Facebook Feed

5 days ago

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

4 weeks ago

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

4 weeks ago

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

Hall of Famers vs. Hall of Shamers: Jerusalem Misreads DC

In December 1990, upon realizing that the US is geared toward an all out war, Saddam Hussein moderated his rhetoric, announcing his willingness to negotiate the fate of his invasion of Kuwait. President Bush reacted with a massive military offensive. PRESIDENT BUSH’S RESPONSE TO IRAQI TERRORISM WAS BASED ON A SUSTAINED STRATEGIC EXAMINATION OF IRAQI POLICY, RATHER THAN ON A TACTICAL STATEMENT BY SADDAM. How will Israel respond to PLO terrorism?

Washington DC has gone through a significant transformation since the 2000 election. However, Jerusalem “experts” have yet to shift from the Clinton-Channel to the George W. Bush-Channel. They misperceive and issue of US Pressure, blowing it beyond proportion, thus delaying the inevitable massive Israeli military reaction to persisting PLO terrorism.

In his April 2001 address to the annual conference of the American Jewish Committee, PRESIDENT BUSH SAID: “FOR A TEXAN, a first visit to Israel is an eye-opener. At the narrowest point, it’s only eight miles from the Mediterranean to the old Armistice line: That’s less than from the top to the bottom of DFWAirport. The whole of pre-1967 Israel is only about six times the size of the King Ranch.” In his May 20, 2001 interview on Meet The Press, VP RICHARD CHENEY refrained from condemning Israel‘s use of the F-16 against targets of PLO terrorism. The VP was aware that the US Administration suspended, in 1981, the supply of aircraft to Israel , as a result of Israel‘s employing F-16s and F-15s in the June 1981 bombing of Iraq‘s nuclear reactor. In his May 1, 2001 interview on Fox TV, DEFENSE SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD stated: “[That’s] what the Israelis did on Baghdad when they took out the Iraqi nuclear capability many years ago — and thank goodness they did.” In his interview with the CQ Weekly, SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (KS-R), then CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE NEAR EAST AND SOUTH ASIA, noted: “People understand strength and resolve. When you start showing weakness and duplicity, you start getting pushed around.”

CONTRARY TO THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION attempts to downplay the internationalization of conflicts, to minimize US participation in peacekeeping missions and to refrain from over-involvement in the Oslo Process. Contrary to the Clinton Administration, the current Department of State does not always reflect the consensus of the Bush Administration. For instance, the Department of State bureaucracy has supported Clinton‘s rapprochement with North Korea, the easing of sanctions on Saddam Hussein, the softening of policy toward Iran and the moderation of the stance on ballistic missile defense. However, President Bush has adopted the recommendations of Cheney (the most influential VP in US history) and Rumsfeld (who may become the most effective Secretary of Defense). In contrast with the pro-Israel position adopted by most Americans and US legislators, the Department of State has traditionally reflected a critical (to hostile) attitude toward Israel. In 1947/48 it lobbied, intensely, against the establishment of the Jewish State!

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN ENAMORED WITH CLINTON’S OSLO PROCESS AND THE CLINTON-INITIATED MITCHELL COMMISSION, headed by the former leader of the Senate Democratic majority. Contrary to former President Clinton, PRESIDENT BUSH HAS REALIZED THAT THE OSLO PROCESS, AND THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, HAVE NEVER CONSTITUTED THE KEY AXIS IN MIDEAST POLITICS. He understands that the key

Mideast conflicts – which have plagued the region since the seventh century – have been independent of Israel‘s policy and of Israel‘s existence. Israeli concessions would not moderate the Islamic zeal of Iran and of Islamic terrorists threatening the regimes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, would not alter the megalomaniac aspirations of Saddam Hussein, would not reduce Syria‘s hostility toward Turkey and Jordan and would not calm down the inherent Sunni-Shiite hostility. However, President Bush has recognized the potential contribution of Israel – and its power of deterrence – to US battle against MUTUAL THREATS, which have been nurtured by the PLO and other Arab radicals: Islamic terrorism, Iraq, Iran and ballistic missiles. The President has, also, appreciated the SHARED VALUES binding together the US and Israel.

ISRAEL’S STRATEGIC COOPERATION WITH THE US HAS BEEN ENHANCED DRAMATICALLY DURING 1948-1993, IN SPITE OF – AND PROBABLY DUE TO – THE REFUSAL BY ALL ISRAELI PRIME MINISTERS TO ADHERE TO THE CLASSICAL POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE (1967 Lines, Palestinian State, effective repartitioning of Jerusalem). On the other hand, giving in to Department of State pressure – since 1993 – has undermined

Israel‘s posture of deterrence in the Mideast, thus eroding Israel‘s potential strategic contribution to the US in face of mutual threats. Dwindling Israeli resolve in face of US pressure has further damaged US interests, by transforming the US Administration into a preferred object to-be-pressured by the Arabs. Succumbing to US Administration pressure, has ignored the difference between psychological and effective pressure, and the support enjoyed by Israel among the American People, the US Congress and among prominent non-Department of State elements within the Administration. For instance, two days before the convening of the October 1998 Wye Summit, President Clinton was notified by Congressional Democrats that any attempt to pressure Israel via threats to cut off foreign aid, or to suspend bilateral cooperation, would be opposed by Congress, which possesses the Power of The Purse. However, the Israeli prime minister was rolled-over by Clinton‘s psychological pressure, preferring short-term political convenience over long-term strategic goals.

RESPONSIBLE ISRAELI LEADERS should not ignore US pressure. However, responsible Israeli leaders should harness the immense reservoir of US goodwill toward Israel, in order to reduce the impact of the pressure. THEY SHOULD NEVER ALLOW US PRESSURE TO ALTER ISRAEL‘S STRATEGIC GOALS. Such was the conduct of ALL Israeli prime ministers until 1993. They succeeded in bolstering Israel‘s national security, as well as Israel‘s strategic ties with the US, while defying US pressure. Such was not the conduct of ALL Israeli prime ministers since 1993. PRIME MINISTER SHARON SHOULD JOIN PRIME MINISTERS BEN-GURION, ESHKOL, GOLDA, BEGIN AND SHAMIR, THE PRE-1993 HALL OF FAMERS, RATHER THAN THE POST-1993 HALL OF SHAMERS!




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

US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement – acumen

*The US’ co-sponsorship of an anti-Israel UN Security Council Statement reflects the return of the State Department’s worldview to the center stage of US foreign policy-making. This was the first time, in six years, that the US enabled the UN Security Council to act against Israel.

*This is not merely a worldview, which is highly critical of Israel, as has been the case since 1948, when Foggy Bottom led the charge against the re-establishment of the Jewish State.

This worldview has systematically undermined US interests, by subordinating the unilateral, independent US national security policy (on Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian issue, etc.) to a multilateral common denominator with the anti-US and anti-Israel UN and international organizations, as well as the vacillating and terrorists-appeasing Europe.

*It has sacrificed Middle East reality on the altar of wishful-thinking, assuming that the establishment of a Palestinian state would fulfill Palestinian aspirations, advance the cause of peace, reduce terrorism and regional instability; thus, enhancing US interests.

*However, the reality of the Middle East and Jordan and the rogue Palestinian track record lend credence to the assumption that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, yielding traumatic ripple effects, regionally and globally:

^Replace the relatively-moderate Hashemite regime with either a rogue Palestinian regime, a Muslim Brotherhood regime, or other rogue regimes;
^Transform Jordan into a chaotic state, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs to intensify their encirclement of the pro-US Saudi regime;
^Convert Jordan into a major arena of regional and global Islamic terrorism;
^Trigger a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula, which could topple all pro-US, oil-producing Arab regimes;
^Imperil the supply of Persian Gulf oil, which would be held hostage by anti-US entities, catapulting the price at the pump;
^Jeopardize major naval routes of global trade between Asia and Europe through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal;
^Intensify epicenters of regional and global terrorism and drug trafficking;
^Generate a robust tailwind to US’ adversaries (Russia and China) and enemies (Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS) and a powerful headwind to US economic and national security interests.

*The State Department assumes that Palestinian terrorism – just like Islamic terrorism – is driven by despair, ignoring the fact that Palestinian terrorism has been driven (for the last 100 years) by the vision to erase the “infidel” Jewish entity from “the abode of Islam,” as stated by the charters of Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964), 8 and 3 years before the Jewish State reunited Jerusalem and reasserted itself in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

*Aspiring for a Palestinian state, and viewing Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace, ignores the Arab view of the Palestinians as a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, corruption and treachery. Moreover, the State Department has held the view that the Palestinian issue is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a central to Arab interests, which has been refuted by the Abraham Accords. The latter ignored the State Department, sidestepped the Palestinian issue and therefore came to fruition.

*The State Department overlooks the centrality of the Palestinian Authority’s hate education, which has become the most effective production-line of terrorists, and the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian Authority’s worldview and vision.

*The State Department has also taken lightly the Palestinian Authority’s mosque incitement, public glorification of terrorists and monthly allowances to families of terrorists, which have documented its rogue and terroristic nature (walk), notwithstanding its peaceful diplomatic rhetoric (talk).

*The State Department’s eagerness to welcome the Palestinian issue in a “red carpet” manner – contrary to the “shabby doormat” extended to Palestinians by Arabs – and its determination to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state, along with its embrace of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been interpreted by rogue regimes and organizations as weakness.

Experience suggests that weakness invites the wolves, including wolves which aim to bring “The Great Satan” to submission throughout the world as well as the US mainland.

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