאל (Uriel – Divine Light in Hebrew). The battle against slavery was based on Biblical values and themes, such as “Let My People Go,” and a key leader in that battle, Harriet Tubman, earned the name “Mama Moses.”
In spite of the erosion of these roots and core values – as a result of demographic and ideological transformations in the US – their impact has been deeper than shifting national security interests, and more effective than the worldview of short-term serving policy-makers.
In fact, these long-term core values (and the larger geo-strategic, regional and global context) have moderated occasional short-term confrontations between the leaders of the US and Israel.
While the US Jewish community has provided tailwinds to the 400-year old unique US mindset on the concept of a Jewish State, it was not the Jewish community that laid the foundations of such a unique public mindset toward the Jewish State.
The potency of the core American values – which are defined as Judeo-Christian values in the US, which is the most religious Western democracy – is reflected by the 69% favorability of Israel, according to the February 2019 annual Gallup poll (compared with 21% Palestinian favorability) in defiance of significant odds, which do not challenge any other ally of the US: a systematic criticism by the “elite” US media and many in the US academia; the entrenched hostility of the State Department’s movers and shakers, who opposed Israel’s establishment in 1948, and have brutally criticized Israel ever since; and a pressure by all US presidents from Truman through Obama.
However, contrary to presidential pressure on Israel, the Jewish State has enjoyed systematic support by the co-equal and co-determining Legislature, which has been the most authentic representative of the (largely pro-Israel) American public and, therefore, is most attentive to public mindset and concerns. The Legislature is well aware of the awesome public muscle, which is displayed every two years during the election cycles for the (full) House and (one third) Senate, which have highlighted the electorate battle cry: “We shall remember in November.”
Ignoring the electorate’s core values amounts to political suicide by Members of the House and the Senate, and could transform presidents into “lame ducks.”
Among the core values of the US electorate are the bust of Moses facing the Speaker in the Chamber of the House of Representatives; the statue of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the ceiling of the US Supreme Court above the seats of the nine Supreme Court Justices; the Ten Commandments monuments on the ground of the State Capitols in Austin, TX, Oklahoma City, OK and Little Rock, AR, and in scores of additional towns in the US; the statues of Joshua, King David and Judah the Maccabee among the “Nine Worthies” at the West Point Military Academy Administration Building; the January, 2001 welcoming address by Senator Mitch McConnell of the newly-elected President George W. Bush: “We trust that you shall lead us in the best tradition of Joshua and Caleb”; etc.
Thus, the inception and perpetuation of the unique US public mindset on the Jewish State – since the 1620 docking of the “Mayflower” – has been a derivative of the assumption made by most Americans that the Jewish State is not a generic foreign entity, but rather an integral part of cardinal Judeo-Christian values, which have shaped the US history, morality and culture.
The Jewish contribution to – and impact on – the US may be measured by the Jewish profile in the US polity.
Thus, in 2019, the United States Jewish population is about 6 million people – 1.8% of the overall population. However, the Jewish track record in US politics documents 28 Jewish members of the US House of Representatives (6.5% of the House), 9 members of the US Senate (9% of the Senate), 3 Supreme Court Justices (33% of the High Court), 2 Governors (4% of Governors), 2 Lieutenant Governors (4%), 4 State Attorney Generals (8%) and 13 Mayors of major US cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Las Vegas, Austin, Chattanooga and Anchorage.
The first Jewish Member of the House was Lewis Charles Levin (1845 – Pennsylvania’s 1st district); the first Jewish Senator was David Levy Yulee (1845 – Florida); the first Jewish Governor was Washington Bartlett (California – 1887) and the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice was Louis Brandeis (1916).
Moreover, Jewish roots in the US polity are deeper than 1621, when Elias Legarde, the first Jewish immigrant to the American Colonies, arrived in Jamestown, Virginia.
Jewish roots in the US were planted in 1620, upon the arrival of the Mayflower, which was the first boat sailing from Britain to the “New World.” According to the 102 Puritans on board, the Mayflower – as it was with the Arabella in 1630 – departed from “Modern day Egypt” (Britain), went through the “Modern day Parting of the Sea” (the Atlantic Ocean), and sailed to the “Modern day Promised Land” (the American Colonies).
Hence, the litany of US towns, cities, national parks, deserts and other sites bearing Biblical names, such as the 18 Jerusalems, 32 Salems (Jerusalem’s original Biblical name), 34 Bethels, 24 Shilos, Zion, Sharon, Canaan, Carmel, Rehoboth, Gilead, Bethlehem, Hebron, Mizpah, Nazareth, Ophir, etc.
The 1753 Liberty Bell enshrined the concept of liberty and independence as articulated by the Biblical concept of the Jubilee, with the engraving on the Bell: “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof (Leviticus 25:10)”
Jewish roots featured prominently in Thomas Pain’s “Common Sense,” the cement of the 1776 American Revolution against the British king: “…The will of the Almighty, as declared by [the Biblical Judge] Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings…. The Jews proposed making Gideon a king… but Gideon replied, ‘I will not rule over you, neither shall my son. The Lord shall rule over you….’ Samuel [warned the Jews]: [the king] will take your sons… and he will take your daughters… and he will take your fields… and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants….”
In 1975, a US Postal Department stamp featured Haym Salomon, who was among the wealthiest people in the colonies. He raised much of the money for the 1776 American Revolution and for the initial years of independence. Upon his death in 1785, his widow Rachel realized that Salomon committed their entire wealth to the American Revolution, leaving her destitute.
Adolphus Sterne, the eldest son of an Orthodox Jew, Emmanuel Sterne, and his Lutheran wife, Helen, resided in Nacogdoches, Texas and became a friend of Sam Houston, a leader of the Texas drive for independence from Mexican occupation, and the 1st President of the Republic of Texas. Sterne became a major financier of the 1836 Texas Revolution and smuggled guns to the Texas rebels. Adolphus Sterne spoke English, French, Spanish and Yiddish.
In 2019, the US Supreme Court features eight statues and engravings of Moses holding the Tablets, including the eastside entrance and the ceiling above the seats of the nine Justices. In 2019, there are 23 busts of the leading lawgivers in human history – including Moses and Maimonides – in the Chamber of the US House of Representatives. According to the Capitol Building curator, the bust of Moses is in the middle, facing the Speaker, while the other 22 busts are in profile, staring at Moses, because Moses was the source of human law, while the other lawgivers were the derivatives.
In 2019, Congresswoman Nita Lowey serves as the Chairwoman of the most powerful House Appropriations Committee, as well as the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Related Agencies. John Yarmuth is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Eliot Engel is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ted Deutch is Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and International Terrorism. Brad Sherman is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and non-Proliferation. Adam Schiff is Chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. Jerrold Nadler is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Senator Chuck Schumer is the Leader of the Senate Democratic Minority.
Contrary to conventional wisdom which highlights Jewish PACs, campaign contributions, Jewish media personalities and AIPAC, the Jewish vote has played a significant role in shaping the US, in general, and the US polity, in particular, due to its turnout, which is almost twice the average US voter turnout. While Jews account for 1.8% of the US population, they account for 4% of the overall population voter turnout. The more complex the campaign trail, the less predictable the voting patterns; the slimmer the razor-thin election victories, the more significant is the Jewish vote locally, statewide and nationally.
Can Israel rely on US/international security guaranteesand/or peacekeepers?
The Ettinger Report 2023 © All Rights Reserved
Official Palestinian demographic numbers are highly-inflated, as documented by a study, which has audited the Palestinian data since 2004:
*500,000 overseas residents, who have been away for over a year, are included in the Palestinian census, contrary to international regulations. 325,000 were included in the 1997 census, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and 400,000 in 2005, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. The number grows steadily due to births.
*350,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted – by Israel and by the Palestinian Authority. The number grows daily due to births.
*Over 150,000 Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly-counted. The number expands daily due to births.
*A 390,000 Arab net-emigration from Judea & Samaria is excluded from the Palestinian census, notwithstanding the annual net-emigration since 1950. For example, 15,466 in 2022, 26,357 – 2019, 15,173 – 2017 and 24,244 – 2014, as documented by Israel’s Population and Migration Authority (exits and entries) in all the 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 fertility rate has been westernized: from 9 births per woman in the 1960s to 3.02 births in 2021, as documented by the CIA World Factbook. It reflects the sweeping urbanization, growing enrollment of women in higher education, rising marriage age and the use of contraceptives.
*The number of Arab deaths in Judea & Samaria has been under-reported (since the days of the British Mandate) for political and financial reasons.
*The aforementioned data documents 1.4 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when deducting the aforementioned documented-data from the official Palestinian number (3 million).
In 2023: a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel. In 1947 and 1897: a 39% and 9% Jewish minority. In 2023, a 69% Jewish majority benefiting from fertility tailwind and net-immigration. Arab fertility is Westernized, and Arab net-emigration from Judea and Samaria. No Arab demographic time bomb. A Jewish demographic momentum.
More data in this article and this short video.
Support Appreciated
Jewish Policy Center’s inFOCUS, Spring, 2023
Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations
*Riyadh does not allow the resumption of the Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties to befog the reality of the tenuous and shifty Middle East regimes, policies and agreements, and the inherently subversive, terroristic, anti-Sunni and imperialistic track record of Iran’s Ayatollahs.
*Saudi Arabia is cognizant of the 1,400-year-old fanatic, religious vision of the Ayatollahs, including their most critical strategic goal – since their February 1979 violent ascension to power – of exporting the Shiite Revolution and toppling all “apostate” Sunni Arab regimes, especially the House of Saud. They are aware that neither diplomatic, nor financial, short term benefits transcend the deeply-rooted, long term Ayatollahs’ anti-Sunni vision.
*Irrespective of its recent agreement with Iran – and the accompanying moderate diplomatic rhetoric – Saudi Arabia does not subscribe to the “New Middle East” and “end of interstate wars” Pollyannaish state of mind. The Saudis adhere to the 1,400-year-old reality of the unpredictably intolerant and violent inter-Arab/Muslim reality (as well as the Russia-Ukraine reality).
*This is not the first resumption of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic ties, which were previously severed in 1988 and 2016 and followed by the Ayatollahs-induced domestic and regional violence.
*The China-brokered March 2023 resumption of diplomatic ties is a derivative of Saudi Arabia’s national security interests, and its growing frustration with the US’ eroded posture as a reliable diplomatic and military protector against lethal threats.
*The resumption of Saudi-Iranian diplomatic relations constitute a major geo-strategic gain for China and a major setback for the US in a region which, until recently, was perceived as a US domain.
*The US posture of deterrence has been severely undermined by the 2015 nuclear accord (the JCPOA), the 2021 withdrawal/flight from Afghanistan, the systematic courting of three real, clear and lethal threats to the Saudi regime – Iran’s Ayatollahs, the “Muslim Brotherhood” and Yemen’s Houthi terrorists –- while exerting diplomatic and military pressure on the pro-US Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt.
*US policy has driven Saudi Arabia (as well as the UAE and Egypt) closer to China and Russia, commercially and militarily, including the potential Chinese construction of civilian nuclear power plants and a hard rock uranium mill in Saudi Arabia, which would advance Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s “Vision 2030.”
Saudi “Vision 2030”
*Effective Israel-Saudi Arabia cooperation is a derivative of Saudi Arabia’s national security and economic interests, most notably “Vision 2030.”
*The unprecedented Saudi-Israeli security, technological and commercial cooperation, and the central role played by Saudi Arabia in inducing the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan to conclude peace treaties with Israel, are driven by the Saudi assessment that Israel is an essential ally in the face of real, clear, lethal security threats, as well as a vital partner in the pursuit of economic, technological and diplomatic goals.
*The Saudi-Israel cooperation constitutes a win-win proposition.
*The Saudi-Israel cooperation is driven by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’ (MBS’) “Vision 2030.” He aspires to catapult the kingdom to a regional and global powerhouse of trade and investment, leveraging its geo-strategic position along crucial naval routes between the Far East and Europe (the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Arab Sea and the Red Sea).
*”Vision 2030″ has introduced ground-breaking cultural, social, economic, diplomatic and national security reforms and upgrades, leveraging the unique added-value of Israel’s technological and military capabilities.
*Saudi Arabia, just like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy. They consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.
*”Vision 2030″ defies traditional Saudi religious, cultural and social norms. Its future, as well as the future of Saudi-Israel cooperation, depend on Saudi domestic stability and the legitimacy of MBS. The latter is determined to overcome and de-sanctify the fundamentalist Wahhabis in central and southwestern Saudi Arabia, who were perceived until recently as the Islamic authority in Saudi Arabia, and an essential ally of the House of Saud since 1744.
“Vision 2030”, the Middle East and Israel’s added-value
*MBS’ ambitious strategy is preconditioned upon reducing regional instability and minimizing domestic and regional threats. These threats include the Ayatollahs regime of Iran, “Muslim Brotherhood” terrorists, Iran-supported domestic Shiite subversion (in the oil-rich Eastern Province), Iran-based Al Qaeda, Iran-supported Houthis in Yemen, Iran-supported Hezbollah, the proposed Palestinian state (which features a rogue intra-Arab track record), and Erdogan’ aspirations to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, which controlled large parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Currently, Erdogan maintains close security and political ties with the “Muslim Brotherhood” and the pro-Iran and pro-“Muslim Brotherhood” Qatar, while confronting Saudi Arabia in Libya, where they are both involved in a series of civil wars.
*Notwithstanding the March 2023 resumption of diplomatic ties with Iran, Saudi Arabia is aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which frequently releases explosive lava – domestically and regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2010 and is still raging on the Arab Street.
*The survival of the Saudi regime, and the implementation of “Vision 2030,” depend upon Riyadh’s ability to form an effective coalition against rogue regimes. However, Saudi Arabia is frustrated by the recent erosion of the US’ posture of deterrence, as demonstrated by the 43-year-old US addiction to the diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs; the US’ limited reaction to Iranian aggression against US and Saudi targets; the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood; and the US’ appeasement of the Ayatollahs-backed Houthi terrorists. In addition, the Saudis are alarmed by the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), European vacillation in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the vulnerability of the Arab regimes. This geo-strategic reality has driven the Saudis (reluctantly) closer to China and Russia, militarily and commercially.
*Against this regional and global backdrop, Israel stands out as the most reliable “life insurance agent” and an essential strategic ally, irrespective of past conflicts and the Palestinian issue. The latter is considered by the Saudi Crown Prince as a secondary or tertiary issue.
*In addition, the Saudis face economic and diplomatic challenges – which could benefit from Israel’s cooperation and can-do mentality – such as economic diversification, innovative technology, agriculture, irrigation and enhanced access to advanced US military systems, which may be advanced via Israel’s stature on Capitol Hill.
*The Saudi interest in expanding military, training, intelligence, counter-terrorism and commercial cooperation with Israel has been a byproduct of its high regard for Israel’s posture of deterrence and muscle-flexing in the face of Iran’s Ayatollahs (in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself); and Israel’s systematic war on Palestinian and Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, the Saudis respect Israel’s occasional defiance of US pressure, including Israel’s high-profiled opposition to the 2015 JCPOA and Israel’s 1981 and 2007 bombing of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors, which spared the Saudis (and the US) the devastating wrath of a nuclear Saddam Hussein and a nuclear Assad.
*A deterring and defiant Israel is a cardinal force-multiplier for Saudi Arabia (as it is for the US). On the other hand, an appeasing and retreating Israel would be irrelevant to Saudi Arabia’s national security (as it would be for the US).
*On a rainy day, MBS (just like the US) prefers a deterring and defiant Israel on his side.
Saudi interests and the Palestinian issue
*As documented by the aforementioned data, Saudi Arabia’s top national security priorities transcend – and are independent of – the Palestinian issue.
*The expanding Saudi-Israel cooperation, and the key role played by Riyadh in accomplishing the Abraham Accords, have contradicted the Western conventional wisdom. The latter assumes that the Palestinian issue is central to Arab policy makers, and that the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is preconditioned upon substantial Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, including the establishment of a Palestinian state.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, MBS is aware 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 regional turbulence.
*Independent of the pro-Palestinian Saudi talk, Riyadh (just like the Arabs in general) has demonstrated an indifferent-to-negative walk toward the Palestinians. Arabs know that – in the Middle East – one does not pay custom on words. Therefore, the Arabs have never flexed a military (and barely financial and diplomatic) muscle on behalf of the Palestinians. They have acted in accordance with their own – not Palestinian – interests, and certainly not in accordance with Western misperceptions of the Middle East.
*Unlike the Western establishment, MBS accords critical weight to the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, which is top heavy on subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude. For instance, the Saudis don’t forget and don’t forgive the Palestinian collaboration with Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was the most generous Arab host for Palestinians. The Saudis are also cognizant of the deeply-rooted Palestinian collaboration with Islamic, Asian, African, European and Latin American terror organizations, including “Muslim Brotherhood” terrorists and Iran’s Ayatollahs (whose machetes are at the throat of the House of Saud), North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The Saudis are convinced that the proposed Palestinian state cannot be different than the Palestinian rogue track record, which would add fuel to the Middle East fire, threatening the relatively-moderate Arab regimes.
Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords
*Saudi Arabia has served as the primary engine behind Israel’s peace treaties with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan, and has forged unprecedented defense and commercial cooperation with Israel, consistent with the Saudi order of national priorities.
*Contrary to Western conventional wisdom, the Saudis do not sacrifice Middle East reality and their national security interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue.
*The success of the Saudi-supported Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by Western policy makers, which produced a litany of failed Israeli-Arab peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue. Learning from prior mistakes, the Abraham accords focused on Arab interests, bypassing the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto.
*Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.
*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries which signed the Abraham Accords. Their stability is threatened by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East.
*The tenuous nature of most Arab/Muslim regimes in the Middle East yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969) and Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.
*Bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record, regional instability, the national security of Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be severely undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transform Jordan into a chaotic state in the vein of the uncontrollable Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; and produce another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, which would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs, in order to tighten their encirclement of Saudi Arabia. This would trigger a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula, jeopardizing the supply of Persian Gulf oil; threaten global trade; and yield a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US and its Arab Sunni allies, headed by Saudi Arabia.
*Why would Saudi Arabia and the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Why would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces?
The well-documented fact that Arabs have never flexed a military muscle (and hardly a significant financial and diplomatic muscles) on behalf of the Palestinians, provides a resounding answer!
Israel-Saudi cooperation and Israel’s national security interests
*Notwithstanding the importance of Israel’s cooperation with Saudi Arabia, it takes a back seat to Israel’s critical need to safeguard/control the geographic cradle of its history, religion and culture, which coincides with its minimal security requirements in the volcanic Middle East: the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), which dominate the 8-15-mile-sliver of pre-1967 Israel.
*The tenuously unpredictable Middle East reality defines peace accords as variable components of national security, unlike topography and geography (e.g., the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights) which are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the non-Western-like Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.
*An Israel-Saudi Arabia peace treaty would be rendered impractical if it required Israel to concede the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which would relegate Israel from a terror and war-deterring force multiplier for the US to a terror and war-inducing burden upon the US.
*Contrary to the Western (mis)perception of Israel-Arab peace treaties as pillars of national security, the unpredictably-violent Middle East features a 1,400-year-old reality of transient (non-democratic, one-bullet, not one-ballot) Arab regimes, policies and accords. Thus, as desirable as Israel-Arab peace treaties are, they must not entail the sacrifice of Israel’s most critical national security feature: the permanent topography of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which dominate 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructure.
*In June and December of 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor and applied its law to the Golan Heights, in defiance of the Western foreign policy establishment. The latter warned that such actions would force Egypt to abandon its 1979 peace treaty with Israel. However, Egypt adhered to its national security priorities, sustaining the peace treaty. Routinely, Western policy makers warn that construction in Jerusalem (beyond the “Green Line”) and in Judea and Samaria would trigger a terroristic volcano and push the Arabs away from their peace treaties with Israel.
*None of the warnings materialized, since Arabs act in accordance with their own interests; not in accordance with Western misperceptions and the rogue Palestinian agenda.
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).”
More in Amazon, Smashwords
The goal of Passover’s liberty was not the subjugation of the Egyptian people, but the defeat of the tyrannical Pharaoh and the veneration of liberty throughout the globe, including in Egypt.
Moses received the Torah – which includes 50 gates of wisdom – 50 days following the Exodus, as celebrated by the Shavou’ot/Pentecost Holiday, 50 days following Passover. Moreover, there are 50 States in the United States, whose Hebrew name is “The States of the Covenant” (Artzot Habreet -ארצות הברית).
Passover aims at coalescing the fabrics of the Jewish family and the Jewish people, commemorating and strengthening Jewish roots, and refreshing and enhancing core values such as faith, humility, education, optimism, defiance of odds and can-do mentality, which are prerequisites to a free and vibrant society.
Passover is an annual reminder that liberty must not be taken for granted.
Jerusalem has been the exclusive capital of the Jewish people since King David established it as his capital, 3,000 years ago.
More: Jewish Holidays Guide for the Perplexed – Amazon, Smashwords
A new 8-minute-video: YouTube, Facebook
Synopsis:
*Israel’s control of the topographically-dominant mountain ridges of the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria has enhanced Israel’s posture of deterrence, constraining regional violence, transforming Israel into a unique force-multiplier for the US.
*Top Jordanian military officers warned that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, transforming Jordan into a non-controllable terrorist heaven, generating an anti-US domino scenario in the Arabian Peninsula.
*Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria has eliminated much of the threat (to Jordan) of Judea and Samaria-based Palestinian terrorism.
*Israel’s posture of deterrence emboldens Jordan in the face of domestic and regional threats, sparing the US the need to deploy its own troops, in order to avoid an economic and national security setback.
*The proposed Palestinian state would become the Palestinian straw that would break the pro-US Hashemite back.
*The Palestinian track record of the last 100 years suggests that the proposed Palestinian state would be a rogue entity, adding fuel to the Middle East fire, undermining US interests.
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.
