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

President Clinton: A Lethal Friend

President Clinton’s admirers have claimed that he has been the most pro-Israel President, ever serving in the White House. However, a proper due-diligence of Clinton’s policy toward Israel reveals that the road to security and political hell could be paved with good intentions.

In 1993 President Clinton embraced the draconian constraints, attached by Secretary of State Baker, to the $10BN loan guarantees extended to Israel. Although he had the prerogative to be more lenient, Clinton chose to deduct over $1BN due to Israeli construction and development in various neighborhoods – defined by his Administration as “settlements” – in Jerusalem.

Since 1993, Clinton has acquiesced to most Arab requests for most advanced military systems, which have threatened Israel’s qualitative military edge, in spite of opposition by Israel and its friends in the US.

In 1993, Clinton exerted a brutal pressure on the late Prime Minister Rabin to allow 400 Hamas terrorists – who were deported to Lebanon – to return to Gaza. The return of the 400 Islamic terrorists ignited an unprecedented wave of terrorism, which engulfed Israel until Spring 1996. In 1993, Clinton accorded Hizballah terrorists US legitimacy. He forced Israel to conclude, with Hizballah, a series of understandings (Operation Accountability) as he would do later in 1996 (Operation Grapes Of Wrath), which bolstered Hizballah, handcuffed the hands of the IDF and made Northern Israel more vulnerable to terrorism.

In 1995 Clinton attempted to torpedo, and succeeded to castrate, the US law to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s Capital, Jerusalem. Last month, he, once again, postponed the implementation of the law, which could have boosted Jerusalem’s international stature as well as its economic and social fortunes.

In 1998, Clinton pressured Congress to cut foreign aid to Israel over and above the ten year voluntary phase-out of the $1.2BN Economic Support Fund. In addition, he attempted to cut the funding of the US-Israel Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Arrow Project. Congress rejected both initiatives. In fact, the US legislators increased the Arrow appropriation. However, Clinton was able to cancel Israel’s multi-billion dollar Falcon transaction with China, undermining Israel’s relations with the US, China and India. Clinton has reneged on his commitments, to Prime Minister Barak, to upgrade US-Israel strategic relations, to supply sophisticated military systems and technologies, and to provide a special financial package in return for Israel’s territorial risky concessions to the PLO and Hizballah. Simultaneously, Clinton undermined Congressional initiatives to stop the transfer of non-conventional Russian technologies to Iran, which has intensified the threat to Israel. He has also diluted assistance to the Iraqi Opposition, at a time when Saddam exacerbates his threats to launch missiles at Israel.

96 Senators and 365 House Members have defied Clinton’s pressure, condemning the PLO for the current wave of anti-Israel terrorism. Moreover, Clinton instructed his ambassador to the UN not to veto the condemnation, of Israel, by the UN Security Council, lest the US be targeted by Islamic terrorism. The latter’s reaction to Clinton’s overt weakness, in face of terrorism, was swift: 17 US sailors killed by a suicidal bombing in Aden on October 12.

Since 1994, the Clinton Administration has misled Congress, certifying that the PLO was supposedly in compliance with the Oslo commitments. Clinton authorized such misrepresentations, in order to undermine Congressional initiatives to precondition further foreign to the PLO upon the extradition of Palestinian terrorists implicated in the murder to Americans, upon an end to PLO-Hamas collaboration, upon an end to PLO incitement against the US, Jews and Israel, and upon full PLO compliance with commitments made to the US. Rather than holding the PLO to its commitments, Clinton granted Arafat more Frequent Visitor points than any other foreign leader, visiting the White House.

Utilizing his rare communications and persuasive skills, and personal charm, President Clinton has squeezed, from Prime Minister Barak, unprecedented concessions in Jerusalem, the entire Judea&Samaria, the whole of the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, as well as the absorption of a few hundred thousand of the 1948 Palestinian refugees!

Never has a US President offered an ally so many billions of dollars, in order to demote that ally from a strategic asset to a strategic burden. Never has a US President employed scare-tactics so intensely, in order to coerce a loyal ally into dangerous concessions, which would weaken it dramatically, thus tempting the Arabs into a major war. Never has a US President enunciated (e.g. January 7, 2001 speech in NY) a symmetry – which is morally unjust and strategically flawed – between a democratic ally combating terrorism on one hand (Israel), and a corrupt and an oppressive ally of Iraq and Iran, which has harbored Islamic terrorists on the other hand (PLO). Instead of deterring terrorism, Clinton has uniquely weakened the spirit of Israel in its battle against terrorism, rendering the latter a significant victory, which has threatened regional stability and US own interests in the Mideast.

In spite of President Clinton’s affinity toward Jews and Israel, but with the encouragement of his Jewish confidants, and inspired by ALL Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords, Clinton has managed – more than his predecessors at the White House – to erode Israel’s strategic and deterrence posture, to shaken the traditional support for Israel’s cause and security requirements, to impair the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive and indivisible capital, to radicalize Arab expectations, demands and violence, and to crack up Israel’s steadfastness, thus endangering its very survival.




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