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

Israel’s Military Response: “Powell Doctrine” lite

SECRETARY OF STATE POWELL’s spokesman, Boucher contended on April 17, 2001 that “The hostilities last night in Gaza were precipitated by the provocative Palestinian mortar attacks on Israel. The Israeli response was excessive and disproportionate.” REALLY???

THE POWELL DOCTRINE has suggested that the deployment of a disproportionate military power in required, in order to pound the enemy into submission: “The biggest s.o.b. on the block” rule. America should enter fights with every bit of force available or not at all.” (Time Magazine, April 19, 2001). “Go in full force from the beginning rather than escalate yourself into a quagmire. Or don’t go in at all.” (Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, March 27, 1999). “Overwhelming US force assures success at minimum risk to Americans in uniform” (The Boston Globe, Jan. 19, 2001). Israeli response to PLO terrorism has been significantly milder than the Powell Doctrine, although the threat has been significantly higher and on Israel’s own borders. Israel’s threat has not been based thousands, or hundreds, of miles across the ocean, as has been the case with US JUSTIFIABLE operations against Iraq, Panama, Grenada and Libya.

THE 1991 GULF WAR against the second-rate Iraqi military, featured Colin Powell assembling 540,000 troops, 4,000 tanks, 1,800 airplanes, 1,700 helicopters, 6 aircraft carriers, submarines, etc. “The total military deployment would be one of the largest by the US, since WWII. Once completed, 34% of the Army’s total forces would be deployed in the Gulf area, a higher ratio than in either the Vietnam or Korean wars… The total US deployment would also roughly equal the number of American forces stationed in Europe at the height of the Cold War.” (Facts On File, Nov. 9, 1990). In addition, Powell benefited from Britain’s 43,000 troops, 300 armored vehicles, 168 tanks, 70 jets, 6 destroyers, 4 frigates, 3 minesweepers, France’s 18,000 troops, 60 combat planes, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 3 destroyers, 1 missile cruiser and military forces from Germany, Canada, Belgium, Australia, Italy, etc.

The 1993 US BOMBING OF BAGHDAD employed 23 cruise missiles fired at Iraq’s intelligence HQ in Baghdad, hitting a civilian neighborhood in the process, in reaction to an Iraqi attempt on the life of former President Bush (during his 1993 visit to Kuwait). Powell defined the operation, rightly, as “Appropriate, proportional and consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter” (Washington Post, June 28, 1993).

OPERATION JUST CAUSE (US INVASION OF PANAMA, 1989) was carried out by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell, who oversaw the December 20, 1989 25,000 troops invasion, in pursuit of a narco-dictator (milder than Arafat, an ally of Saddam and a mortal enemy of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan), using the F-117 Stealth aircraft for the first time, hitting the PDF headquarters and the El Chorrillo neighborhood in Panama City. Twenty three US (and 315 Panama) soldiers were killed, as were hundreds of Panama City civilians (“collateral damage”), in the first few hours of the attack. Thousands of civilians were injured and some 10,000 Panamanians were displaced. In his book, Powell concluded that Operation Just Cause confirmed the Powell Doctrine: “Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going-in big if that’s what it takes.” Attorney General Thornburgh was accurate, when stating on December 20, 1989 that the US was acting in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.

THE MARCH and APRIL 1986 BOMBING OF LIBYA took place in reaction to the murder of US GIs, in Germany and in Spain, by Libyan-sponsored terrorists. In response to Libyan terrorism, the US deployed on March 24, 1986 two aircraft carriers (USS America and Coral Sea), attacking Libyan military targets in the Gulf of Sirte. On April 14, 1986 the US launched an air and navy attacks (F-111s bombers, EF-111 electronic jamming planes, A-6 bombers, A-7 and F-18 attack aircraft) on Libya’s capital, Tripoli, aiming at Qadaffi’s presidential palace at El-Azziziya, Sidi Bilal port, the military section of Tripoli’s international airport and military targets in Benghazi. Dozens of civilians were killed, a number of residential homes were destroyed, the French Embassy was seriously damaged and the Austrian and Romanian embassies were hit. (Facts on File, April 18, 1986).

THE OCTOBER 25, 1983 US INVASION OF GRENADA was highlighted by 7,000 US troops, who were employed to topple the Marxist regime there, sending a message to Cuba and Nicaragua. The invasion was triggered by a bloody Marxist coup in Grenada, along with a perceived threat to 100 US medical students on the island, and Cuban engineers constructing an airport there. On the other hand, the Israeli operation in Gaza was launched following more than 100 Palestinian mortar shells hitting Israel, some 7,000 Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israelis since September 2000 (including lynching and scores of suicidal bombings), including the murder of a baby, hitting an Israeli school bus with anti-tank missiles, shelling Jerusalem, etc. Should Israel’s response be proportionate – dispatching suicidal bombers to Gaza???

THE RESPONSE TO TERRORISM SHOULD NOT BE PROPORTIONATE. IT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE POWELL DOCTRINE, aiming at uprooting – rather than stopping – terrorism. The response should aim at dismantling terror infrastructure and capabilities (planning, logistics, operational, production, manpower), rather than hitting a few individual terrorists. The US JUSTIFIABLE campaign against Iraq has demonstrated that there are enemies with whom one communicates on the battle field, rather than on the negotiation table. The actions of the Bush #41, Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations, against Saddam, have indicated that sometimes the nature of the enemy precludes a political solution, and warrants a military solution.

Israel may consider adopting the justifiably disproportionate Powell Doctrine, but should – RESPECTFULLY – reject the statement made by Powell’s spokesman and his disproportionate reference to Saddam’s ally (PLO) and to US’ sole soul ally, Israel, in the Mideast (Israel).




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