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

Prof. Bernard Lewis – unique realism on the Islamic threat

TheEttingerReport.com, May 21, 2018, https://bit.ly/2GER9wX

The litany of books and essays on Islam and the Middle East by Prof. Bernard Lewis – who passed away on May 19, 2018 – have been vindicated throughout the recent global and Middle East turbulence and unpredictability. They have exposed the self-defeating policies by most Western policy-makers, who have sacrificed realism on the altar of well-intentioned wishful-thinking and oversimplification, especially when it comes to facing the clear, present and lethal Islamic threat to Western democracies.

Prof. Bernard Lewis’ January 1976 essay in Commentary Magazine highlighted the fundamentals of the Islamic threat well before the current intensification of Islamic terrorism in Europe, the proliferation of Islamic cells in the USA and Latin America, the 2010 eruption of the Arab/Islamic Tsunami, the 2001 assault on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1995-96 bombings of US targets in Saudi Arabia, the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the US Marines headquarters in Lebanon, the 1980s rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and the 1979 Ayatollahs’ rise to power in Iran:

“…. Is a resurgent Islam prepared to tolerate a non-Islamic enclave, whether Jewish or Christian, in the heart of the Islamic world….? Islam from its inception is a religion of power, and in the Muslim worldview it is right and proper that power should be wielded by Muslims alone. Others may receive the tolerance, even the benevolence, of the Muslim state, provided that they clearly recognize Muslim supremacy.  That Muslim should rule over non-Muslims is right and normal.  That non-Muslims should rule over Muslims is an offense against the laws of God and nature, and this is true whether in Kashmir, Palestine, Lebanon or Cyprus…. Islam is not conceived as a religion in the limited Western sense, but as a community, a loyalty and a way of life…. The Islamic community is still recovering from the traumatic era when Muslim governments and empires were overthrown and Muslim peoples were forcibly subjected to alien, infidel rule.  Both the ‘Saturday people’ and the ‘Sunday people’ are now suffering the consequences.”

“….To the modern Western mind, it is not conceivable that men would fight and die [in intra-Islamic conflicts] in such numbers over mere differences of religion…. To admit that an entire [Islamic] civilization can have religion as its primary loyalty is too much…. This is reflected in the present inability to recognize the importance of religion in the current affairs of the Muslim world….

“There are two essential points which need to be grasped: the universality of religion as a factor in the lives of the Muslim peoples and its centrality….

“The three major Middle Eastern religions are significantly different in their relations with the state and their attitudes to political power. Judaism was associated with the state and was then disentangled from it…. Christianity, during the first formative centuries was separate from, and indeed antagonistic to, the state…. Islam, from the lifetime of its founder was the state.  The identity of religion and government is indelibly stamped on the memories and awareness of the faithful from their own sacred writings, history and experience….

“Muhammad did not die on the cross. As well as a Prophet, he was a soldier and a statesman, the head of a state and the founder of an empire, and his followers were sustained by a belief in the manifestation of divine approval through success and victory.  Islam was associated with power from the very beginning…. This association between religion and power, community and polity, can already be seen in the Qur’an itself and in the other early religious texts on which Muslims base their beliefs.  One consequence is that in Islam religion is not, as it is in Christendom, one sector or segment of life; it is concerned with the whole of life…. In such a society the very idea of the separation of church and state is meaningless…. Church and state, religious and political authority, are one and the same….

“The imagery and symbolism of the [Palestinian] Fatah is strikingly Islamic. Yasir Arafat’s nom de guerre, Abu Ammar (the father of Ammar) is an allusion to the historic figure of Ammar ibn Yasir, the son of Yasir, a companion of the Prophet [Muhammad] and a valiant fighter in all his battles. The name Fatah [Fatih, the Conqueror] is a term meaning a conquest for Islam gained in the Holy War…. The Palestinian Liberation Army brigades are names after great victories won by Muslims… in holy wars against non-Muslims – Qadisiyya against the Zoroastrian Persians, Hattin against the Crusaders, Ayn Jalut against the Mongols….

“As the [Arab] nationalist movement has become genuinely popular, so it has become less national and more religious – less Arab and more Islamic…. In moments of crisis it is the instinctive communal loyalty which outweighs all others…. The world is divided basically into two. One is the community of the Muslims, the other that of the unbelievers.  The subdivisions among the latter are of secondary importance….

“The war is a holy war, and the rewards of martyrdom, as specified in scripture, await those who are killed in it….

“Islam is still the most effective form of consensus in Muslim countries, the basic group identity among the masses…. As regimes come closer to the populace, even if their verbiage is left-wing and ideological, they become more Islamic….

“In the period immediately preceding the Six-Day War in 1967, an ominous phrase was sometimes heard: ‘First the ‘Saturday people,’ then the ‘Sunday people.’  The ‘Saturday people’ have proved unexpectedly recalcitrant, and recent events in Lebanon indicate that the priorities may have been reversed….”

 




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