Facebook Feed

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

2 weeks ago

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

2 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
bit.ly/3xHPCDc הסכמי אברהם – אינטרס ערבי, אמריקאי וישראלי: ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Netanyahu’s Test: Red Lines VS Pink Lines

George Mitchell, President Obama’s Special Envoy, is testing Prime Minister Netanyahu: Has he learned from past errors by repeating them – which would demolish his credibility– or by avoiding them, which would resurrect his domestic and international clout?

In order to enhance his own clout and Israel’s posture of deterrence – which constitute essential prerequisites to Israel’s national security, Israel’s strategic ties with the USA and to the attainment of durable peace – it is incumbent upon Netanyahu to refute Obama’s Mitchell’s  and Clinton’s assumption that he (Netanyahu) tends to transform Red Lines into Pink Lines.

On May 29, 2009 – six months before the freeze on Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria and three weeks before Netanyahu’s “Two States Speech” at Bar Ilan University – the Washington Post reported that “Abu Mazen fully expects that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze.”  Abu Mazen assumed that it would take a multi-year US pressure to force Netanyahu to publicly accept the two-states formula and to freeze Israeli settlement construction.” The Washington Post assumed that it is “a Palestinian fantasy that the US will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud.”  However, Abu Mazen, the Washington Post and Obama have learned that Jerusalem is capable of transforming Red Lines into Pink Lines.

In March 2009, upon Netanyahu’s entry into the Prime Minister Office, Obama’s team was convinced that he would be susceptible to pressure for a complete freeze of Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria.  They dismissed the advice by veterans of President Clinton’s team to refrain from such a pressure, lest Netanyahu defy the pressure, while enjoying the support of most Americans and most legislators, thus dragging Obama into a losing proposition. However, they found out that Jerusalem could transform Red Lines into Pink Lines.

Netanyahu’s first eighteen months in office demonstrated that submission to pressure intensified pressure, radicalized Arab expectations and demands, undermined Israel’s moral standing, eroded the image of the Prime Minister and the strategic posture of the Jewish State in the Middle East and in Washington, DC and weakened the conviction of Israelis in their own cause.  In contrast, the eight years of Prime Minister Shamir in office were top heavy on US resentment of his steadfastness and defiance.  Washington opposed Shamir’s policy toward the Palestinians, but respected his principle-driven policy and his capability to withstand domestic and external pressure. On a rainy day, Shamir was a unique strategic ally in face of regional and global mutual threats, which were significantly more important than the Palestinian issue in impacting vital US interests. Thus, irrespective of the unbridgeable gap, between the US and Israel, in the narrow context of the Arab-Israeli context, the bilateral strategic cooperation in the wider regional and global context expanded in an unprecedented manner.  Jerusalem should have learned that holding on to Red Lines bolsters Israel’s Life Line.

Prime Minister Netanyahu crossed the Rubicon on June 14, 2009, publicly endorsing the Two States Solution, in order to alleviate Obama’s pressure.  However, as expected, the pressure intensified, the Palestinians would not reciprocate and on November 25, 2009, Netanyahu was forced to accept a full freeze of Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria, while Arab construction crossed the charts.  Netanyahu’s retreat adrenalized the veins of Team Obama, which stepped up the pressure, convincing Netanyahu to move the goal posts further, expanding the freeze to Jerusalem.

In September 1997, Palestinian terrorism exploded against the backdrop of the opening of the Western Wall Tunnel.  Washington expected a heavy-handed Israeli response, but was astounded to witness a hand-in-hand Netanyahu-Arafat visit to Washington, DC.  The 1997 Hebron and the 1998 Wye Accords, the willingness to refrain from construction in Har-Khoma and Ma’aleh Hazeitim (in Jerusalem) and to sweep under the carpet  Abu Mazen’s hate-education and incitement, Holocaust denial and promotion of terrorism have further corroded the credibility of Jerusalem’s Red Lines.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu learn from past dramatic errors and their adverse impact upon Israel’s strategic image? Will he substantiate the Washington Post May 2009 assumption that it takes a “Palestinian Fantasy” to assume that a US president can impose upon Israel critical concessions? Will Netanyahu leverage his own unique intellectual and communications capabilities, Obama’s political vulnerability and heavy constraints, the expected drastic changes on Capitol Hill and the awesome platforms of bi-partisan support of the Jewish State among Americans? Will he leverage the unique commitment to enhanced US-Israel strategic relations by Republicans and Democrats in Congress, which is equal in power to the President in shaping domestic and international policies?    




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

Israel in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) advances US interest

The US position on the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) should be based on US interests in the context of a violent, volcanic, uncontrollable and unpredictable Middle East, where agreements are as tenuous as are the regimes which conclude them.

On September 18, 1970, the pro-USSR Syrian military invaded Jordan in an attempt to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime, which would destabilize the regional balance. The invasion was rolled back on September 23, largely, due to Israel’s deployment of its military, and Israel’s deterring posture on the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. Thus, Israel’s posture of deterrence spared the US the need to deploy its own troops (while it was bogged down in the Vietnam quagmire), in order to secure its Jordanian ally, and prevent a devastating ripple effect into Saudi Arabia and all other pro-US Arab Gulf States (at a time when the US was heavily dependent upon Persian Gulf oil).

Israel’s control of the mountains of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley – as well as the Golan Heights – dramatically catapulted its regional position from violence-inducing weakness to violence-deterring strength, reducing regional violence and threats to all pro-US Arab regimes.

Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – the cradle of Jewish history – has transformed the Jewish State from a supplicant and national security consumer to a strategic ally of the US and national security producer.  In the words of the late General Alexander Haig (former Supreme Commander of NATO and US Secretary of State), Israel has become the largest US aircraft carrier with no US boots on board, yielding the US a few hundred percent rate of return on its annual investment in Israel.

Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (3,000 ft. above the Jordan Valley and 2,000 ft. above the coastal plain) has considerably bolstered the national security of the pro-US and highly vulnerable Hashemite regime in Jordan. It has transformed Israel into Jordan’s most security-generating neighbor. Israel systematically combats anti-Israel and anti-Hashemite Palestinian terrorists west of the Jordan River, sharing with Jordan vital intelligence on Palestinian and Islamic terrorists in Jordan, and deterring potential assaults on Jordan by rogue organizations and regimes in the north (Syria) and east (Iraq/Iran).  Moreover, Saudi Arabia and all other pro-US Arab Gulf States have unprecedentedly expanded their military, intelligence, counter-terrorism and commercial cooperation with Israel, realizing the added-value of Israel’s deterrence in face of the real and clear lethal threats posed by Iran’s Ayatollahs, Islamic Sunni terrorism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS) and Turkey’s Erdogan.

On the other hand, an Israeli retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, would transform Jordan’s western border (the proposed Palestinian state) into a deadly threat to the Hashemite regime.  It would be the straw that would break the back of the Hashemite regime, transforming pro-US Jordan into a Libya/Yemen/Iraq/Syria-like platform of anti-US Islamic terrorism, according Iran’s Ayatollahs an opportunity to extend their reach toward the Mediterranean.

The toppling of the Hashemite regime – and its substitution by a Palestinian, “Muslim Brotherhood” or any other rogue regime – would intensify Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Syria, and would generate tailwind to the systematic attempts to topple the pro-US Arab regimes in Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab oil states, as well as Egypt, with their dramatically adverse impact on the state of Western national security and economy (e.g., disruption of the supply – and a surge in the price – of oil).

Thus, in October 1994, during the Israel-Jordan peace treaty ceremony, top Jordanian military officers shared a crucial message with their Israeli counterparts: “In view of the subversive, terroristic and treacherous Palestinian track record in their relations with Arab states, a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the River, boding disaster for Saudi Arabia and all other Arab states south of Jordan and possibly Egypt.” This assessment was a derivative of Jordan’s inherently fragile domestic scene, exacerbated by intensifying external Islamic/Arab threats:

*70% of Jordan’s population are Palestinians.  Most Palestinian leaders (e.g., the PLO, Palestinian Authority and Hamas) consider Jordan an artificial entity, claiming title to the whole of British Mandate Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Iraqi border, of which Jordan is 78%.  Hence, the ongoing battle of the Jordanian secret service against Palestinian terrorism and subversion.

*A well-entrenched presence of the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest Islamic Sunni terrorist organization with “human rights” subsidiaries such as CAIR) aims to replace the Hashemite regime, violently, with a Muslim Caliphate.

*Some ISIS veterans of the Syria and Iraq civil wars consider Jordan their home.

*Jordan’s Bedouins (who control the military and homeland security establishments) are deeply fragmented, geographically, tribally and ideologically. Southern (indigenous) Bedouin tribes have displayed tenuous loyalty to the throne, considering the Hashemites “carpetbaggers” from the Arabian Peninsula.

Based on the Palestinian intra-Arab and global rogue track record and the Palestinian Authority hate-education, Israel’s retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria would yield another anti-US rogue regime. It would further destabilize the inherently violent, intolerant, unpredictable, unstable and despotic Middle East, providing Russia and possibly Iran naval, air and land rights, and accelerating the flight of Christians from the Bethlehem area.

Ignoring the volcanic Middle East reality, the unique benefits derived from Israel’s control of the Judea and Samaria mountain ridges, and the significant damage which would be caused by the proposed Palestinian state, would resemble a person cutting off his/her nose to spite his/her face.

Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria highlights the synergy between the national security of the US and Israel, emphasizing Israel’s military and commercial contribution as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East and beyond.

 

 




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