Facebook Feed

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

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Islamic/Arab terrorists bite the hands that feed them

The extension of US gestures and concessions to Islamic terrorists, and the waiving of a US military option while negotiating with Iran’s regime of terror, are perceived as weakness by terrorists, adversaries and allies of the US.

Such a policy ignores, or takes lightly, the objective and well-documented 1,400 year old past track record of Islamic terrorism, while emphasizing the subjective and speculative future track record of terrorists.

Such a policy erodes the US posture of deterrence, which is a prerequisite to the minimization of global turbulence, undermining US interests in the international arena, while bringing the threat of Islamic terrorism closer to the US mainland.

Such a policy is based on the assumption that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, and the need to dwell on the despair (diplomatically and economically) rather than dealing with terrorism (militarily). However, Islamic terrorism has been driven – since the 7th century – by the imperialistic religious vision to establish a universal Islamic society, dominating the world and subordinating the “infidel” to Islam, peacefully or militarily.

Such a policy is based on the assumption that Islamic terrorism is driven by US policy. However, Islamic terrorism has haunted the US since the late 18th century, during Democratic and Republican Administrations (e.g., the Obama and Trump Administrations).

For example:

*During the 1980s, it was US diplomatic, financial and military assistance which enabled the Mujahideen to drive the USSR out of Afghanistan. But, Mujahideen-related Islamic terrorists reacted in an anti-US terrorist offensive, which has persisted since 1996, culminating on September 11, 2001.

*In 2015, the US engineered the nuclear accord with Iran’s Ayatollahs (the JCPOA), which generated a mega-billion dollar bonanza to Iran’s treasury, in addition to unprecedented diplomatic benefits. But, Iran’s Ayatollahs reacted by vastly bolstering their role as a regional and global epicenter of subversion, terrorism, civil wars, the proliferation of ballistic capabilities and drug trafficking in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, Europe, South and Central America, emerging as a leading threat to regional and global stability, in general, and US national and homeland security, in particular.

*In 2011, the US engineered a US-led NATO military offensive against Libya’s Qadhafi, playing the key role in the toppling of the Qadhafi’s regime by Islamic terrorists. But, in 2012, the Islamic terrorists took over the US Consulate General and the CIA compound in Benghazi, lynched the US Ambassador and three more Americans, and transformed Libya into a major platform of regional and global anti-US Islamic terrorism.

*In 1978/79, the US played a most essential role in the toppling of the Shah of Iran (“America’s policeman in the Gulf”) by Ayatollah Khomeini. But, the Ayatollas reacted by taking over the US Embassy, holding 63 American hostages for 444 days, and emerging as a key threat to regional and global stability, including threatening vital US interests abroad and on US soil.

*In 1982/83, the US sent its soldiers to Lebanon, in order to slow down Israel’s military pursuit of Palestinian terrorists. But in 1983, Palestinian and Islamic terrorists truck-bombed the US Embassy and Marines headquarters in Lebanon, murdering 250 Americans.

*In 1993 and 2005, Israel made unprecedented concessions – which no Arab country ever did – by extending Palestinian Authority to major parts of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Gaza Strip, importing some 100,000 Palestinian terrorists from Tunisia, Lebanon, Yemen and the Sudan to areas which are critical to the existence of the Jewish State. The reaction by the PLO (Palestinian Authority) and Hamas to the unprecedented concessions has been an unprecedented wave of anti-Israel terrorism and hate-education, which reflect the Palestinian vision of eliminating the Jewish State.

*In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1990, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait extended Palestinian authority on their ground, triggering Palestinian terrorism against their generous hosts, culminating in Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ collaboration with Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Hence, the Arab view of Palestinians as role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude. Therefore, the wide gap between the pro-Palestinian Arab talk and the anti-Palestinian Arab walk, as demonstrated by the actual opposition of pro-US Arab regimes to the establishment of a Palestinian state, which they assume would be another rogue entity, fueling further turbulence in the Middle East.

Against the backdrop of the aforementioned developments, one should not subordinate the reality of Islamic/Arab/Palestinian terrorism to well-intentioned oversimplification, lest it erodes the US posture of deterrence,  which would play into the hands of Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest Sunni Muslim terror network from India through the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and the USA), the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority, as well as Pakistan, Turkey, China and Russia.

Unlike the post WW2 German population, which was ready – historically, culturally, ideologically, politically and educationally – to accept democracy, peaceful-coexistence and human rights, the Islamic/Arab Middle East is not susceptible to these Western values and institutions, persisting in their 1,400 year old intra-Arab and intra-Muslim subversion, terrorism and wars, irrespective of US policy.

The assumption that Islamic/Arab/Palestinian terrorists will accord the Western/Israeli “infidel” that which they have yet to accord to one another – peaceful coexistence – is premature and divorced from reality.

Therefore, it behooves Western democracies, in general, and the US, in particular, to enhance their military posture of deterrence and pursue peace-through-strength rather than peace-through-gestures, concessions and retreats.





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