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

Video #20: The volcano of Islam-driven terrorism

 

 Video#20 https://bit.ly/2LUS1RB; Entire mini-seminar: http://bit.ly/1ze66dS

1. Islam-driven terrorism has dominated the history of Islam, beginning with the murder of three of the first four Caliphs, who succeeded Muhammed: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644 AD), Uthman Ibn Affan (656 AD) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661 AD).  Islamic terrorism has been one of the most active volcanoes – domestically, regionally and globally – since the initial eruption of the Islamic lava in the 7th century. Historically, all Arab regimes have achieved, sustained and eventually lost power through domestic violence, subversion or terrorism.

2. The lava of Islam-driven terrorism has consumed mostly Muslims in the abode of Islam, but – irrespective of Israeli policies and the Palestinian issue – it aims to sweep the abode of the “infidel,” and is currently spreading into the streets of the USA, Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, Asia and Australia.
3. Currently, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya have become major platforms of Islamic terrorism and battlegrounds of rival Islamic terror organizations. All pro-US Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE face clear and present lethal Islamic terror threats.
4. Iran and Saudi Arabia – the two leading world bankers of Islamic terrorism – confront each other militarily, economically, ideologically and religiously. The House of Saud has realized the self-destructive nature of its substantial support of Islamic terrorism.
5. Islam-driven terrorism has been nurtured by the recent Arab Tsunami, which has intensified the 1,400-year-old intra-Muslim fragmentation, unpredictability, instability, intolerance, subversion, terrorism and the impermanent nature of Islamic regimes, their policies and agreements.
6. Contrary to conventional “wisdom”, the fourteen centuries of volcanic Islam-driven terrorism has not been triggered by social and economic deprivation, but by the megalomaniacal, supremacist, intolerant, anti-democratic, repressive, non-negotiable and eternal aspiration – led by educated Islamic “elites” – to force the world of the “infidel” and the “apostate” to submit to Islam, the only “legitimate” religion, divinely ordained to rule the world.
7. According to the Qur’an, Islam is the only worthy/legitimate successor to Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism. Thus, the subordination of humanity to the legacy of Muhammed should be achieved, preferably, via nonviolent means (da’wah), deceit/doubletalk (Taqiyya’) and immigration (Hijra’’). But, in face of defiant “infidels” and “apostates,” the “believers” must resort to non-merciful violence (jihad), subversion, breach of international accords and terrorism.
8. Unlike the Western definition of terrorism (the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians), the Qur’anic definition of terrorist (irhab) is the derivative of the verb arhaba (to terrify, scare), which is a tactic employed against the “infidel,” in order to advance the goals of Islam (Qur’an, Sura 8, verse 60). The Islamic bottom line is that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.”
9. As demonstrated by the 1,400 year old track record of Islamic violence, terrorism and lack of intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence, Islam has never considered itself to be “a religion of peace” as defined by Western dictionaries and political-correctness. According to Muhammad’s legacy, the term salam – a derivative of the same root as Islam – is employed when addressing fellow Muslims, but not when addressing non-Muslims, unless constrained by temporary military, economic or political inferiority.
10. Furthermore, Arab/Muslim societies invoke Quranic verses and Islamic historical precedents as guidelines for contemporary, daily, personal, tribal, regional and national conduct. For example, Qur’an, Sura 20, verses 47 -48 state that “Peace be on whoever follows the guidance [of Allah]… and punishment shall afflict those who deny and turn their back [on Allah].” Thus, salam is reserved only for those who submit/surrender themselves to Islam, while those who renege on their commitment to Islam are doomed. Moreover, any agreement with the “infidel” is defined as sulh, hudna’, a tenuous truce of limited duration, until the balance of power facilitates total submission of the “infidel” to Islam.
11.  According to Hebrew University Prof. Moshe Sharon, a world renowned authority on Islam, “Islam came to being as a fighting religion…. Mohammed imposed his authority by means of his military strength… Islam was born in order to rule, as is only fitting for the religion of Allah which is one and exclusive…. The laws of Jihad form the basis of the relations between the Muslim world and the West…. The only possible relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are war or a limited ceasefire…. Jihad is the strategy and, therefore, agreements are a [tactical] interlude in the war [against the infidel]…. An agreement which contains anything beyond a limited armistice or ceasefire is [either provisional or] null and void.”
12. These Islamic principles have been promoted – in Muslim and Western countries – by Muslim educators and Imams in mosques, kindergartens, schools, civic organizations and the prison systems, which have become the most effective generators of terrorists.
13. The next video will highlight Islamic terrorism in host – non Muslim – countries.



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