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

UNmasking the UN

What should be realistic expectations from the UN against the backdrop of the recent visit, to Israel, by the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterrez?

On December 22, 2011, the UN General Assembly held a “moment of silence” in honor of the deceased North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-il, a leading violator of human rights, promoter of narcoterrorism, manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction – including chemical – who threatened the globe with a nuclear option.
This episode highlighted the accurate meaning of “UN” as defined in dictionaries: a negative prefix, expressing “absence,” “lack,” “deficiency” and “adverse.”

UNdemocratic. According to the
2017 Freedom House report, “of the 195 UN member-states assessed, 87 (45%) were rated Free…. The Middle East and North Africa region had the worst ratings in the world, followed closely by Eurasia….”  

UNscrupulous and UNspeakable. According to
UN Watch, the 2017 membership of the UN Human Rights Council – elected with a mandate “to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” – includes systematic, grave violators of human rights such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Cuba, Burundi, Eritrea, Bangladesh and China.

UNsavory, UNtenable and UNwilling to defy rogue regimes. On May 19, 2017, the US Ambassador to the UN,
Nikki Haley, criticized the Geneva-based UN agency, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), for facilitating an international patent application, requested by North Korea, for the production of chemical sodium cyanide, used in making nerve gas: “The thought of placing cyanide in the hands of the North Koreans, considering their record on human rights, political prisoners and assassinations is not only dangerous but defies common sense.”

UNfit. According to Singapore-based
The Straits Times, “The UN has imposed six sets of sanctions against North Korea since its first nuclear test in 2006, but these have failed to stop the isolated state from pursuing its missile weapons program…. The North has cultivated its own research and development program that is often underestimated…. China accounts for, at least, 90% of North Korean trade…. Pyongyang has adopted fake business aliases, disguising ships with foreign flags…. Cash cows include the illicit drug trade in Southeast Asia and arms trade with sub-Saharan Africa….”

UNsuitable and UNable. The UN has failed in the battle against Islamic terrorism due to structural, ideological and performance deficiencies.
Dr. Brett Shaeffer of the Heritage Foundation opined: “The UN has never agreed on a definition of terrorism, [which] inhibits its efforts…. UN peacekeepers have proven to be poor war fighters.  Compliance with Security Council resolutions can be haphazard among nations…. Few countries outside the US are willing or capable of taking military action to deter ISIS…. A great deal of the blame for failure is due to divergent interests among the member states….”  

UNrelevant and UNtrustworthy. The UN has failed in its attempts to neutralize the growing conventional and non-conventional threats of Iran’s Ayatollahs. On November 14, 2016, the UN paid lip service – but no significant action – to a
letter signed by 11 Arab countries, such as Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, documenting the Ayatollahs’ exportation of state-sponsored terrorism and subversion throughout the Middle East.  

UNreliable, UNproductive , UNethical and Unacceptable. The UN demonstrated its mode of operation – which further destabilized an UNstable globe – upon launching the scandalously corrupt 1996
oil-for-food program, and shamefully failed peacekeeping missions (which involved massive massacres and rapes) in the Congo (1960), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993), Rwanda (1995), Sierra Leon (1999), Burundi (2004), Sudan (2005) and South Sudan (2011).  

UNgrateful. In a most detailed account of UN failures,
Dr. Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation, documented that “all too often the UN is used as a multilateral vehicle with which to rein in the American superpower… [although] the US has been the UN’s biggest contributor since it was founded in 1945, contributing over $5BN annually to the world body… 22% of the UN’s annual budget and more than the combined contributions of France, Germany, China, Canada and Russia…. The US contributes 48% of the World Food Program budget, 31% of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 17% of the UNICEF budget, 27% of the UN peacekeeping budget….”

UNwarranted. Should the UN sustain its UNaccomplished performance, which has added fuel to spreading global fires, it will follow in the footsteps of the UNreliable League of Nations, fading into irrelevance.


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;


*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







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