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

President Obama’s UN Speech – New or Old Middle East?

President Obama re-introduced his New Middle East vision during his September 25, 2013 speech at the UN General Assembly: “Let me take this opportunity to outline what has been the US policy toward the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency….”  Obama clarified that his Middle East policy has not fluctuated since his 2008 presidential campaign and his June, 2009 Cairo University speech to the Muslim World, notwithstanding the unprecedented geo-political transfiguration of the Arab Street during his two terms.

According to Obama, “the world is more stable than it was five years ago.  However, Iraq’s civilian death toll in July, 2013 was almost 1,000 – the highest monthly toll since 2008. Egypt has deteriorated from a leadership role in the Arab World into its most unstable period in modern history. Syria, historically an Arab powerhouse has become a battleground among the rogue/terrorist regimes of Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and disgruntled Palestinians and Bedouins are awaiting the “Syrian lava,” which threatens to sweep the pro-US Hashemite regime. Libya has been transformed from a rogue dictatorship to tribal anarchy and a chief proliferator of military systems to Islamic terrorists. Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist takeover. Yemen features tribal, religious and ideological terrorism, involving US troops and posing a clear and present danger to the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman, the pro-US oil producers, are panicky in view of intensified internal and external lethal threats.

President Obama stated that America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab- Israeli conflict…a major source of instability. Resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace…. Real breakthroughs on Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli-Palestinian peace would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa….” However, the Arab Tsunami, engulfing the entire Middle East and North Africa, is totally independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, which constitute relative tumbleweeds compared with the Middle East sandstorms that threaten vital US interests.

How could the resolution of the 100 year old Arab-Israeli conflict facilitate the resolution of the totally-unrelated 1,400 year old intractable intra-Arab/Muslim conflicts which agitate the imploding Arab Street?! Moreover, Arab policy-makers do not consider the Palestinian issue a crown-jewel. They shower the Palestinians with rhetoric, but not with financial or military resources. Furthermore, Arab leaders view the Palestinians as a potentially subversive, destabilizing and treacherous element, based on Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO destructive track record in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. Therefore, Palestinian leaders receive Red Carpet treatment in Western capitals, but are welcomed by shabby rugs in Arab capitals.

President Obama introduced a linkage between Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Palestinian issue, aimed at pressuring Israel into further concessions, lest it be blamed for the failure to stop Iran’s nuclearization. However, Iran is galloping toward nuclear capabilities irrespective of Israel’s existence or the Palestinian issue, which is a sideshow for Iran and the Arab countries. Iran’s nuclearization aims to advance its 14 century old goal to dominate the Persian Gulf, where Israel plays no role. A nuclear Iran could severely intimidate the US, the mega obstacle in the way of attaining its historical goal. It would provide a robust tailwind to a chief threat to US interests: Islamic terrorism globally and on the US mainland, which was absent from Obama’s speech. A nuclear Iran would devastate the Saudi and other pro-US Persian Gulf regimes, who dread the “linkage theory,” which subordinates the critical campaign against Iran to the highly-complicated, but significantly less critical, Palestinian issue. It thus delays a military preemption against Iran, providing the Ayatollahs more time to acquire nuclear capabilities.

According to Obama, “President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course….” But, Rouhani derives his mandate/power from Iran’s Spiritual Leader, Khamenei, who selected him via a fixed election process. Rouhani demonstrated his “Taqiyya” (Islam-sanctioned deception) capabilities during his term as Iran’s chief negotiator with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), systematically violating commitments made to the IAEA.  In September, 2002, Rouhani stated: “When we sign international treaties, it means that we are not pursuing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.” An ally of Hizballah, Hamas, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba and a supporter of Islamic terror organizations, he was an early ally of Khomeini. He served as National Security Advisor to Presidents Hashemi and Khatami, and was a planner of the 1994 “AMIA terrorism” – the murder of 85 civilians in Buenos Aires.

Obama presented a supposed moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. A moral equivalence between Israel – the only stable, predictable, effective, reliable, democratic and unconditional ally of the US in the seismic Middle East – and the Palestinians, who sided with the Nazis, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and are currently linked to Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela?! A moral equivalence between Israel – the role model for counter terrorism – and the Palestinian Authority/PLO, the role model of international terrorism, hate-education and incitement?!

Twenty years ago, President Peres introduced the Oslo Process with the vision of a peace-driven new Middle East. However, the increasingly tectonic, violent, intolerant, terroristic, unpredictable, treacherous, Islamist and anti-American, conflict-ridden Middle East has overwhelmed the new Middle East. It produced unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, non-compliance and hate-education, radicalizing Arab expectations, further eroding the prospects for peace. Will President Obama learn from recent history by avoiding – or repeating – the devastating errors committed by President Peres?




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

Open letter to Prime Minister Bennett ahead of visit to USA

(Hebrew edition in “Israel Hayom,” Israel’s largest circulation daily)

During your first official visit to Washington, DC, you’ll have to choose between two options:

*Blurring your deeply-rooted, assertive Israeli positions on the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), which would be welcome by the Biden Administration, yielding to short-term political convenience and popularity inside the beltway;

or

*Tenaciously advocating your deeply-rooted, principle-driven positions, which would underscore a profound disagreement with the Biden Administration and the “elite” US media, while granting you and Israel long-term strategic respect, as demonstrated by some of your predecessors.

For example, the late Prime Minister Shamir honed the second option, bluntly introduced his assertive Israeli positions on Judea and Samaria, rebuffed heavy US pressure – including a mudslinging campaign by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker – suffered a popularity setback, but produced unprecedented expansion of US-Israel strategic cooperation. When it comes to facing the intensified threats of rogue regimes and Islamic terrorism, the US prefers principle-driven, reliable, patriotic, pressure-defying partners, irrespective of disagreements on the Palestinian issue.

Assuming that you shall not budge on the historical and national security centrality of Judea and Samaria, it behooves you to highlight the following matters during your meetings with President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, National Security Advisor Sullivan, Secretary of Defense Austin and Congressional leaders (especially the members of the Appropriations Committees):

  1. The 1,400-year-old track record of the stormy, unpredictable, violent and anti-“infidel” Middle East, which has yet to experience intra-Arab peaceful-coexistence, along with the 100-year-old Palestinian track record (including the systematic collaboration with anti-US entities, hate-education and anti-Arab and anti-Jewish terrorism) demonstrates that the proposed Palestinian state would be a Mini-Afghanistan or a Mega-Gaza on the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.

It would dominate 80% of Israel’s population and infrastructures in the 9-15-mile sliver between Judea and Samaria and the Mediterranean, which is shorter than the distance between RFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center.

Thus, a Palestinian state would pose a clear and present existential threat to Israel; and therefore, Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria is a prerequisite for its survival.

  1. The proposed Palestinian state would undermine US interests, as concluded from the Palestinian intra-Arab track record, which has transformed the Palestinians into a role-model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and ingratitude. Arabs are aware that a Palestinian state would add fuel to the Middle East fire, teaming up with their enemies (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s Erdogan) and providing a strategic foothold to Russia and China. Consequently, Arabs shower Palestinians with favorable talk, but with cold and negative walk.

Hence, during the October, 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty ceremony, Jordan’s military leaders asserted to their Israeli colleagues that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, and lead, subsequently, to the toppling of all pro-US Arab Peninsula regimes.

  1. There is no foundation for the contention that Israel’s retreat from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – which are the cradle of Jewish history, religion and culture – is required in order to sustain Israel’s Jewish majority. In reality, there is unprecedented Jewish demographic momentum, while Arab demography – throughout the Middle East – has Westernized dramatically. The Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel benefits from a robust tailwind of fertility and migration.
  2. Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights, bolsters its posture of deterrence, which has daunted rogue regimes, reduced regional instability, enhanced the national security of all pro-US Arab regimes, and has advanced Israel’s role as a unique force-multiplier for the US. An Israeli retreat from Judea and Samaria would transform Israel from a strategic asset – to a strategic liability – for the US.
  3. As the US reduces its military presence in the Middle East – which is a global epicenter of oil production, global trade (Asia-Africa), international Islamic terrorism and proliferation of non-conventional military technologies – Israel’s posture of deterrence becomes increasingly critical for the pro-US Arab countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan), who consider Israel to be the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.

Contrary to NATO, South Korea and Japan, Israel’s defense does not require the presence of US troops on its soil.

  1. Sustaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge is a mutual interest for the US and Israel, which serves as the most cost-effective battle-tested laboratory for the US defense industries and armed forces. Thus, Israel’s use of hundreds of US military systems has yielded thousands of lessons (operation, maintenance and repairs), which have been integrated, by the US manufacturers, into the next generation of the military systems, saving the US many years of research and development, increasing US exports and expanding the US employment base – a mega billion dollar bonanza for the US. At the same time, the US armed forces have benefitted from Israel’s military intelligence and battle experience, as well as joint training maneuvers with Israel’s defense forces, which has improved the US formulation of battle tactics.

Prime Minister Bennett, your visit to Washington, is an opportunity to demonstrate your adherence to your deeply-rooted strong Israeli positions, rejecting the ill-advised appeals and temptations to sacrifice Israel’s national security on the altar of convenience and popularity.

Yours truly,

Yoram Ettinger, expert on US-Israel relations and Middle East affairs

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