Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

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

4 weeks ago

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

The Oslo Accord Reality Check

On October 24, 2013 (the Diplomatic Conference) and October 16, 2013 (the memorial ceremony for Prime Minister Rabin), President Peres, the architect of the September, 1993 Oslo Accord, claimed that the Israeli-Palestinian accord was the “opening to dialogue and peace.”  Is Peres’ claim vindicated by a reality check?

The Oslo state of mind

The Oslo state of mind was most accurately pronounced by Peres, at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on Sept. 16, 2000, on the eve of the 2nd Intifada, 2000-2005 wave of Palestinian terrorism: “I believe that the previous borders, made of barbed wire, minefields, military positions, are irrelevant to our life…. I sincerely believe that a good hotel on the border will provide more peace and security than a military position…. I can see very little use for the past. Two things lose their importance: land and history. … To imagine is more important than to remember…. War is out of the question now…. I doubt very much if the Palestinians will go back to terror. … Once a nation’s economy turns from a focus on land to a focus on brains, borders are irrelevant….”

The blueprint for the Oslo Accord was documented by Peres in his October, 1993 book, The New Middle East: “The international political setting is no longer conducive to war (p. 80)…. Peace is the means for security (p. 84)…. We need soft – not rigid – borders…. While signing the documents on the lawn of the White House… you could almost hear the heavy tread of boots leaving the stage…. You could have listened to the gentle tiptoeing of new steps making a debut in the awaiting world of peace (p. 194)…. “

The new – VS the real – Middle East

The Oslo Accord state of mind, and the new Middle East vision, have been trounced by the Arab Tsunami, which imploded the real Middle East, transitioning the region toward further fanaticism, terrorism, tyranny and anti-“infidel” sentiments, away from moderation, peace, democracy and tolerance. 

The Oslo state of mind underestimated the potency of the deeply-rooted 1,400 year old fundamentals of the real Middle East, which are sweeping the combusting Arab Street in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and other Arab countries: violent unpredictability, uncertainty, unreliability, instability and shifty regimes and policies; religious, ethnic, ideological and geographic fragmentation; violent intolerance toward other Muslims and the “infidel;” no freedom of speech, religion, press and association and no gender equality; no intra-Arab comprehensive peace and no compliance with most intra-Arab agreements, which are tenuous in nature.

Has Oslo transformed Israel and the Palestinians?

Ariel University’s Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohanna, formerly with the Mossad and one of Israel’s leading experts on the Palestinian issue, documented in Line of Furrow and Fire– the conflict for the Land of Israel, 1860-2013 (Achiasaf Publishing, 2013) that the 1993 Oslo Accord snatched the PLO from the jaws of oblivion.  Arab regimes severed financial assistance to – and most contacts with – the PLO, due to the PLO’s collaboration with Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The US suspended its dialogue with the PLO in 1990.  The 1st Intifadah – wave of Palestinian terrorism – was largely subdued by Israel in 1991. The PLO lost two key co-founders, Khalil al-Wazir (1988) and Salah al-Khalaf (1991). Its popularity, among Palestinians, was significantly marred by corruption and embezzlement, attributed primarily to Arafat and his wife, Suha, Mahmoud Abbas and his sons, Yasser and Tareq, Arafat’s financial advisor, Muhammad Rashid, and the Tsumud (steadfastness) Fund. The Oslo Accord resuscitated the PLO, which still oversees the Palestinian Authority, legally and operationally.  

The Oslo Accord transformed Israeli policy dramatically, strategically and tangibly.  Israel made concessions to the Palestinians, never extended by the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate or the Arabs, transferring parts of Israel’s own cradle of history to its arch-enemy and advancing Palestinian sovereignty. Israel imported some 70,000 Palestinian terrorists from Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia to Gaza and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – the door steps of their intended victims – arming them with weapons and lobbying on their behalf in Washington, DC.     

Contrary to Israel, the PLO was transformed tactically and intangibly, while sustaining its strategy, as enunciated by its 1964 Covenant, considering the Land of Israel a divinely ordained Muslim land (Waqf). Arafat stated that the Oslo Accord was provisional, aiming to destroy Israel, triggering an unprecedented level of  Palestinian non-compliance with agreements. Mahmoud Abbas established a hate-education system.  And, an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism erupted in April, 1994, producing so far over 1,600 Israeli fatalities, five times as large as the toll of the twenty years prior to Oslo. 160 Israelis were murdered during the pre-Oslo 1st Intifadah, compared with 1,000 during the post-Oslo 2nd Intifadah.  In June 2001, Faisal Husseini, the PLO darling of the Western media, clarified that the Oslo Accord provided the Palestinians with a Trojan horse in the heart of Israel.   

The Oslo-driven Palestinian conduct has been consistent with the Palestinian intra-Arab track record of subversion and treachery, which caused Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ expulsion from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. It has also been consistent with the Palestinian collaboration with the Nazis, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Bin-Laden.
The Oslo Accord reality check documents that contrary to the hope of its architects, the Palestinian leopard does not change spots, only tactics




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