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

KEEP TERRORISTS CLOSE TO THEIR END ZONE

“A cardinal rule in US football: Keep the other team as far as possible from your End Zone. The closer they are to their End Zone, the slimmer the chance that they will score a touchdown”, taught me Jim Schoff, a fan of the Cleveland Browns. The rule applies to soccer as well: A team which foregoes the winning option and vies for a tie, adopts defense and relies on sporadic and limited offense, waives initiative. Such a tactic erodes the confidence of its own players, bolsters the boldness of the rival team, improves the maneuverability of the rival team, which seizes initiative, scores goals and could win the game.

Israel’s response to the 2000-2001 Palestinian sniping at the Gilo neighborhood in Jerusalem – by sealing windows with sand sacks and erecting a series of protective walls – did not stop the sniping. In fact, it energized Palestinian terrorists and enabled them to upgrade their shooting capabilities. The sniping was totally aborted – and overall Palestinian terrorism was curtailed by 90% – when Israel’s military took over the Palestinian “End Zone” in Beit Jallah, Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus and other major towns in Judea & Samaria. Israeli military re-engagement with these areas – rather than the fence or the wall – reasserted Israel’s initiative in the battle against Palestinian terrorism.

Upgrading the defensive features of bus stops, restaurants, coffee shops and residential areas in the Kassam-plagued Sderot, Ashqelon and the neighboring Kibbutzim – and tomorrow maybe in Ashdod, Kfar Saba, Hadera and Ben Gurion Airport – provides a short term false sense of security, which plays into the hands of terrorists.

The focus on defense and on “Realignment-Convergence-Retreat” toward Israel’s “End Zone” – as a key tactic in the war against Palestinian terrorism – has signaled Israel’s abandonment of the victory option. Rather than destroying the infrastructure and capabilities of Palestinian terrorism, the defensive/Realignment tactic has reflected co-existence with terrorism. The addiction to defense, the belief that “Restrain is strength”, and the subordination of the war on terrorism to international public opinion, have been a by-product of the false assumptions that “we’ve tried everything” and “There’s no military solution to terrorism”. Such assumptions mirror battle fatigue, which is non-existent among countries, who fight terrorism: India, Thailand, Egypt and Algeria against Islamic terrorism, Turkey – PKK, Germany – “Baader Meinhoff”, Italy – “Red Brigades”, France – “Action Directe”, Sri Lanka – “Tigers”, Peru – “Shining Path”, etc.

A proper examination (due-diligence) of the defensive option – which has been re-entrenched since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accord – demonstrates that the higher the reliance on defense the more daring and expansive terrorism gets. The primacy of defense and of “There’s no military solution to terrorism” have undermined Israel’s posture of deterrence, have enhanced the effectiveness of terrorism and have advanced its stage-by-stage goals:

1. Weakening the trust of Israelis in their government’s capability to safeguard personal/national security;

2. Transforming terrorism into an integral cost of living in Israel;

3. Establishing war of attrition – the “wet dream” of terrorists and the nightmare of western democracies – as the mode of Israeli-Palestinian relations;

4. Undermining Israel’s conviction in its cause, and accepting – by Israelis – the elements of “moral equivalence” and shared-responsibility for the “cycle of violence”;

5. Exacerbating Israeli weariness, yielding sweeping concessions, which fuel Palestinian terrorism driven by hope for further concessions;

6. Producing the collapse and abandonment of the Jewish State.

Thirteen years of unprecedented terrorism – since Oslo – have made it clear that there is no political solution to Palestinian terrorism, that international public opinion is never saturated with Israeli concessions, that Israel should change its counter-terrorist tactics and that Israel should take charge of the Palestinian “End Zone”, striving for a decisive victory. Instead of relying on defense, deterrence, retaliation and on surgical, sporadic and limited offensive initiatives, Israel should adopt the tactic of pre-emption, prevention and comprehensive/sustained offense, aimed at uprooting terrorist (ideological, logistic and operational) infrastructure and capabilities. Rather than converging and withdrawing into Israel’s own “End Zone”, Israel should take charge of the breeding ground and the home-base of terrorism, which would enhance Israel’s deterrence and human-intelligence and interception capabilities. It would reduce – by 90% – Palestinian capabilities to conduct hate-education, to incite, to recruit, to train, to manufacture and smuggle terrorist and military hardware, to plan, to maneuver and to carryout terrorist activities.

Rather than defend against Palestinian terrorists, Israel should destroy the potential and actual capabilities of Palestinian terrorists.

Will the current Israeli military operation in Gaza remain a limited offensive, retreating shortly to Israel’s “End Zone”, or does it spearhead a takeover of the Palestinian “End Zone”?! The latter would enable Israel to regain and maintain the initiative, to stop the erosion of Israel’s own confidence in its own cause and capabilities, and to achieve a conclusive military victory, which would eliminate Palestinian terrorists – the Palestinian Authority and Hamas – from future participation in any competition.




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