The US-engineered and brokered Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) maritime/gas accord includes (in section 4) US guarantees. It aims to reassure both parties, especially Israel: “The United States intends to exert its best efforts working with the Parties to help establish and maintain a positive and constructive atmosphere for conducting discussions and successfully resolving any differences as rapidly as possible.”
Is that a reassuring commitment?
Section 4 of the maritime/gas accord is a classic example of four features of all US’ international guarantees, which – as logically expected – intend to subordinate the implementation of the guarantees to the interests of the US guarantor, not the interests of the guaranteed countries:
*Non-specificity;
*Non-automaticity;
*Open-ended interpretations;
*Escape routes.
*For example, the NATO Treaty – led by the US – is perceived to be the tightest commitment by all member states to the defense of an attacked NATO country. However, article 5 of the NATO Charter highlights the aforementioned four features:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area…. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
*Furthermore, the seeds of the current devastation of Ukraine were planted in the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances accorded to Ukraine by the US, Britain and the USSR in return for Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear arsenal, which was the 3rd largest in the world.
According to the Budapest Memorandum: “Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time… the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine… to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine….”
The Budapest Memorandum was exposed as a useless and misleading “screen saver” in 2014, when Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula. Its ineffective nature was further revealed during the 2014-2022 Russia-Ukraine war in Donbas and in 2022, when Russia – again – invaded and plundered Ukraine with no implementation of the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances.
*Israel should be aware of the intrinsic flaws of all security guarantees, and persist in reliance only upon its own national security capabilities, rather than the mirage of international/US assurances.
*Moreover, the US constitutional balance of power stipulates that no US international commitment is binding unless ratified by a 2/3 Senate majority.
Thus, in 1999 and 2000, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits international nuclear testing, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in the Hague. However, Clinton did not submit the Rome Statute for Senate ratification (realizing that there was no support for ratification), and the Test Ban Treaty was also not ratified – it was defeated 48:51 in the Senate. Both are yet to be ratified….
The open-ended nature of US guarantees, and the paramount role of US interests during the implementation phase, were demonstrated by the US defense treaties, which were concluded with Taiwan (1955), South Vietnam (1973) and New Zealand (1951), but terminated by the US in 1979, 1975 and 1986, in order to advance US interests, as perceived by US presidents at the time.
*Israeli reliance on US guarantees in the context of the 2022 maritime/gas accord ignores past mistakes:
*In 2000, President Clinton pledged $800mn in emergency aid to fund Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. It was never delivered, since Congress – and not the President – possesses the Power of the Purse, and it did not agree to fund the self-defeating Israeli withdrawal (which triggered an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism).
*In 1979 – when President Carter attempted to insert into the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty a reference to a future Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights – the Israeli team shared with Carter the September 1, 1975 assurance of President Ford to Prime Minister Rabin, required to induce an Israeli withdraw from the Gulf of Suez to the Mitla’ Pass in mid-Sinai: “… [The US] will give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights.” President Carter’s correct response was that President Ford’s non-ratified executive commitment did not bind any of Ford’s successors in the White House.
*In 1967 – on the eve of the Six Day War – Israel shared with President Johnson well-documented evidence about the Egypt-Syria-Jordan planned war on Israel. Prime Minister Eshkol submitted to President Johnson the 1957 assurance (Aide Memoir) by President Eisenhower, which was a prerequisite for Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. It implied US willingness to deploy its military in the face of Egyptian violations of commitments made to the US and Israel. President Johnson responded that Eisenhower’s non-ratified Executive Commitment did not bind Eisenhower’s successors, and “it ain’t worth a solitary dime.” He added that “I am a tall Texan, but a short president in the face of a Congress that opposes overseas military deployment.”
The bottom line
*Security agreements with the US should enhance – not reduce – Israel’s posture of deterrence and its independence of national security action.
*Security agreements with the US should advance Israel’s posture as a national security producer – which deters regional violence – rather than a national security consumer, which fuels regional violence.
*Security agreements with the US should expand Israel’s posture as a unique force-multiplier for the US – a strategic asset, not a liability.
*The 2022 maritime/gas Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) accord suggests that US and Israeli policy-makers are determined to learn from history by repeating – rather than avoiding – past critical mistakes, undermining their own interests.
Irrespective of the final outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it should serve as a wake-up call for Israeli and Western policy-makers and molders of public opinion.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the flawed nature of certain assumptions, which have impacted the worldview of the Western establishment – but not the worldview of most of the world – while attempting to induce/coerce Israel into adopting these assumptions.
For example:
*The illusion that most of the world subscribes to the Western worldview of a new world (and new Middle East) order, which is supposedly more stable, predictable, tolerant and trending toward peaceful-coexistence, focusing on butter rather than guns;
*The ostensible end to the era of major wars and massive ground force invasions;
*The self-destruct notion that a military posture of deterrence can be effectively-replaced by peace accords, security guarantees and generous financial and diplomatic packages. Thus, the seeds of the current predicament of Ukraine were planted in the reckless December 1994 Budapest security assurances, which were extended to Ukraine by the USA, Britain and Russia in return for Ukraine’s surrender of its most-deterring nuclear stockpile (3rd largest in the world). In 2022, these assurances are exposed in their futility.
*Ignoring the tenuous, unreliable, unpredictable, non-committal and open-ended nature of all security guarantees, even article 5 of the NATO Charter, which is supposed to be the tightest security commitment. But, article 5 states that all NATO members shall assist an attacked member “as [they] deem necessary, including the use of armed force….” As they deem necessary….
*The delusion that peace and security agreements are more important (for national security) than military capabilities and geography/topography-driven posture of deterrence. This delusion ignores the fact that while peace accords and security guarantees are tenuous, topographic dominance (e.g., the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) and geographic depth are everlasting.
*Overlooking the fact that a gradual reduction of defense budget is interpreted by most of the globe as erosion of deterrence in a stormy world (and volatile Middle East), undermining stability and crippling national security, and therefore inducing terrorism and wars;
*The presumed superiority of the diplomatic option as a more effective negotiation tool than the military option in settling conflicts with rogue regimes, which have systematically revealed themselves as bad-faith negotiators (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs since assuming power in February, 1979);
*The alleged subordination of national ideologies and strategic visions to a cosmopolitan/universal peaceful-coexistence state of mind;
*Preferring the speculative assessments of the future track records of rogue regimes over their realistic historical track record, which highlights the centrality of rogue history in shaping their radical national vision, policy-making, school curriculum, religious sermons and media.
*The illusion that rogue conduct (e.g., subversion, terrorism and wars) is despair-driven, rather than ideology-driven.
Western policy makers have attempted to induce/coerce Israel into a withdrawal from the topographically dominant mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – in return for a peace accord and security guarantees. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the false sense of security, which is generated by security guarantees, which replace geographic depth and dominant topography in the highly volatile, violent, intolerant and unpredictable Middle East. The global experience has reaffirmed the centrality of the military-driven posture of deterrence in the shaping of national security.
Moreover, unlike Ukraine (the 2nd largest European country), Israel’s lack of geographic depth (a 7-15 miles sliver from the Mediterranean to the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) provides for an extremely small margin of error. Thus, if the 1973 surprise Arab military offensive were launched against a pre-1967 Israel (without the dominant topography of the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria and the strategic depth of the Sinai Peninsula), the Arabs would be able to annihilate the Jewish State.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
January 9, 2024
The Gaza theatre!
*The track record of the Gaza Strip reveals that it lends itself to terrorism, as contended by the June 29, 1967 memorandum submitted by General Earl Wheeler, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
*Gaza is contiguous to the largely lawless Sinai Peninsula, which has been a platform for anti-US ISIS-supported and Iran-supported Palestinian, Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, Egyptian terrorists and drug traffickers.
*The Gaza reality is impacted by the unpredictably volcanic Middle East, especially by Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic terror entities.
*A postwar plan for the Gaza Strip must be based on exclusive Israeli military control, not on well-intentioned US guarantees and defense pacts, and not on non-Israeli peacekeepers, who would not be limited to observing compliance, but mostly to combatting terrorists. However, non-Israeli peacekeepers should not be expected to sacrifice their lives on the altar of Israel’s security.
*In 1983, Hezbollah terrorists car-bombed the US Marine barracks and US Embassy in Beirut, killing 260 Americans, prompting the withdrawal of US soldiers – who participated in the Multinational (peacekeeping) Force – from Lebanon.
US guarantees and defense pacts?
*According to Prof. Michla Pomerance, Hebrew University, international relations, US guarantees and defense pacts (dating back to the early 19th century) feature escape routes – highlighting the dominance of US interests over the interests of the guaranteed party – facilitating delay, suspension and non-implementation:
<Non-specificity;
<Non-automaticity;
<Non-implementation;
<Subordination to the US Constitution, which limits presidential power.
*In fact, the inherent ambiguity, non-durability and tentative nature of US guarantees and defense pacts have unintentionally tended to fuel conflicts.
For example:
<On December 5, 1994, the US, Britain, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It prohibited Russia from using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, except in self-defense. It required Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal, which was at the time the 3rd largest in the world. Donald Blinken, the US Ambassador to Hungary and father of Secretary Tony Blinken, was in attendance.
The undeterred 2014 Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas in eastern Ukraine and the 2022 invasion of other parts of Ukraine, and the resulting destruction of Ukraine, attest to the mirage-like significance of US and British guarantees, which were not ratified by the US Senate.
<In 1954, President Eisenhower signed a defense treaty pact with Taiwan, but in 1979 – when China sided with the US against the USSR – President Carter annulled the treaty unilaterally with the support of Congress, acknowledging the “one China position” with “Taiwan is part of China….” The US Supreme Court refrained from action, declaring it “non-justiciable.” The defense treaty was substituted with the 1979 non-diplomatic and militarily non-committal congressional Taiwan Relations Act.
The predominance of the US Constitution in the shaping of US domestic and foreign policy attests that US defense pacts are not iron clad.
<In November 1956, President Eisenhower issued a memorandum, compensating Israel for its full withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula: “No nation has the right to forcibly prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf [of Suez] and through the Straits [of Tiran, leading to Eilat]…. The United States… is prepared to exercise the right of free passage and to join with others to secure general recognition of this right.” Israel was led to believe that the US would use all means to prevent Egyptian violations of demilitarized Sinai, blocking Israeli passage in the Suez Canal and blockading the access to the port of Eilat. However, in 1967, when the documentation of Egyptian violations were presented to President Johnson, he (rightly) claimed that the memorandum was not ratified by the US Senate, that there was no congressional support for military intervention, and “I’m a tall Texan, but without Congress, I’m a short President…. It ain’t worth a solitary dime.”
The Egyptian violations, the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, and the imminent Egypt-Syria-Jordan military offensive, along with the intrinsic unreliability of US guarantees, led to the preemptive 1967 Six Day War.
<US military guarantees are not carved in stone as demonstrated by the open-ended NATO treaty (article 5): “…The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all….Each of them… will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking…such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force….”
International peacekeepers?
*International peacekeeping forces are ineffective, not durable, nor politically and militarily sustainable. Just like US guarantees, it creates a false sense of security, eroding Israel’s posture of deterrence, yielding a tailwind to anti-US and anti-Israel Islamic terrorists and a headwind to Israel and the US. Non-Israeli peacekeepers would be targeted by Gaza and Sinai-based Islamic terrorists, which would severely undermine the relations with Israel and fuel anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the stationing of foreign peacekeepers on Israel’s borders would cripple Israel’s defense capabilities, requiring Israel to seek prior approval in preempting or countering terrorism, which would damage Israel’s ties with the peacekeepers, transforming Israel’s image from a unique force-multiplier for – to a burden upon – the US.
For example:
<On March 19, 1978, the US-funded UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established, in order to restore peace and security in the aftermath of Israel’s war against southern Lebanon-based Palestinian terrorists. In 2006, UNIFIL was expanded to 10,000 soldiers, aiming to facilitate Lebanon’s effective authority in southern Lebanon, “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons, other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL…. To ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind….”
The inherent ineptness of international peacekeepers facilitated the Iran-supported Hezbollah’s takeover of Lebanon – especially southern Lebanon – and its systematic raining down upon Israeli civilians with rockets and missiles; thus, paving the road to the 2024 Israel war against Hezbollah terrorists.
<In 2007, when Hamas assumed full control of the Gaza Strip, the European Union observers fled the (Egypt-Gaza) Rafah Border Crossing, which exponentially expanded the smuggling of advanced military systems to Gaza.
<On May 18, 1967, the UN Emergency Force withdrew from Sinai and Gaza, in compliance with Egypt’s demand, and irrespective of the Egyptian violation of Sinai’s demilitarization and additional commitments made to the US and Israel, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula.
*The bottom line
There is no substitute for Israel’s exclusive military control of the Gaza Strip. Moreover, intangible, tenuous, open-ended and reversible security guarantees and an international peacekeeping force – whose implementation is not determined by Israel – would engender a false sense of security, compromising Israel’s existence. As stated by Prof. Alan Dowty, Notre Dame University: “The effectiveness of a guarantee depends upon the willingness of the guarantor to react to a threat, and upon his ability to react with sufficient force…. Fear of disrupting US relations with Arab states was a factor in the 1967 US decision not to force open the Red Sea Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships…. The effectiveness of a commitment depends on the underlying interests and capabilities of the guarantor [not the guaranteed!]…. Guarantees are not unambiguous blessings….”
The US-engineered and brokered Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) maritime/gas accord includes (in section 4) US guarantees. It aims to reassure both parties, especially Israel: “The United States intends to exert its best efforts working with the Parties to help establish and maintain a positive and constructive atmosphere for conducting discussions and successfully resolving any differences as rapidly as possible.”
Is that a reassuring commitment?
Section 4 of the maritime/gas accord is a classic example of four features of all US’ international guarantees, which – as logically expected – intend to subordinate the implementation of the guarantees to the interests of the US guarantor, not the interests of the guaranteed countries:
*Non-specificity;
*Non-automaticity;
*Open-ended interpretations;
*Escape routes.
*For example, the NATO Treaty – led by the US – is perceived to be the tightest commitment by all member states to the defense of an attacked NATO country. However, article 5 of the NATO Charter highlights the aforementioned four features:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area…. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
*Furthermore, the seeds of the current devastation of Ukraine were planted in the December 5, 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances accorded to Ukraine by the US, Britain and the USSR in return for Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear arsenal, which was the 3rd largest in the world.
According to the Budapest Memorandum: “Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time… the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine… to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine….”
The Budapest Memorandum was exposed as a useless and misleading “screen saver” in 2014, when Russia occupied the Crimean Peninsula. Its ineffective nature was further revealed during the 2014-2022 Russia-Ukraine war in Donbas and in 2022, when Russia – again – invaded and plundered Ukraine with no implementation of the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances.
*Israel should be aware of the intrinsic flaws of all security guarantees, and persist in reliance only upon its own national security capabilities, rather than the mirage of international/US assurances.
*Moreover, the US constitutional balance of power stipulates that no US international commitment is binding unless ratified by a 2/3 Senate majority.
Thus, in 1999 and 2000, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits international nuclear testing, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in the Hague. However, Clinton did not submit the Rome Statute for Senate ratification (realizing that there was no support for ratification), and the Test Ban Treaty was also not ratified – it was defeated 48:51 in the Senate. Both are yet to be ratified….
The open-ended nature of US guarantees, and the paramount role of US interests during the implementation phase, were demonstrated by the US defense treaties, which were concluded with Taiwan (1955), South Vietnam (1973) and New Zealand (1951), but terminated by the US in 1979, 1975 and 1986, in order to advance US interests, as perceived by US presidents at the time.
*Israeli reliance on US guarantees in the context of the 2022 maritime/gas accord ignores past mistakes:
*In 2000, President Clinton pledged $800mn in emergency aid to fund Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. It was never delivered, since Congress – and not the President – possesses the Power of the Purse, and it did not agree to fund the self-defeating Israeli withdrawal (which triggered an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism).
*In 1979 – when President Carter attempted to insert into the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty a reference to a future Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights – the Israeli team shared with Carter the September 1, 1975 assurance of President Ford to Prime Minister Rabin, required to induce an Israeli withdraw from the Gulf of Suez to the Mitla’ Pass in mid-Sinai: “… [The US] will give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights.” President Carter’s correct response was that President Ford’s non-ratified executive commitment did not bind any of Ford’s successors in the White House.
*In 1967 – on the eve of the Six Day War – Israel shared with President Johnson well-documented evidence about the Egypt-Syria-Jordan planned war on Israel. Prime Minister Eshkol submitted to President Johnson the 1957 assurance (Aide Memoir) by President Eisenhower, which was a prerequisite for Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. It implied US willingness to deploy its military in the face of Egyptian violations of commitments made to the US and Israel. President Johnson responded that Eisenhower’s non-ratified Executive Commitment did not bind Eisenhower’s successors, and “it ain’t worth a solitary dime.” He added that “I am a tall Texan, but a short president in the face of a Congress that opposes overseas military deployment.”
The bottom line
*Security agreements with the US should enhance – not reduce – Israel’s posture of deterrence and its independence of national security action.
*Security agreements with the US should advance Israel’s posture as a national security producer – which deters regional violence – rather than a national security consumer, which fuels regional violence.
*Security agreements with the US should expand Israel’s posture as a unique force-multiplier for the US – a strategic asset, not a liability.
*The 2022 maritime/gas Israel-Lebanon (Hezbollah) accord suggests that US and Israeli policy-makers are determined to learn from history by repeating – rather than avoiding – past critical mistakes, undermining their own interests.
Irrespective of the final outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it should serve as a wake-up call for Israeli and Western policy-makers and molders of public opinion.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the flawed nature of certain assumptions, which have impacted the worldview of the Western establishment – but not the worldview of most of the world – while attempting to induce/coerce Israel into adopting these assumptions.
For example:
*The illusion that most of the world subscribes to the Western worldview of a new world (and new Middle East) order, which is supposedly more stable, predictable, tolerant and trending toward peaceful-coexistence, focusing on butter rather than guns;
*The ostensible end to the era of major wars and massive ground force invasions;
*The self-destruct notion that a military posture of deterrence can be effectively-replaced by peace accords, security guarantees and generous financial and diplomatic packages. Thus, the seeds of the current predicament of Ukraine were planted in the reckless December 1994 Budapest security assurances, which were extended to Ukraine by the USA, Britain and Russia in return for Ukraine’s surrender of its most-deterring nuclear stockpile (3rd largest in the world). In 2022, these assurances are exposed in their futility.
*Ignoring the tenuous, unreliable, unpredictable, non-committal and open-ended nature of all security guarantees, even article 5 of the NATO Charter, which is supposed to be the tightest security commitment. But, article 5 states that all NATO members shall assist an attacked member “as [they] deem necessary, including the use of armed force….” As they deem necessary….
*The delusion that peace and security agreements are more important (for national security) than military capabilities and geography/topography-driven posture of deterrence. This delusion ignores the fact that while peace accords and security guarantees are tenuous, topographic dominance (e.g., the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) and geographic depth are everlasting.
*Overlooking the fact that a gradual reduction of defense budget is interpreted by most of the globe as erosion of deterrence in a stormy world (and volatile Middle East), undermining stability and crippling national security, and therefore inducing terrorism and wars;
*The presumed superiority of the diplomatic option as a more effective negotiation tool than the military option in settling conflicts with rogue regimes, which have systematically revealed themselves as bad-faith negotiators (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs since assuming power in February, 1979);
*The alleged subordination of national ideologies and strategic visions to a cosmopolitan/universal peaceful-coexistence state of mind;
*Preferring the speculative assessments of the future track records of rogue regimes over their realistic historical track record, which highlights the centrality of rogue history in shaping their radical national vision, policy-making, school curriculum, religious sermons and media.
*The illusion that rogue conduct (e.g., subversion, terrorism and wars) is despair-driven, rather than ideology-driven.
Western policy makers have attempted to induce/coerce Israel into a withdrawal from the topographically dominant mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – in return for a peace accord and security guarantees. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the false sense of security, which is generated by security guarantees, which replace geographic depth and dominant topography in the highly volatile, violent, intolerant and unpredictable Middle East. The global experience has reaffirmed the centrality of the military-driven posture of deterrence in the shaping of national security.
Moreover, unlike Ukraine (the 2nd largest European country), Israel’s lack of geographic depth (a 7-15 miles sliver from the Mediterranean to the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria) provides for an extremely small margin of error. Thus, if the 1973 surprise Arab military offensive were launched against a pre-1967 Israel (without the dominant topography of the Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria and the strategic depth of the Sinai Peninsula), the Arabs would be able to annihilate the Jewish State.
“MIDA” magazine, https://bit.ly/2NridWA
Do commitments made by a US president bind his successors? History proves that these commitments do not even bind the president who signed them.
Even when the US commitments are driven by the purest of intentions, one should recognize certain features – a derivative of the US Constitution and the power struggle between the Legislature and the Executive – which have characterized all US international agreements, pacts, memoranda of understandings and guarantees since 1776 (thoroughly researched by Hebrew University Prof. Michla Pomerance). These inherent features are designed to subordinate the implementation (or non-implementation) of all US international commitments to the overriding US interests, as defined by the implementing president, not necessarily the president who signed the commitments.
Take for example, the feature of vagueness and non-specificity, as demonstrated by “the Deal of the Century.” The Deal stipulates Israeli security control in the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. But, who defines “control?” Will it be President Trump and his team, or the more pro-Palestinian team of President Biden? Obviously, each team will have a different interpretation, reflecting their different worldviews and ideology, minimizing or maximizing the scope of “control,” which could render Israeli “control” highly-constrained and quite ineffective.
What constitutes “interpretation” for the promisor (USA), may be perceived as “breach” and “evasion” by the promisee (Israel).
Moreover, the list of preconditions for the establishment of a Palestinian state is subject to contradictory, subjective interpretations of the preconditions and related-compliance set by President Trump or President Biden? The strict school of thought may insist that the Palestinians will have to become Canadians in order to comply with the preconditions (Trump), while the lenient school of thoughts may be satisfied with Palestinians remaining Palestinians (Biden). Thus, in 1993, Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, supposedly, accepted a list of preconditions, in order to establish the Palestinian Authority in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Notwithstanding their systematic and egregious violation of the preconditions, Arafat became the most-frequent-visitor to President Clinton’s White House and was awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize for Peace. Furthermore, President Clinton, President Obama, and all Israeli Prime Ministers since 1993, vouched for the good behavior (compliance) of Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. This facilitated the handover of Hebron to the Palestinian Authority (1997), and the transfer of the $400MN annual US foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, notwithstanding the unprecedented wave of Palestinian hate-education and terrorism.
Then, there is the feature of non-automaticity, which stipulates that the implementation of all US agreements and guarantees is in the hands of a sitting US president, depending on the president’s worldview and assessment of US interests.
The bottom line – and the third feature of US international commitments – is that they are deliberately open-ended, in order to preserve US interests, irrespective of other interpretations and reservations by the other parties to the agreement.
Anyone who assumes that a US international commitment is carved in stone should examine the very important, yet non-specific, non-automatic and open-ended NATO treaty (article 5): “…The Parties agree than an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all….Each of them… will assist the Party of Parties so attacked by taking…such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force….”
Another feature of US international commitments involves the balance of power between the US Legislature and the US Executive. Thus, the ratification of an agreement requires a 2/3 Senate majority (at least 67 Senators), which is currently an impossibility under the political climate on Capitol Hill: a 53:47 Republican Senate majority and a vehemently anti-Trump Democratic party.
As an example, in 1999 and 2000, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting international nuclear testing, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in the Hague. However, he did not submit the Rome Statute for Senate ratification (realizing that there was no support for ratification), and the Test Ban Treaty was also not ratified – it was defeated 48:51 in the Senate.
The open-ended nature of US international commitments, and the paramount role of US interests during the implementation phase, were demonstrated in the US defense treaty signed with New Zealand (in 1951), which was suspended in 1986 due to US considerations. Likewise with the 1955 US-Taiwan Defense Pact, which was terminated in 1979, when President Carter decided that enhancing ties with China was much more important than abiding by a prior treaty with Taiwan.
The power of the President to suspend international treaties was reaffirmed in a November 15, 2001 Memorandum submitted by the US Justice Department: “The President has broad constitutional powers with respect to treaties, including the powers to terminate and suspend them…”
When it comes to Israel:
*In 2000, President Clinton pledged to Prime Minister Barak $800MN in emergency aid to fund Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. However, it was never delivered, since Congress – which possesses the Power of the Purse – did not agree to fund the self-defeating withdrawal (which triggered an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism).
*In 1967 – on the eve of the Six Day War – Israel became increasingly besieged by Egyptian violations of the demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula, blockading the port of Eilat and forming the joint Egypt-Syria-Jordan anti-Israel military command. Therefore, Prime Minister Eshkol submitted to President Johnson the assurance (Aide Memoir) from President Eisenhower, which was issued in 1957, in order to entice Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. The Eisenhower assurance implied – but did not specify – a US willingness to deploy its military in face of Egyptian violations. The pro-Israel President Johnson invoked constitutional and congressional non-compliance, stating that Eisenhower’s Executive Commitment did not bind Eisenhower’s successors, and “it ain’t worth a solitary dime.” He added that “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone,” and concluded by stating: “I am a tall Texan, but a short president in the face of a Congress that opposes overseas military deployment.”
*In 1979 – during the final stages of the Israel-Egypt peace talks, when President Carter attempted to insert a reference to a future Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights – the Israeli team shared with Carter the September 1, 1975 assurance of President Ford to Prime Minister Rabin, geared to induce an Israeli withdraw from the Gulf of Suez to the Mitla’ Pass in mid-Sinai: “… [The US] will give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights.” President Carter’s correct response was that President Ford’s executive commitment did not bind any of Ford’s successors in the White House.
The aforementioned comments do not constitute a criticism of the US, but is advice to Israeli policy-makers to study precedents, and to realize the substantial vagueness and other limitations of any US presidential commitment, guarantee or assurance, and avoid – rather than repeat – past critical mistakes.
Moreover, Israel’s national security must be based on the worst – not the best – case scenario, especially in the increasingly unpredictable, turbulent political climate in the Middle East and the world at-large, including the USA.
Finally, Israel must retain the independence of national security action, including the application of its laws to the Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, rather than await a “green light” from Washington, DC. This critical feature of leadership was demonstrated – in defiance of brutal US and international pressure – by Prime Ministers Ben Gurion (expanding Israel’s area by some 30% during the 1948/49 War), Eshkol (preempting an Arab war on Israel, reuniting Jerusalem and establishing the initial Israeli neighborhoods beyond the “Green Line”), Golda Meir (expanding Jewish presence beyond the “Green Line”), Begin (applying Israel’s law to the Golan Heights and bombing Iraq’s nuclear reactor) and Shamir (bolstering Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria).
Please join me for uplifting, well-documented Webinars on:
US “foreign aid” or high-yield investment in Israel?
April 20, 6PM Israel time / 11AM EST
The cause of failed western policies in the Middle East
April 27, 6PM Israel time / 11AM EST
Israel’s Jewish fertility rate is higher than the fertility rates of most Arab countries
April 28, 7PM Israel time / 12:00PM EST
Sponsored by EMET, the Endowment for Middle East Truth
Constructive Defense Pact
A constructive US-Israel defense pact should be based on shared values and shared strategic interests, expanding the two-way-street, win-win US-Israel strategic cooperation.
An effective US-Israel defense pact should enhance Israel’s self-reliance and independence, rather than Israel’s dependence upon the US.
A useful US-Israel defense pact should bolster and leverage Israel’s posture of deterrence at the geographic junction of the Mediterranean-Europe-Africa-Asia, which is a focal point of global terrorism, the proliferation of ballistic and nuclear technologies and unpredictable tectonic military eruptions. Israel’s role is doubly critical at a time when Europe’s posture of deterrence is rapidly collapsing.
A beneficial US-Israel defense pact should further extend the strategic hand of the US – through Israel’s proven capabilities – without additional US aircraft carriers and troops in the Middle East.
A worthwhile US-Israel defense pact should underscore the role of Israel as the most cost-effective, battle-tested laboratory of US defense industries, upgrading US military performance, research and development, production, export and employment. The unique Israeli battle experience has benefitted US military operations by enhancing the formulation of US battle tactics and maneuverability.
The primary aim of a constructive US-Israel defense pact is not to defend Israel, but to face mutual threats and challenges such as the conventional and non-conventional threats of Iran’s Ayatollahs, global Islamic Sunni terrorism, the emergence of additional rogue regimes in the Middle East, lethal threats to every pro-US Arab regime, the violent unpredictability and unreliability of the Middle East, the need to maintain a military and commercial technological edge, etc.
An effective US-Israel defense pact must not constrain Israel’s freedom of unilateral, self-defense military action against clear and present threats, which has bolstered Israel’s posture of deterrence, and therefore transformed the Jewish State into a most reliable beachhead of the US. Tying Israel’s military hands would erode Israel’s posture of deterrence; thus shrinking its contribution to US interests.
For instance, the 1981 and the 2007 Israeli bombings of Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear reactors – in defiance of US opposition – saved the globe from the wrath of nuclearized Saddam Hussein and Assad, sparing the US a nuclear confrontation in the 1991 Gulf War. Israel’s 1967 preemptive war against a unified Arab offensive was opposed by the US, but devastated the pro-Soviet Egyptian leader, Nasser, who strove to topple the pro-US Arab Gulf regimes. It deprived the USSR of a rare bonanza, while sparing the US a devastating blow, at a time when the US was largely dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.
Defense pacts do not stifle unilateral military actions, as documented by the NATO Treaty which stipulates (Article 4): “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
The aim of a valuable US-Israel defense pact is to confront threats and challenges in the larger regional and global context, not the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, which have never been core causes of regional turbulence, and – irrespective of the Arab talk – have never been a top priority of the Arab walk.
The aim of a compelling US-Israel defense pact must never involve US troops on Israel’s borders, nor determination of Israel’s future borders, nor any reference to Israeli withdrawals from the strategic high-ground of the Judea and Samaria mountain ridges (the cradle of Jewish history). Such a retreat would downgrade Israel from a strategic asset to a strategic liability.
A mutually-beneficial US-Israel defense pact should focus on:
*A substantial enhancement – qualitatively and quantitatively – of the prepositioned US military stockpiles in Israel (expediting deployment to conflict areas; benefitting from Israeli security and maintenance; and available to – and replenished by – Israel upon eruption of wars);
*Upgrading intelligence-sharing, benefitting from Israel’s unique network of intelligence;
*Boosting counter-terrorism and special operation cooperation;
*Expanding joint military exercises;
*Providing Israel with access to more sophisticated military systems, in order to test them under battle conditions, while sustaining Israel’s qualitative military edge.
*Improving the Haifa and Ashdod port facilities in order to accommodate the US 6th Fleet and its aircraft carrier. They are closer than European ports to conflict areas, providing the US navy with a more effective platform of maneuvers, maintenance and repair;
*The establishment of a series of bilateral funds in the mode of the successful bilateral BIRD Foundation, which is limited to non-defense industries. They will stimulate the joint development and manufacturing of advanced military systems by compatible US and Israeli defense contractors and startups (leveraging Israel’s do-or-die state of mind and ground-breaking innovations) in the areas of space and space satellites, aerospace, missile defense, cyber defense, artificial intelligence, command-control-communications-computers, unmanned systems and robotics, electro-optics.
Open-ended aspects of Defense Pacts
Productive US-Israel relations – and Israel’s own national security – behoove Israel to reject the deployment of US troops on its borders.
Moreover, no treaty should be perceived as automatic US military involvement on behalf of Israel. All US treaties are open-ended, subject to the US Constitution, which endows US presidents with the authority to avoid full implementation of treaties/guarantees.
For example, a November 15, 2001 Department of Justice memo to the White House determined that the US President has the Constitutional discretionary authority to terminate, or suspend, unilaterally, fully or partly, the 1972 USA-USSR ABM Treaty without seeking coordination with Congress, whenever the president determines that it is in the national interest to do so.
In 1985 and 1986, President Reagan unilaterally suspended security commitments to New Zealand, and terminated the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua. In 1979, President Carter unilaterally terminated the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan upon the establishment of diplomatic relations with China.
Escape routes are also provided by Article 5 of NATO Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them shall be considered an attack against them all…. Each of them…shall assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith…such action as it deems necessary [my emphasis], including the use of armed forces [an option, but not mandatory….].”
According to Hebrew University Prof. Michla Pomerance; “A treaty can never entail more than a contingent and tentative promise to use force in the future…. American defense commitments… are generally characterized by vagueness, non-specificity and the explicit denial of any automatic obligation to use force… to keep the US options open and its absolute discretion intact in deciding whether, and how, to redeem its promise…. What constitutes ‘interpretation’ for the promisor may well be seen as ‘breach’ by the promise…. A president’s decision to execute – or not to execute – an international commitment depends on his own – not the promisee’s – assessment…. Every US international commitment allows for future non-implementation, consistent with US interests and the US Constitution….”
In conclusion, a constructive US-Israel defense pact should be dedicated to the enhancement of mutually-beneficial, win-win, two-way-street cooperation in the face of regional and global mutual threats, not by the reintroduction of one-way-street relations. Moreover, it should not include any reference to Israel’s withdrawal from critical high ground – which is irreversible – in return for a US military commitment, which is – by definition – reversible.
Can Israel rely on US/international security guaranteesand/or peacekeepers?
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel initiative”
YouTube 6-minute-video on-line seminar on US-Israel and the Mideast
Video#35 https://bit.ly/2LJXyO9; Entire mini-seminar: http://bit.ly/1ze66dS
1. US and/or international guarantees – including peacekeeping forces on Israel’s borders with Arab entities – have been proposed as a means to convince Israel to retreat from the historically and militarily critical and irreplaceable mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, contending that Israel’s national security would be guaranteed by US and/or international guarantees and forces on its border in the most violently intolerant and unpredictable region in the world.
2. While Israel’s retreat is Israeli-controlled, precise, certain and irreversible, the political and military viability of these guarantees and their potential benefits are top-heavy on escape routes, uncontrolled by Israel, imprecise, uncertain, open to various interpretations, doubtful, reversible and subject to multitude of changing circumstances, which are sometimes uncontrollable by the guarantor.
3. Notre Dame University Prof. of international relations, Alan Dowty, conducted a thorough study of “the role of great power guarantees in international peace agreements,” concluding that: “The effectiveness of a guarantee depends upon the willingness of the guarantor to react to a threat, and upon his ability to react with sufficient force…. [For instance,] fear of disrupting American relations with Arab states was a factor in the 1967 US decision not to force open the Red Sea Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships [contrary to the US commitment in 1957, in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula]…. The effectiveness of a commitment depends on the underlying interests and capabilities of the guarantor, [not the guaranteed!]….”
4. According to Prof. Dowty, “Great Powers’ guarantees are generally effective only when their own dominant or strategic position is involved. In general, the credibility of their promises and commitments is continuously vitiated by inadequate power, lack of means or sustained interest, multiple and conflicting interests, changes in relative might, changes in international alignments, rapprochement between former rivals, the breakup of guaranteeing coalitions, or by changes of government in the guaranteeing state. No international guarantee is more stable than the international and internal combinations that produced it…. Guarantees are by no means universally reliable even after they have been promulgated by formal or informal means [guarantees, alliances, defense pacts and peace accords]….The frequency with which weak states reject offers of protection is striking and shows that guarantees are not unambiguous blessings….”
5. Prof. Dowty concludes that “in the past, nations seeking to evade their commitments to support another state’s independence and territorial integrity have never failed to find the means of doing so. Either commitment had changed, or the commitment was reinterpreted, or the failure of others to act was cited as excuse, or prior commitments were invoked, or failure of the guaranteed state to heed the guarantor’s advice was held to release the latter from its commitment. Or, the commitment was simply ignored. The question of who will guarantee the guarantor remains unresolved.”
6. US peacekeepers would be targeted by terrorists – such as Hezbollah, which murdered 300 Marines in 1983 in Beirut – who are proxies of anti-US rogue regimes – such as Iran – intimidating Washington, constraining the US capability to respond to provocations elsewhere (e.g., the Persian Gulf), and extort political concessions by targeting US servicemen, while preserving the element of deniability.
7. Against the backdrop of the US public reaction to US military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Lebanon, another peacekeeping undertaking would not be politically/militarily sustainable, leading to a prompt withdrawal in response to casualties and/or hostage-taking.
8. A US peacekeeping force on Israel’s borders would, inadvertently, shield terrorists by constraining Israel’s capabilities to preempt – and react to – Arab terrorism and aggression. It would also deny the US the benefits of Israel’s military operations, which are not coordinated with the US, such as the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, which spared the US a nuclear confrontation in 1991.
9. The stationing of US peacekeepers on Israel’s borders would demolish Israel’s posture of deterrence and US public and congressional support of Israel, which would be transformed from a country defending itself and a strategic asset, extending the strategic hand of the US, to an American dependent and liability, relying on US soldiers. Most Americans support military aid to Israel, but not sending troops to protect Israel.
10. A tenuous US military force on Israel’s borders – in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the dominant mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – would have a short life expectancy, undermining US-Israel relations, further eroding US reliability and posture of deterrence, dramatically limiting Israel’s power-projection, which would exacerbate regional instability and injure US interests, causing another setback to the cause of peace.
11. US-Israel defense cooperation should be driven by the enhancement of the mutually-beneficial, win-win, two-way-street ties, not by the re-introduction of one-way-street relations, which would burden the US and increasing the dependency of Israel upon the US.
12. The next video will highlight the constitutional constraints on US security guarantees.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
April 26, 2026
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
April 26, 2026
*500,000 Arabs (away for over a year) are included in the census, contrary to global norms. 325,000 were included in the 1997 census. 400,000 in 2005, according to the Palestinian Election Commission. 100,000 overseas births added to the census in 1995-2014, according to the Palestinian Undersecretary of Interior. The number grows steadily due to births.
*380,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted – by Israel and by the Palestinian Authority. The number grows steadily due to births.
*Over 200,000 Arabs, who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly counted. The number expands steadily due to births.
*A 447,000 net-emigration of West Bank Arabs (since the 1997 Palestinian census) is ignored by the Palestinian Authority. In recent years, a 20,000 annual average net-emigration has been documented by Israel’s Population and Migration Authority in land, air and sea international passages.
*A 32% artificial inflation of Palestinian births was documented by the World Bank (page 8, item 6) in a 2006 audit.
*The Judea & Samaria Arab (West Bank) fertility rate declined from 9 births per woman in the 1960s to less than 3 births in 2026, reflecting a sweeping urbanization, a growing female enrollment in higher education, rising marriage age, increased use of contraceptives and youth’s emigration.
*The number of deaths is under-reported for political and financial reasons.
*An artificial inflation of 1.75 million documents a population of 1.5 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, not the official 3.25 million.
In January 2026: a 69% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel, benefitting from a tailwind of fertility and net-immigration, while Arab demography is westernized.
No Arab demographic time bomb; but, a Jewish demographic momentum.
More data in these articles and this short video.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 3, 2026
*The assumption that “D-Day” like economic sanctions can force the collapse – or a dramatic moderation – of the Ayatollah regime, overlooks the centrality of theological fanaticism in the shaping of the Ayatollah’s vision, strategy, policy and education system, as well as its 47-year-war on the US. The Ayatollah’s war against the USA has been conducted – unrelated to Israel’s existence – in the Middle East, Latin America and on US soil.
*47 years of US-led economic sanctions and negotiation have transformed Iran from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a leading anti-US epicenter of war, terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering. Moreover, it has catapulted the Ayatollah regime from a secondary/tertiary power in 1979 to a global power in 2026, with a strategic footprint from the Persian Gulf through Africa to Latin America and the US homeland.
*Furthermore, economic sanctions and negotiation have bolstered the Ayatollah’s tactic of stalling for time, expecting the mid-term election to weaken President Trump, diverting his attention away from international issues, softening US policy toward Iran, and leading to a non-hawkish Administration in Washington.
*The assumption that the Ayatollah regime is driven by the Western “Money Talks,” ignores the fact that in Tehran Ideology Walks, outweighing financial and diplomatic inducements.
*Refraining from regime-change in Iran has been interpreted – regionally and globally – as indecision and weakness, benefitting China, Russia and North Korea, emboldening them to expand their strategic footprint throughout the globe, including Latin America. The focus on the cost of regime-change has led to underestimating the following catastrophic cost of no-regime-change:
^Eventual emergence of the first ever apocalyptic nuclear power;
^Erosion of the US posture of deterrence;
^Emboldened Ayatollah regime, China, Russia and anti-US Islamic terrorism; ^Growing instability of pro-US Arab regimes, especially the oil-producing; ^Frustrated Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait getting closer to China and Russia.
*The apocalyptic nature of the Ayatollah regime has produced exceptional resilience in the face of economic and military adversity. The entrenched belief in a cataclysmic divine intervention is embedded in the Ayatollah’s Constitution, school curriculum (which is the most authentic reflection of the Ayatollah’s state of mind), mosque sermons and official media. Thus, the Ayatollah is mandated to conduct Jihad (Holy War), bring the “infidel” West to submission, and expand the Islamic Revolution globally. This must be stained with “infidel” blood, requiring “believers” to assume suffering and martyrdom. These are actionable and operational doctrines, culminating in chaos and conflict, paving the way for the Deliverance – the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared in the 10th century, and is currently represented by the Ayatollah, the “Supreme Leader.” In 2026, Iran’s Twelver Shia is embraced by a vast majority of Shia Muslims: a 60% majority in Iraq, 35% minority in Lebanon and a 12% minority in Saudi Arabia, mostly in the oil-rich Eastern Province. Martyrdom has been underscored by Islam, with martyrs promised a place in heaven, as documented in Quran 3: 169-171 – “Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead; they are alive with their Lord, well provided for….” It has been supplemented by Ayatollah Khomeini’s legacy, which has promoted the deliberate-martyrdom (Istishhad), heralding “the great martyr Imam Husayn ibn Ali,” who was killed in the 680 AD Battle of Karbala. In fact, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)has incorporated the Mahdist apocalyptic ideology into its training programs, preparing the ground for the Mahdi’s return, and confronting the “apostate” Sunnis and the “infidel” West.
*The “Economy of Resistance” has resulted in a 60% control of the Iranian economy by the IRGC and state-linked foundations, featuring black-market smuggling, illicit land and sea oil trade, and bypass mechanisms, consolidating the domestic economy into the hands of the ruling apparatus.
*The “axis of sanctions evasion/circumvention” has leveraged Chinese, Russian and North Korean anti-US strategy, including deep barter and non-dollar trade systems, Chinese purchase of discounted Iranian crude via land, export via the Caspian Sea ports, “ghost fleets” and third-party (trade-triangulation), shell companies, ship-to-ship transfers, while Russia trades critical military hardware, satellite intelligence, and nuclear technology in exchange for Iranian drones and ballistic systems. 47 years of economic sanctions have developed deep Iranian institutional expertise in sanction evasion.
*When applied to totalitarian, ideologically-entrenched regimes – certainly apocalyptic regimes – economic sanctions have caused severe hardship on the population (not the regime!), but have failed to generate either regime moderation, or regime collapse. For example, the 1979-2026 US and UN maximum-pressure-economic-sanctions against the apocalyptic Ayatollah regime has resulted in expanded commercial and military Iranian capabilities, and exacerbated the repression of protestors and religious and ethnic minorities; the 1990-2003 UN economic boycott and oil embargo against Iraq’s non-apocalyptic Saddam Hussein resulted in intensifying domestic oppression; the 1950s-2026 US/UN financial and trade embargoes activated against the non-apocalyptic North Korea have yielded famine, upgraded thermonuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as more ruthless despotism; the 1960-2026 US trade and financial embargo on the non-apocalyptic Cuba, has resulted in severe economic decline and a more brutal central authority; the 2022-2026 comprehensive Western sanctions against the non-apocalyptic Russia rerouted energy trade to Asia, transitioned Russia to a wartime economy controlled by Putin’s solid authority, but has failed to stop or slowdown the war against Ukraine.
*Economic measures alone have failed to induce ideologically entrenched, survival-at-all-cost, ruthless, apocalyptic regimes to abandon their core theological or strategic imperatives. They never considered sacrificing their ideology and strategy on the altar of an abundant windfall. In the arm-wrestling with the Ayatollah regime, “Money Talks” has been resoundingly defeated by “Ideology Walks.”
*Economic sanctions and negotiation do not substitute for regime change. They reinforce the Ayatollah regime, and undermine the strategic posture of the US, which is exposed as a sprinter, unable to sustain a required marathon. Sustaining such a US policy threatens the existence of all its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East, who have had the machete of the Ayatollah at their throats since 1979.
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
February 27, 2024
Secretary of State Antony Blinken represents conventional wisdom when claiming that “It’s been longstanding US policy… that new settlements are… inconsistent with international law.”
However, conventional wisdom is frequently demolished by the march of facts.
For instance:
*According to Prof. Eugene Rostow, who was the co-author of the November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, served as Undersecretary of State and was the Dean of Yale University Law School: “Jews have the same right to settle in the West Bank as they have in Haifa.”
*According to UN Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from territories, not the territories, nor from all the territories, but some of the territories, which included Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. Moreover, according to Prof. Rostow, “resolutions calling for withdrawal from all the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly…. Israel was not to be forced back to the fragile and vulnerable [9-15 mile-wide] lines… but to secure and recognized boundaries, agreed to by the parties…. In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai… [which amounts to] more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967….”
*Former President of the International Court of Justice, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, stated: “Between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967 (according to Article 52 of the UN Charter), on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine…. It follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful…. [The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive rather than aggressive… [as] indicated by Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of [Egyptian] troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the UN Emergency Force…[and] Jordan’s initiated hostilities against Israel…. The 1948 Arab invasion of the nascent State of Israel further demonstrated that Egypt’s seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful….”
*The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following 4 authoritative, binding, internationally-ratified documents, which recognize the area for what it has been: the cradle of Jewish history, culture, language, aspirations and religion.
(I) The November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, calling for “the establishment in Palestine (a synonym to the Land of Israel) of a national home for the Jewish people….”
(II) The April 24, 1920 resolution, by the post-First World War San Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, entrusted both sides of the Jordan River to the British Mandate for Palestine, for the reestablishment of the Jewish Commonwealth: “the Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was one of over 20 Mandates (trusteeships) established following WW1, responsible for the boundaries of most Arab countries.
(III) The July 24, 1922 Mandate for Palestine was ratified by the Council of the League of Nations, entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by its 6th article: “[to] encourage… close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands….” The Mandate was dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights, while guaranteeing the civic rights of all other religious and ethnic groups. On July 23, 1923, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which included the Mandate for Palestine.
(IV) The October 24, 1945 Article 80 of the UN Charter incorporated the Mandate for Palestine into the UN Charter. Accordingly, the UN or any other entity cannot transfer Jewish rights in Palestine – including immigration and settlement – to any other party. According to Article 80 of the UN Charter and the Mandate for Palestine, the 1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its legal owner, the Jewish state. Legally and geo-strategically the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, since they are not “foreign territory,” and Jordan did not have a legitimate title over the West Bank. Moreover, the rules of “belligerent occupation” do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria violated international law and was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan.
*The 1949 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of populations to areas previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power. However, Israel has not forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan’s sovereignty there was never legal.
*The November 29, 1947 UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a recommendation, lacking legal stature, superseded by the Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice (non-peace) Agreements between Israel and its neighbors delineated “non-territorial boundaries.”
*The term “Palestine” was a Greek and then a Roman attempt (following the 135 CE Jewish rebellion) to eradicate Jews and Judaism from human memory. It substituted “Israel, Judea and Samaria” with “Palaestina,” a derivative of the Philistines, an arch enemy of the Jewish people, whose origin was not in Arabia, but in the Greek Aegian islands.
*The aforementioned march of facts demonstrates that Secretary Blinken’s conventional wisdom on the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is based on gross misperceptions and misrepresentations, which fuels infidelity to law, undermining the pursuit of peace.
*More on the legality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria in this article by George Mason University Law School Prof. Eugene Kontrovich.
US departure from the recognition of a United Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of the Jewish State, and the site of the US Embassy to Israel, would be consistent with the track record of the State Department, which has been systematically wrong on Middle East issues, such as its opposition to the establishment of the Jewish State; stabbing the back of the pro-US Shah of Iran and Mubarak of Egypt, and pressuring the pro-US Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, while courting the anti-US Ayatollahs of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and the Houthis of Yemen; transforming Libya into a platform of global Islamic terrorism and civil wars; etc..
However, such departure would violate US law, defy a 3,000 year old reality – documented by a litany of archeological sites and a multitude of documents from Biblical time until today – spurn US history and geography, and undermine US national and homeland security.
United Jerusalem and the US law
Establishing a US Consulate General in Jerusalem – which would be a de facto US Embassy to the Palestinian Authority – would violate the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which became US law on November 8, 1995 with substantially more than a veto-override majority on Capitol Hill.
According to the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which enjoys massive support among the US population and, therefore, in both chambers of Congress:
“Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….
“Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem….
“In 1990, Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that Congress ‘strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected….’
“In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113… to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming Congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city….
“In 1996, the state of Israel will celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David’s entry….
“The term ‘United States Embassy’ means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and the residence of the United States chief of mission.”
United Jerusalem and the legacy of the Founding Fathers
The US Early Pilgrims and Founding Fathers were inspired – in their unification of the 13 colonies – by King David’s unification of the 12 Jewish tribes into a united political entity, and establishing Jerusalem as the capital city, which did not belong to any of the tribes (hence, Washington, DC does not belong to any state). King David entered Jerusalem 3,000 years before modern day US presidents entered the White House and 2,755 years before the US gained its independence.
The impact of Jerusalem on the US founders of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist system and overall civic life is reflected by the existence, in the US, of 18 Jerusalems (4 in Maryland; 2 in Vermont, Georgia and New York; and 1 in Ohio, Michigan, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, Utah, Rhode Island and Tennessee), 32 Salems (the original Biblical name of Jerusalem) and many Zions (a Biblical synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel). Moreover, in the US there are thousands of cities, towns, mountains, cliffs, deserts, national parks and streets bearing Biblical names.
The Jerusalem reality and US interests
Recognizing the Jerusalem reality and adherence to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act – and the subsequent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the site of the US Embassy to Israel – bolstered the US posture of deterrence in defiance of Arab/Islamic pressure and threats.
Contrary to the doomsday assessments by the State Department and the “elite” US media – which have been wrong on most Middle East issues – the May 2018 implementation of the 1995 law did not intensify Palestinian, Arab and Islamic terrorism. State Department “wise men” were equally wrong when they warned that Israel’s 1967 reunification of Jerusalem would ignite a worldwide anti-Israel and anti-US Islamic volcanic eruption.
Adherence to the 1995 law distinguishes the US President, Congress and most Americans from the state of mind of rogue regimes and terror organizations, the anti-US UN, the vacillating Europe, and the cosmopolitan worldview of the State Department, which has systematically played-down the US’ unilateral, independent and (sometimes) defiant national security action.
On the other hand, US procrastination on the implementation of the 1995 law – by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – eroded the US posture of deterrence, since it was rightly perceived by the world as appeasement in the face of pressure and threats from Arab/Muslim regimes and terrorists. As expected, it radicalized Arab expectations and demands, failed to advance the cause of Israel-Arab peace, fueled Islamic terrorism, and severely undermined US national and homeland security. For example, blowing up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and murdering 224 persons in August 1998; blowing up the USS Cole destroyer in the port of Aden and murdering 17 US sailors in October 2000; the 9/11 Twin Towers massacre, etc.
Jerusalem and Israel’s defiance of US pressure
In 1949, President Truman followed Secretary of State Marshall’s policy, pressuring Israel to refrain from annexing West Jerusalem and to accept the internationalization of the ancient capital of the Jewish people.
in 1950, in defiance of brutal US and global pressure to internationalize Jerusalem, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion reacted constructively by proclaiming Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State, relocating government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and settling tens of thousands of Olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) in Jerusalem. He upgraded the transportation infrastructure to Jerusalem, erected new Jewish neighborhoods along the 1949 cease fire lines in Jerusalem, and provided the city land reserves for long-term growth.
In 1953, Ben Gurion rebuffed President Eisenhower’s pressure – inspired by Secretary of State Dulles – to refrain from relocating Israel’s Foreign Ministry from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In 1967, President Johnson followed the advice of Secretary of State Rusk – who opposed Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence – highlighting the international status of Jerusalem, and warned Israel against the reunification of Jerusalem and construction in its eastern section. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol adopted Ben Gurion’s statesmanship, fended off the US pressure, reunited Jerusalem, built the first Jerusalem neighborhood beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines, Ramat Eshkol, in addition to the first wave of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.
In 1970, President Nixon collaborated with Secretary of State Rogers, attempting to repartition Jerusalem, pressuring Israel to relinquish control of Jerusalem’s Holy Basin, and to stop Israel’s plans to construct additional neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem. However, Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to rescind the reunification of Jerusalem, and proceeded to lay the foundation for additional Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines: Gilo, Ramot Alon, French Hill and Neve’ Yaakov, currently home to 150,000 people.
In 1977-1992, Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir defied US and global pressure, expanding construction in Jerusalem, sending a clear message: “Jerusalem is the exclusive and non-negotiable capital of Israel!”
“[In 1978], at the very end of [Prime Minister Begin’s] successful Camp David talks with President Jimmy Carter and President Anwar Sadat, literally minutes before the signing ceremony, the American president had approached [Begin] with ‘Just one final formal item.’ Sadat, said the president, was asking that Begin put his signature to a simple letter committing him to place Jerusalem on the negotiating table of the final peace accord. ‘I refused to accept the letter, let alone sign it,’ rumbled Begin. ‘If I forgot thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning,’ said [Begin] to the president of the United States of America, ‘and may my tongue cleave to my mouth’ (The Prime Ministers – An Intimate Portrait of Leaders of Israel, 2010)”
In 2021, Prime Minister Bennett should follow in the footsteps of Israel’s Founding Father, Ben Gurion, who stated: “Jerusalem is equal to the whole of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem is not just a central Jewish settlement. Jerusalem is an invaluable global historical symbol. The Jewish People and the entire world shall judge us in accordance with our steadfastness on Jerusalem (“We and Our Neighbors,” p. 175. 1929).”
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
September 17, 2026
More on Jewish holidays: Smashwords, Amazon
*Modeled on Yom Kippur and other Biblical fast days, the Early Pilgrims’ and Founding Fathers’ “Day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer” suspended business to confess collective wrongdoing and petition for mercy through soul-searching. Thus, the Second Continental Congress proclaimed a fast day on July 20, 1775, and repeated it through the war, calling for collective repentance and prayer to petition King George III to end the bloodshed, as the Revolutionary War began; President John Adams issued national fast days in 1798 and 1799; President James Madison did so during the War of 1812. General George Washington strictly enforced the religious observance and banned unnecessary labor and recreation for troops under his command.
*Yom Kippur is observed on the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei, starting on the evening of September 20, 2026. It is referred to as a Super Sabbath (Shabbat Shabbaton in Hebrew), concluding 10 soul-searching days, personal and collective accountability spiritual self-awareness and self-enhancement, beginning on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the Jewish year.
*Ten has a special significance in Jewish tradition: God’s abbreviation is the 10th Hebrew letter (Yod – י); the 10 Commandments; the 10 Plagues of Egypt; Yom Kippur on the 10th day of Tishrei; the 10 spheres of the spiritual universe, highlighting the Biblical Creation; 10 reasons for blowing the Shofar (ram’s horn) on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur; the 10% Biblical gift to God (tithe); the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tevet commemorates the beginning of the 586-589 BCE siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar; 10 Martyrs (Jewish leaders) were tortured/murdered by the Roman Empire; 10 generations between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham; Abraham passed 10 divine tests; a 10-person-quorum (Minyan in Hebrew) is required for a collective Jewish prayer service; 10 sons of Haman and 10 Nazi leaders were hung; etc.
*According to Leviticus 23:26-32: “The Lord said to Moses, that the tenth day of this seventh month [Tishrei] is the Day of Atonement…. Do not do any work on that day…. This is a lasting ordinance for generations to come….” Yom Kippur highlights second-chance-eligibility and renewal through repentance, commemorating the day of divine forgiveness for the sin of worshipping the golden calf idol, and the introduction of the Moses-made second set of the Two Tablets (Ten Commandments). Mankind is urged to learn from mistakes, and refrain from the recurring human fallibility: the temptation to sacrifice spiritual values on the altar of convenience.
*The astrological sign of the months of Tishrei is Libra (♎), which symbolizes the scales of justice, truth, optimism, humility and tolerance. Libra is ruled by the planet Venus (Noga – נגהin Hebrew – is the name of my oldest granddaughter), which represents divine light and compassion.
*The Hebrew word Kippur [כיפור] means atonement/repentance – a derivative of the Biblical word Kaporet [כפורת], which was the dome/cover of the Holy Ark in the Sanctuary, and the word Kopher [כופר], which was the cover/dome of Noah’s Ark and the Holy Altar in the Jerusalem Temple.
Yom Kippur resembles a spiritual cover/dome, which separates between spiritualism and materialism/mundane. The Kippah [ [כיפהis the skullcap – a spiritual dome – which covers one’s head during prayers.
*Asking forgiveness of fellow human-beings is a major feature of Yom Kippur, transferring human behavior from acrimony and vindictiveness to forgiveness and peaceful coexistence. The wronged party must accept a sincere apology. Ritual alone does not substitute for repair. It is consistent with the philosophy of Hillel the Elder, a leading 1st century BCE Jewish Sage: “The essence of the Torah is: do not do unto your fellow person that which is hateful to you; the rest [of the Torah] is commentary.” Criminals and sinners are invited to participate in Yom Kippur services.
*Fasting is a key feature of Yom Kippur, reducing material pleasure in order to focus on one’s soul-searching, and enhancing empathy with the needy. The Hebrew spelling of fasting [צומ] is the root of the Hebrew word ((צמצומ for reducing and the Hebrew word for a camera’s focus (צמצמ).
However, Judaism opposes ascetism and self-torment, and therefore views genuine repentance as a critical engine of elevating individuals from despair to hope, from abuse to caring, from intolerance to tolerance, from violence to comity, from isolation to integration, from ignorance to knowledge and from forgetfulness to commemoration.
*There are six annual Jewish fasting days:
(a) The 10th day of the month of Tishrei is Yom Kippur.
(b) The 10th day of the month of Tevet commemorates the beginning of the 586-589 BCE siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
(c) The 17th day of the month of Tammuz commemorates the 586 BCE and 69 CE breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonian and Roman Empires, as well as the breaking of the Tablets by Moses upon confronting the Golden Calf lapse of faith.
(d) The 9th day of the month of Av is the most calamitous day in Jewish history, commemorating the destruction of the first (586 BCE) and second (70 CE) Jewish Jerusalem Temples, by the Babylonian and Roman Empires respectively; the beginning of the Jewish exile from the Land of Israel; the Ten Spies’ bankruptcy of faith; the crushing of the 132-135 CE Bar Kokhbah Revolt by the Roman Emperor Adrianus (600,000 Jewish fatalities); the pogroms of the First Crusade (1096-1099) in Germany, France, Italy and Britain; the expulsion of the Jews from Britain (1290) and Spain (1492); the eruption of the First World War (1914); and the beginning of the 1942 deportation of Warsaw Ghetto Jews to the Treblinka extermination camp.
(e) The 3rd day of the month of Tishrei commemorates the murder of the Jewish Governor of Jerusalem, Gedalyah Ben Achikam, by another Jew, Yishmael Ben Netanyah (586 BCE).
(f) The 13th day of the month of Adar is the Fast of Queen Esther – one day before the Purim holiday – commemorating Queen Esther’s three-day-fast prior to her appeal to the Persian King Ahasuerus to refrain from exterminating the Jews (around 480 BCE).
*According to Judaism, the human tongue can be lethal, and therefore, ill-speaking of other people (“evil tongue” in Hebrew) may not be forgiven.
*Yom Kippur is concluded by blowing the Shofar (a ritual ram’s horn), which represents a moral wakeup-call, optimism, determination, humility and peace-through-strength (the peaceful ram deters enemies through its horns). The blowing of the Shofar commemorates the saving of Isaac by a ram; the receipt of the (second) Tablets/Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai (even the sin of the Golden Calf does not foreclose restoration); the re-entry to the Land of Israel and the conquest of Jericho by Joshua; as well as Gideon’s victory over the much larger Midianite military. The Hebrew word Shofar שופר]] means “to enhance,” “top quality,” glory and spiritual pleasure [שפר, שופרא].
*The Biblical Scroll of Jonah – which is the fifth book in The Twelve Prophets – is read on Yom Kippur, underscoring repentance, prayer/faith, justice and forgiveness. The Prophet Jonah (“dove” in Hebrew), son of Amitai (“truth” in Hebrew and the name of my 4th grandchild) transformed the sinful Assyrian population of Nineveh into a pious society; thus, displaying social responsibility.
*A Memorial Candle in memory of one’s parents is lit on Yom Kippur, reaffirming “Honor thy father and mother,” providing an opportunity to mend fences with – and ask forgiveness of – one’s parent(s).
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative”
February 24, 2026
*While the United Arab Emirates uprooted all anti-Jewish and anti-Israel elements from its school curriculum, the Friday mosque sermons, and its official media – replacing them with pro-Jewish and pro-Israel elements – Qatar has sustained its anti-“infidel”, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Israel school curriculum, consistent with its Friday incitement mosque sermons and controlled media.
*Are Qatar’s worldview and conduct consistent with the values and interests of the USA? Is Qatar’s policy consistent with the US’ attempts to end/minimize wars and terrorism? Does it qualify Qatar as an honest broker? Is Qatar a partner in the defense of Western democracies in the face of Sunni and Shiite Islamic terrorism?
*Qatar’s shifty diplomatic pronouncements (Talk) has been incompatible with Qatar’s permanent school curriculum (Walk), which reflects most authentically its worldview, values, vision and conduct. It reflects and shapes the minds of Qatar’s ruling minority (10%-15%), and is fully-controlled by the ruler (Emir), Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who oppresses the 85%-90% majority of foreign workers.
*A February 2026 review of Qatar’s 2025-26 school curriculum, conducted by Impact-se, documents “anti-semitic narratives, religious intolerance toward non-Muslims, and legitimization of violent jihad,… demonstrating no substantive curricular reform since the 2021–2022 school year….
“In July 2024, the US Department of State’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom criticized Qatar’s national curriculum for continuing to ‘include content that was antisemitic in nature.’ Despite this, the same material was reprinted and continues to be taught in the 2025–2026 school year….
“Disrespect towards non-Muslims is expressed through terminology such as ‘Infidels’ and ‘pagans/polytheists,’ through derogatory portrayals of non-Muslims, and through discussions of punishment for disbelief in Islam…. Non-Islamic nations such as the US and European countries are occasionally treated with suspicion….
“Textbooks continue to teach antisemitic content…. portraying Jews as materialistic, arrogant, deceitful, and hostile to Islam. Jews are further associated with traits such as lying, scheming, fleeing in fear, spreading discord, breaching agreements, and excessive attachment to material wealth, thereby reinforcing an image of Jews as fundamentally untrustworthy…. Antisemitic tropes depict Jews as cynically manipulating global affairs… denying Jewish historical ties to Israel/Palestine and the right to self-determination….
“Violent interpretations of jihad prevail as religious ideals…. Textbooks praise the upbringing of children ‘to love jihad,’ and students are taught that God rewards those who fight and die for Islam by granting them entry into Paradise….
“Israel’s establishment is framed as occupation…. Israel is erased from maps, and normalization is condemned…. Poems exhort students to draw swords, engage in jihad, and sacrifice their lives fighting against ‘the Zionist enemy….’
For example:
*Islamic Education, Grade 11, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, p. 46 condemns Christianity and Judaism as religions which “have been corrupted”, and that polytheistic elements “have been inserted into them.”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 124, 129 presents two possible infinite outcomes one can expect when dying: Muslims (“Believers”) will reside in Heaven; non-Muslims (“Infidels”) will suffer in Hell.
*Islamic Education, Grade 10, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 18–19 “accuses Jews of failing to uphold the Torah they were given by Allah…. instructing students to specifically avoid ‘resembling Jews….”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 26–28 suggests that “Moses and Jesus are both Islamic prophets who were initially rejected by their people, according to the Qur’an…. Jews are evil…. The Jewish people are forever cursed by Allah…. None is more evil than people who have been invited to Islam and rejected it….”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 70–71. A chapter about the Battle of Khaybar, fought between the Muslim forces of the Prophet Muhammad and the Jewish Arabian tribe of Banu Nadir… portrays the Jewish people as inherently hostile to Islam and Muslims. A repeated emphasis on the Jewish nature as historic enemies of Muslims…”
*Islamic Education, Grade 6, Vol. 2, 2025–2026, p. 139. “An Islamic education lesson teaches that one of the ways to measure a good Muslim woman is raising children to sacrifice their lives [martyrdom], in what is understood to be violent Jihad.”
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 72–73 teaches the Battle of Khaybar, fought between the forces of the Prophet Muhammad and the ancient Jewish Arabian tribe of Banu Nadir in 629 CE, concluded by teaching students that the sublime goal of Jihad is to bring non-Muslims to convert to Islam.
*Islamic Education, Grade 8, Vol. 1, 2025–2026, pp. 22, 25, 28, 103 teaches that God loves Jihad warriors who “fight” (yuqātilūn) for His sake, favoring a violent interpretation of Jihad. God defends Islam against the non-Islamic world.
The bottom line: A prerequisite for Qatar’s constructive role in advancing peace and combatting terror isa thorough structural overhaul of its prevailing culture, which is preconditioned upon the uprooting of its hate and terror-driven school curriculum.
