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 #21: Host countries, beware of Islam-driven terrorism

Video#21: http://bit.ly/2etXXUr; entire video-seminar: http://bit.ly/1ze66dS

  1. Most terrorists are Muslims who target civilians systematically and deliberately, but the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. However, the concept of majority-rule has not yet been introduced into Islamic societies in the Middle East. Moslem majorities in the Middle East, as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the epicenter of Islamic terrorism – have always been denied civil liberties, oppressed by rogue regimes, which ascend to – and maintain – power through violence, terrorizing those whom they cannot integrate, convinced that they are divinely-ordained to rule.
  2. Rogue Moslem regimes have engaged in domestic, regional and global terrorism, perpetuating the fourteen centuries of megalomaniacal Islamic aspiration to rule the globe. They have advanced that aspiration through Islamic organizations and Islamic educational systems in mosques, kindergartens and schools, as well as in the prison system, which have become the most effective production line of Islamic terrorists.
  3. Islam-driven terrorists believe in the divinely-ordained deed (Waqf) over the 8thcentury conquest of Spain, the 9thcentury subjugation of parts of Italy and the 9th and 10thcenturies occupation of western Switzerland. They claim an irrevocable and perpetual Islamic title over the 8th century Islamic-conquered areas in France, including Nice, irrespective of France’s appeasement of Muslims and allowing terror organizations to operate offices in Paris. The deeper the appeasement, the more emboldened is the anti-Western Islamic terrorism, literally stabbing the back of its hosts.
  4. Europe has underestimated the critical significance of the fourteen centuries of Islamic aspirations in shaping contemporary Islamic education (in Islamic and non-Islamic countries), as well as Islamic culture, politics, peace, war and Islamic attitude toward the “arrogant Western infidel.”
  5. The conduct of rogue Islamic regimes and organizations is heavily impacted by the legacy of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.  For example, the 7thcenturyHijrah(Islam-driven emigration), when Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) not to be integrated into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to impose Islam through migration, conversion, subversion and terrorism.  Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military power to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world.
  6. In 1966, the Hijrah concept was applied by Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat who emigrated/fled from Syria to Jordan, incited the Palestinian population of Jordan, but failed in their attempt to topple the host Hashemite regime. In 1976, they failed in their attempt to topple the regime in Beirut, but in 1990, they collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, back-stabbing Sheikh Sabah, who had hosted them and 300,000 of their Palestinian relatives and associates since they emigrated/fled from Egypt in the mid-1950s.
  7. In 2016, French Muslims study – in Muslim schools and mosques – that according to the Quran, humanity must submit to Islam, that “Holy War” (Jihad) must be conducted on behalf of Islam, that the participation in Jihad rewards one with the benefits of paradise, that the “infidels” are doomed to the sword, that agreements with “infidels” are provisional, that emigration of the “believers” must serve the historical, supremacist goal of Islam, and that shielding the “believers” may require theQuran-sanctioned Taqiyyah– deception-based statements, and that agreements with the “infidel” must be abrogated once conditions are ripe.
  8. Western societies have embraced Muslim emigrants, who are largely, ruthlessly controlled and manipulated by rogue, terrorist, supremacist organizations and regimes – which consider the emigrants a Muslim Trojan Horse. Terrorists bite the hand that feeds them.
  9. In 1982, in the aftermath of Islamic/Palestinian terrorist attacks in Paris, which claimed the lives of six patrons of the Chez Jo Goldenberg restaurant and Israeli diplomat Yaakov Bar Simantov, Israel’s Ambassador to France, Meir Rosenne, blamed countries which hosted PLO operatives for bringing the wrath of terrorism upon themselves. Ambassador Rosenne was threatened with expulsion from France, but would not retract.
  10. In 2016, France is on a verge of anarchy, driven by Islam-driven terrorism/education. Have France and the West at-large come to grip with reality, ready to dramatically overhaul their approach to counter-terrorism, and realize that draining hate-education Islamic swamps – in Islamic countries and on their own turf – is a prerequisite for eliminating the individual mosquitos of Islamic terrorism?  The alternative will be violent anarchy.
  11. More data on Islamic terrorism in 6-minute-video #20 and#19 and in the next video, which will provide an overview of Islam-driven terrorism.


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






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