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

Obama’s Advisors – A Source for Concern

Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, is not a key member of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services or Intelligence.  He has not initiated/led any significant legislation and has not devoted himself to national security issues. He surged into the Senate and the presidential race from the Illinois local-political-social arena.  Obama relies on a battery of experienced advisors, who influence/shape his world view and maybe even US policy and US-Israel relations for the next 4-8 years.  However, the record of his advisors – most of them served in the Carter and Clinton Administrations – constitutes a source for concern.

 

For instance, Tony Lake served as the influential Director of Policy Planning under Secretary Cyrus Vance and President Jimmy Carter.  He played a lead role in the policy, which stabbed the Shah of Iran – a most loyal ally of the US in the most critical area to US interests – in his back, thus facilitating the rise of Khomeini to prominence, which has constituted a tailwind to the Islamic revolution.  Lake was the luminary and National Security Advisor of President Clinton, who shaped a policy, which approached international and Islamic terrorism as a challenge for law enforcement agencies rather than for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff.  Lake’s policy defined terrorists as criminals who should be brought to justice, rather than wartime lethal enemies who should be brought down on their knees.  The outcome of Lake’s world view has burdened the US and the Free World since September 11, 2001. 

 

Susan Rice served as John Kerry’s senior foreign policy advisor in his 2004 presidential campaign.  She wanted to appoint Jim Baker or Jimmy Carter – the most anti-Israel Secretary of State and President since 1948 – as the Special Emissary to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Rice was an Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary Albright and President Clinton, representing a world view, which blames the West for the predicament of the 3rd World, identifying Israel with the West and the Arabs with the 3rd World.  Just like Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice examines the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the lenses of American Black struggle for civil rights, classifying Palestinians as the supposed oppressed Blacks.  If MLK would know that he is compared to Abu Mazen and Arafat – the role models of hate education, homicide-bombing and systematic violation of commitments – he would declare: “I Have a Nightmare!”

 

Madeleine Albright was Clinton’s Secretary of State, promoting Susan Rice.  Albright considered Arafat a genuine partner for peace negotiation and a potential ally of the USA.  She transformed Arafat into the #1 Frequent Visitor to the White House, overlooked documentation of Arafat’s loathsome terrorism and anti-US policy, lobbied Congress for larger foreign aid to Arafat and enhanced his standing in Western capitals.  Albright advanced a policy of negotiation-rather-than-confrontation with terror regimes.  Hence, the absence of an effective preventive counter-terrorism policy and the lack of appropriate retaliation to the Islamic terrorist bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (300 murdered) and bombing of the USS Cole (17 murdered).  The policy of negotiation-rather-than-confrontation was interpreted by Islamic terrorists as weakness, thus paving the road to the 2001 Twin Towers and Pentagon terrorism (almost 3,000 murdered).

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s and Lee Hamilton’s long track record is replete with failures and problematic Israeli aspects.  As Carter’s National Security Advisor, Brzezinski led a policy of US pessimism in face of the 3rd World and spearheaded the initiative, which facilitated the 1979 Khomeini volcanic eruption and its continued aftershocks.  He has been one of the staunchest hostile critics of the Jewish State, considering Israel a strategic liability, contending that US support of Israel stems from political expediency, supporting recognition of Hamas and criticizing Israel for its, supposed, belligerence during the 2006 Lebanese War. 

 

Lee Hamilton demonstrated cold-critical attitude toward Israel while serving as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, embracing Arafat as a supposed moderate leader.  Hamilton is the co-chair, along with Jim Baker, of the “Iraq Study Group,” which recommended a US dialogue with rogue regimes.  It defines the Arab-Israeli conflict as the crux of Middle East turbulence and terrorism.  Therefore, he calls for sweeping Israeli concessions as a panacea for regional malaise.  How intriguing to believe that a resolution of the 100 year old Arab-Israeli conflict would be a solution for the 1,400 year old Inter-Muslim turbulence?!

 

Obama should be welcome warmly in Israel.  However, one should not delude oneself about the prospect of influencing the world view of his advisors.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Jewish State, and its supporters in the USA, to upgrade their efforts on Capitol Hill, which has been a most effective locomotive of the mutually beneficial US-Israel cooperation.  Congress is equal to the Executive in constitutional power, and it reflects the most authentic attitude of the American People toward the Jewish State.  




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