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


Seven and a half years following the signing of the Oslo Accords, seven and a half years of exacerbated anti-Jewish and anti-Israel incitement by PLO’s education and media systems, seven and a half years of unprecedented Palestinian non-compliance and terrorism in spite of – and due to – unprecedented Israeli concessions, have demonstrated that there is no political solution to Palestinian terrorism.

Contrary to IRA terrorism, Palestinian terrorism has constituted an instrument of annihilation (of Israel) rather than eventual co-existence (with England). In face of annihilationist terrorism one has to employ offensive, rather than defensive, tactics, and military, rather than political, force.

In 1986, Qadaffi was a key member of International Terrorism, Inc., aiming to undermine US strategic interests. Two American soldiers were killed, in April 1986, by a bomb blast at the West Berlin discotheque, La Belle. Two American soldiers were killed, in August 1985, by a car bomb at a US base in Frankfurt, and another US soldier was murdered there. 15 Americans were injured, in April 1985, by a bomb planted in a restaurant near a US airbase in Madrid. These terror acts – which were less costly than recent Palestinian terrorism – were perpetrated by Libya. Rather than conducting negotiation with Qadaffi, President Reagan dispatched the US Air Force to bomb Libya’s capital, Tripoli, aiming at the presidential palace, intending to eliminate Qadaffi. The US did not focus on the individual terrorists. The US activated its military might against the head, rather than the tail, of the snake! As a result of the US reaction, Qadaffi has lowered his terrorist profile substantially. President Reagan, and Secretary of State Schultz, admitted that US counter-terrorism policy was inspired by Israel’s own battle against terrorism.

In 1989, Noriega expanded his involvement in drug trafficking in Latin America and the US. Harassment of a Marine Captain and his wife, by Panama soldiers, triggered a US invasion of Panama, rather than a series of meetings between US leaders and Noriega. Some 600 Panama civilians were killed during a helicopter assault on Panama City. Noriega was captured, tried and imprisoned in the US.

In 1991, the US demonstrated that there is no political solution to a conflict with a terrorist State, and that there are enemies who are not partners to negotiation. Thus, in spite of Saddam’s eagerness to launch negotiation with the US, in the aftermath of his invasion of Kuwait, President Bush avoided a political dialog and seized the military option. He deployed 500,000 US military personnel, devastated Iraq’s military and bombed Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, with the goal of ending Saddam’s regime. A premature ending of Desert Storm, and the election of President Clinton to two terms have turned the counter-terrorism clock backward. Inaction, ineffective bombing, accommodation, negotiation and appeasement of terrorists and terrorist States have replaced the flexing of an effective military muscle. Gone were the days of “You may run, but you can’t hide!” Rather than chasing terrorist chieftains and constraining their maneuverability, they have been legitimized as statesmen, freed of most political, commercial and military constraints. Since 1993 – and in striking contrast to the legacy which earned the Jewish State sovereignty and strategic prominence – Israel has joined the club of “No Military Option. ” It has, therefore, played into the hands of the terrorists, breeding more terror and bloodshed of the innocent.

In order to revitalize the counter-terrorist effort, one has to turn the clock forward, resurrecting the military option and the posture of deterrence, which have characterized US’ and Israel’s counter-terrorism effort until 1992. It has also underlined Turkey’s and Egypt’s battle against Kurdish and Islamic terrorists, as well as Germany’s, Italy’s and France’s successful war against the Baader Meinhoff, Red Brigades and Action Directe. In fact, no cadet would graduate from West Point and its Israeli equivalent, claiming that there is no military solution to terrorism!

The Israeli electorate has, also, subscribed to the Military Option, voting out of office “There is no military solution” Prime Ministers. The 1992 election was won by a hawkish candidate (the late Rabin, who promised “no negotiation with the PLO, no Palestinian State and no Golan Giveaway), who governed as an extreme dove. The 1996 election was won by a hardliner (Netanyahu), who was transformed into an Osloite Prime Minister. The 1999 election was won, once again, by a hawkish candidate (Barak), who became the most radical dovish Prime Minister in Israel’s history. In 2001, the most dovish Prime Minister, who displayed unprecedented indecisiveness, ineptness and frailty in face of terrorism, was dealt an unprecedented electoral blow by Arik Sharon, whose name has become a synonym to military resolve, daring and creativity.

When debating the military versus the political options, in the battle against terrorism, one should recall the ancient Jewish saying: “He who shows mercy to the cruel, is bound to display cruelty to the merciful!”


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






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