Facebook Feed

1 day ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Concessions to Palestinians: choking or inflaming terrorism?

In 1949, following Israel’s War of Independence, which overcame an Arab military attempt to eradicate the reborn Jewish State, Prime Minister Ben Gurion was aware that appeasing rogue regimes would provide a tailwind to radicalism and terrorism.  Therefore, he repulsed the aggressive US and global pressure to concede land acquired during a defensive war (“land-for-peace”) to Arab aggressors. Israel’s area was expanded by 40%, to 8,000sqm, and the liberated areas of Western Jerusalem, the Galilee, the Negev and the Triangle were resettled. Thus, Ben Gurion’s rejection of “land-for-peace” upgraded, dramatically, Israel’s posture of deterrence, and motivated the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, General Omar Bradley, to recommend the upgrading of Israel’s stature to a major strategic ally of the US. That recommendation was rejected by the US State Department, the mentor of “land-for-peace.”
In May 1985, Israel concluded the Jibril Agreement with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, releasing 1150 Palestinian terrorists in exchange for three Israeli prisoners. Many of the released terrorists planned and commanded the 1987-1991 wave of Palestinian terrorism (the First Intifada), which produced an unprecedented level of terrorism, especially suicide-bombing.
In September, 1993, the Israel-engineered Oslo Accord was signed in the White House, providing Palestinians more political freedom than experienced by them under British, Jordanian and Egyptian rule. Instead of “a new Middle East” (as enunciated by the late President Shimon Peres), the Oslo Process ushered in an unprecedented wave of terrorism, in general, and suicide-bombing, in particular, exacerbated monetary incentives to terrorists, as well as by an insidious infrastructure of hate education and incitement in the Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas-controlled k-12 education system, mosques, community centers and media. Furthermore, the Oslo Accord doomed Arabs in Judea and Samaria to be ruled by one of the most ruthless, intolerant Arab regimes.
In May 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak retreated, hastily, from Southern Lebanon, indicating that Israel could not sustain the average annual loss of 24 soldiers in Lebanon. It was perceived as a symptom of vacillation, which was reinforced by the July 2000 Camp David Summit between Barak, Arafat and Clinton, when Barak conceded unprecedented Israeli ground on the issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees. These two Israeli retreats generated a robust tailwind to the September 2000 – February 2005 wave of Palestinian terrorism (the Second Intifada), which consumed the lives of over thousand Israelis (mostly civilians) and over 3,000 Palestinians, many of whom were killed by fellow-Palestinians. In addition, the 2006 war in Lebanon produced 165 Israeli fatalities.
In August 2005, Israel carried out, unilaterally, another “land-for-peace” operation, uprooting a critical Israeli military presence and 9,000 Israeli civilians from 25 Jewish settlements in northern Samaria and (mostly) Gaza.  As expected, this fueled Palestinian terrorism, bolstered Palestinian firepower in Gaza, led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza, transformed southern Israel into a routine target for Palestinian missiles, incubated three wars (December 2008 – January 2009, November 2012 and July-August 2014), radicalized terrorism and diminished the prospects for peace.
The US is aware that terrorists bite the hand that feeds them. For example, in April and October 1983, 300 US Marines were killed by suicide car-bombs in the Marine Barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut, despite the brutal US pressure on Israel to desist from hot-pursuit of the PLO in Lebanon.  On December 21, 1988, 270 passengers of PanAm-103 were murdered by a suicide-bomber, a week after the startling US recognition of the PLO on December 14. The August 27, 1998 blowing up of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – 257 murdered and over 4,000 injured – occurred while US President Clinton leaned relentlessly and brutally on Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to yield to Palestinian demands. The October 2000 murder of 17 sailors on the USS Cole, by suicide bombers, in the port of Aden, Yemen, took place at a time when both the US and Israel offered the Palestinian almost the entire store.
The concept of “land-for-peace” has underlined well-intentioned attempts to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, ignoring the track record of all prior attempts – since the 1993 Oslo Accord – which failed to advance the cause of peace, while inflaming Palestinian terrorism.
These attempts have underestimated the significance of the systematic track record of Palestinian terrorism, subversion and violent incitement – mostly against fellow Palestinians/Arabs, as well as against Jews – dating back to the 1920s, well before the 1948 reestablishment of the Jewish State and the 1967 reestablishment of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).
This well-documented track record identifies the cause of the conflict, and the trigger of Palestinian terrorism: the existence – not the size – of the Jewish State in an area, supposedly, divinely ordained to Muslim, Arab “believers.”
The “land-for-peace” attempts have made light of the collaboration of the Palestinian establishment with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, the Ayatollahs, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Moreover, they have also overlooked the Arab perception of the Palestinians, and mostly the PLO – which legally and effectively supersedes the Palestinian Authority – as the role model for sabotage, turmoil and terror in the Arab sphere. Hence, the enormously pro-Palestinian Arab talk, simultaneously with indifferent and negative Arab walk, reflecting awareness of the Palestinian trail of violence in Egypt (1950s), Syria (1966), Jordan (1968-1970), Lebanon (1970-1982), Kuwait (1990) and Iraq (1990s-2003).

Will Western policy-makers and peace negotiators finally learn from precedents by repeating, or avoiding, past critical and costly errors?  Will they benefit from Winston Churchill’s reaction to Britain’s “land-for-peace” (appeasement) agreements with Nazi Germany: “an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile – hoping it will eat him last”?




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, 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.

Thus, 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.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. 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 the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which 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), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would 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? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb