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

Israel-Lebanon maritime accord vs. Israel-Arab peace treaties: impact on US interests

The US-engineered and guaranteed Israel-Lebanon maritime/gas accord is supposed to follow in the footsteps of the Israel-Arab peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, reducing regional terrorism and instability, inducing moderation and enhancing US interests.  Does it?

Hezbollah and Lebanon

*The Shiite Hezbollah – Iran’s proxy and globally recognized terrorist organization – is a dominant player in the increasingly imploding, failed-state, Lebanon, politically, militarily, socially, educationally, religiously and journalistically.

Hezbollah has dramatically bolstered its capabilities and clout since its establishment in 1982 – by Iran’s Shiite Ayatollahs – as a vehicle to export the Shiite Islamic Revolution, extend the Ayatollahs’ reach from the Persian Gulf, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the eastern Mediterranean, and undermine the US strategic posture in the Middle East.  Hezbollah has collaborated with Iran’s Ayatollahs in the Middle East, West Africa and throughout Latin America, all the way to the US-Mexico border. It has gained substantial sway due to its major contribution to the survival of the Assad regime.  Hezbollah has benefited from the Ayatollahs’ financial support, combat training, and the supply of precise missiles and predator unmanned aerial vehicles.

*Hezbollah’s dominant role in Lebanon’s decision-making has led the pro-US Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to ostracize Lebanon and suspend financial aid to Beirut, lest it bolsters Hezbollah’s stature.

Israel’s maritime accord vs. Israel-Arab peace treaties

*Israel’s peace treaties with the relatively-stable, pro-US, anti-Iran and anti-terrorist Sunni Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, with the blessing of Saudi Arabia, which generated a critical impetus to the Abraham Accords. Their policy and vision do not extend beyond their own national boundaries.

On the other hand, the maritime/gas accord was concluded with the uncontrollable Lebanon, which is afflicted by intrinsic religious, ethnic and political fragmentation, that has been leveraged by the violently domineering, anti-US, pro-Iran Hezbollah, a major arm of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, west Africa and Latin America. Hezbollah is dedicated to advancing the fanatic vision of a universal Shiite Moslem society, through the exportation of the Ayatollahs’ Shiite Islamic Revolution, toppling all Sunni (“apostate” and “heretic”) Sunni regimes, transforming the Republic of Lebanon into the Islamic Republic of Lebanon, a province of a universal Shiite Islamic entity, and bringing the “infidel” West (especially “the Great American Satan) to submission.

*The Abraham Accords were signed with regimes, which have accepted peaceful-coexistence with Israel and are focused on domestic stability, including economic growth.

Nonetheless, the maritime/gas accord was concluded with a country, dominated by Hezbollah, which perceives peaceful-coexistence with the Jewish state and its Sunni Arab neighbors an anathema to its fanatic vision, and has made it clear – since establishment – that its ideology supersedes financial and diplomatic benefits.

The conventional Western wisdom that Hezbollah will choose economic benefits over ideology should be assessed against the backdrop of the track record of Iran’s Ayatollahs and their adherence to their core ideology irrespective of the mega-billion-dollars of Western gifts, showered upon them by the US and the West since 1979. In addition, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have exhibited faithfulness to hate-education, incitement and terrorism, notwithstanding the unprecedented geographic, diplomatic and financial concessions made by Israel, the US and the world at-large.

*The Abraham Accords were concluded with Arab regimes, which consider Israel as a most effective military and technological ally in the face of lethal threats and in their pursuit of economic diversification.

While these Arab regimes are not fully-reconciled to the existence of an “infidel” Jewish sovereignty in the “abode of Islam” (the Middle East), they do not consider it a top priority, realizing the potential Israeli contribution to their survival. Moreover, some of them (especially the UAE) are moderating their education curriculum and policy toward Israel, rethinking Islam’s fundamental view of the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

On the other hand, Hezbollah and their masters in Tehran, consider Israel as a loathsome entity, religiously and strategically, to be uprooted, in order to advance their fanatic, religious, megalomaniacal vision.

They recognize the Jewish State as the most effective beachhead of “The Great American Satan,” culturally and strategically, and a powerful ally of the “apostate” Sunni Arab regimes.

*All Israel-Arab peace treaties resulted from a deep appreciation, by the Arab partners, of Israel’s military, technological and diplomatic capabilities, including its military defiance of Iran and Hezbollah, and its ability to fend off US pressure, which have demonstrated Israel’s willingness to assume short-term setbacks, in order to benefit from long-term national security benefits. The pro-US Arab regimes consider Israel’s posture of deterrence as a key component of their own national security.

On the other hand, the maritime/gas accord, was brokered by the US under the assumption that an Israeli giveaway of the entire area in dispute (330 square miles of economic water and 10 square kilometers of sovereign water) would avert a Hezbollah threat to launch an attack of missiles and predator unmanned vehicles.  In other words, a sweeping capitulation, rather than confrontation and preemption of a terrorist threat.

*The maritime/gas accord – which reflects the State Department worldview that concessions made to terrorists could induce moderation – has eroded Israel’s posture of deterrence, which has transformed Israel (since 1967) into the most productive force-multiplier for the US, and a desirable ally of the pro-US Arab regimes, in the face of lethal threats.

The bottom line

*The US architects of the maritime/gas accord and their Israeli partners overlook the fact that terrorists bite the hands that feed them. For example, the Mujahideen defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan due to US support, and were quick to launch a major terror offensive against the US in the Middle East and in the US itself. Furthermore, Iran’s Ayatollahs seized power in Iran due to US support, and then became the lead epicenter of global anti-US terrorism. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas responded to unprecedented Israeli gestures in 1993 (the Oslo Accord) and 2005 (the disengagement from Gaza) with unprecedented hate-education, incitement and terrorism.

*The US architects and their Israeli partners have ignored the fact that concessions to terrorists – just like any other rogue entity – whets their appetite and intensifies terrorism.

*The maritime/gas accord represents a victory of Western conventional wisdom over Middle East reality, sacrificing long-term national security on the altar of short-term gratification, which plays into the hands of rogue entities (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority), undermining the homeland and national security of Western democracies (e.g., the US, Europe and Israel).

*At a time, when most Iranians, and especially Iranian women, are rising against the repressive regime of the Ayatollahs, demanding regime-change, the US-engineered maritime/gas accord bolsters the Ayatollahs’ geo-strategic posture, while repeating the critically erroneous policy of 2009, when the US ignored the popular uprising in Iran, allowing the Ayatollahs to butcher its unarmed citizens.

*The US-engineered maritime/gas accord provides a tailwind to the Ayatollahs and their Hezbollah proxy, while ruling out active support of the regime-change movement in Iran; waiving an essential US military option (which is the only way to test the Ayatollahs’ intentions); sustaining the self-destructive diplomatic option (which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ fortunes since their ascension to power in February 1979); assuming that the Ayatollahs are potentially good-faith negotiators; and viewing the Ayatollahs as if they were amenable to peaceful-coexistence, abandoning their 1,400-year-old fanatic, imperialistic vision, in return for another financial and diplomatic bonanza, which is currently offered – by the US – to Tehran.

*Against the backdrop of the aforementioned data, the US-engineered maritime/gas accord, is an extension of the well-intentioned US policy in the Middle East, which has been at odds with Middle East reality, intensifying regional terrorism and instability and eroding US posture and interests.

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

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