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

Weakness of the Spine and the Mind

A LETHAL COMBINATION OF WEAKNESS OF THE SPINE AND WEAKNESS OF THE MIND, has produced the unprecedented deadly delusion of the Oslo and Wye Accords, Camp David-2 and the Mitchell and the Tenet Plans. It has nurtured an unprecedented Palestinian hope, inspiring the bloodiest ever wave of Palestinian terrorism. The “Separation Fence/Buffer Zone” concepts constitute another expression of the fatal Israeli delusion.

A PROPER DUE-DILIGENCE OF THE 8.5 YEARS SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE OSLO ACCORDS (1993) AND THE 34 YEARS SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLO (1964), has confirmed that the PLO is indeed a mortal enemy, rather than a partner to negotiation. It has also reaffirmed the fact that Palestinian terrorism cannot be resolved through political means. PLO/PA-LED TERRORISM CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY THROUGH A PROACTIVE (rather than reactive), OFFENSIVE (rather than defensive), SYSTEMIC (rather than surgical and local), SWIFT (rather than protracted) MILITARY INITIATIVE CONDUCTED AT THE TERRORISTS’ HOME BASE (rather than at the victims’ arena), AIMING AT THE OBLITERATION OF (rather than negotiation with) THE ENEMY. Such a military initiative should restore Israel’s long-term posture of deterrence, while ANNIHILATING THE OPERATIONAL, LOGISTIC, POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL and MEDIA INFRASTRUCTURE of PLO/PA-led Palestinian terrorism.

THE AIM SHOULD NOT BE A CEASE-FIRE, BUT RATHER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH FEEDS THE FIRE (OF TERROR), including Arafat, his lieutenants and the 60,000 Palestinian terrorists imported – since 1993 – from Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia. Such a strategy has guided the U.S. War On Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama and Grenada, and Turkey’s and Egypt’s battle against Kurdish and Muslim terrorism. It also characterized counter-terrorist measures by Peru, Germany and Italy, in face of Shining Path, Baader Meinhoff and Red Brigade terrorists.

On the other hand, THE CONCEPTS OF “SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE” ARE BASED ON SURGICAL AND LOCAL RETALIATION, DEFENSIVE RESTRAINT AND A GRADUAL DRIFT TO A PROLONGED WAR OF ATTRITION – the fantasy of terrorists and the nightmare of democracies. These concepts constitute an erroneous tactical step, supplying the public with a short-term false sense of security. They intend to bypass the inevitable need to undertake a difficult and a resolute strategic decision, which would bolster long-term national and personal security. A unilateral scheme of “separation fence/buffer zone” adopted under fire – just like withdrawal under fire (e.g. from Lebanon) – reflects WEAKNESS, IMPATIENCE, DESPAIR AND SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS. The mere public debate over separation/buffer zone accelerates the erosion of Israel’s posture of deterrence. It is perceived as a form of an Israeli retreat and a Palestinian achievement, fueling Palestinian radicalism and terrorism. A “separation fence/buffer zone” would re-entrench, rather than eradicate, Palestinian terrorism. It would undermine the maneuverability of the IDF, in pursuit of terrorists, and would sustain – rather than eliminate – the terrorist sword over the head of Israeli towns on both sides of the fence/buffer zone, encouraging their inhabitants to emigrate to Israel’s coastal plain.
The system of “separation fence/buffer zone” consists of a number of human and technological elements. ITS EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON THE GEOGRAPHIC DEPTH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE/BUFFER ZONE. The deeper the zone, the higher its effectiveness. For instance, in order to safeguard the personal security of U.S. GIs in Bosnia, the U.S. Army requires a 25km radius Killing Zone (off limit to local folks). National security requires a deeper zone. However, the 2,200sqm of Judea&Samaria barely provide for a 25km radius Killing Zone, and the Israeli psyche certainly does not tolerate the killing of thousands of Palestinians crossing the Killing Zone in order to seek employment in Israel. The more dense is the population along the fence/buffer zone, the less effective is the entire system.

THE REALITY IN THE GAZA STRIP ATTESTS TO THE FAILURE OF THE “SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE CONCEPT”. Thus, terror fatalities in Israel have reached an all time high since – and as a result of – the 1993 unilateral separation from Gaza, which has been surrounded by a fence and a series of buffer zones. An advanced fence was erected in 1999, in Gaza, between the Palestinian town of Khan Yunes and the Israeli towns of Gush Katif. However, THE ABSENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT GEOGRAPHIC DEPTH, THE HIGHLY DENSE PALESTINIAN POPULATION, AND THE INABILITY OF THE IDF TO MAN EACH SEGMENT OF THE FENCE, have caused the dismantling, theft and eventual breakdown of the sophisticated system. The 2001 fatalities at the Marganit Outpost serve as a reminder of the pitfalls of the concept. Moreover, in January 2002 Palestinian terrorists caused a false alarm at the Gaza fence (next to the Kissufim check-point), killing a tracker who arrived to the site. A simultaneous operation by scores of terrorists, alarming the IDF at dozens of sites, could cause major losses and the collapse of the system. Palestinian terrorists broke through the fence near the Jewish town of Eleigh-Sinai in Gaza, taking advantage of the slim geographic depth, reaching homes of potential Jewish hostages well before the arrival of the alarmed IDF patrol.

THE CRITICAL FLAWS OF THE “SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE” CONCEPTS WOULD BE MORE STRIKING IN JUDEA&SAMARIA, AND IN JERUSALEM, THAN IN GAZA. A fence/buffer zone in Judea&Samaria would be much longer, the topography is significantly more complex (with major advantages to the higher J&S over the lower coastal plain) and the demography extremely dense. The IDF lacks the manpower to man every spot of the fence, which would also be vulnerable to vandalism by Israeli Arabs.

AS EVIDENCES BY THE LAST FEW YEARS, “SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONES” CANNOT PROTECT THE INHABITANTS OF THE GILO NEIGHBORHOOD, IN JERUSALEM – AND A SERIES OF OTHER SITES IN JERUSALEM AND ALONG THE GREEN LINE – AGAINST MACHINE GUNS, MORTARS OR MISSILES. On the other hand, the implementation of such a concept could become a precedent for the arrival of foreign observers/forces, as desired by the PLO, which would further constraint the ability of the IDF to hot-pursuit and preempt terrorists. It could also become a precedent for the separation of Jews from Arabs in the Galilee, Wadi Ara’, the Negev, and even in Jerusalem. Such a concept could cause the pouring of the Baby (security) with the Dirty Water (demography). It would erect a gigantic White Elephant, the cost of which could finance a much more productive instrument: a substantial expansion of Israel’s combat units and Security Services.

THE UNILATERAL SEPARATION FROM LEBANON HAS UPGRADED HIZBALLAH FROM A TACTICAL, TO STRATEGIC, THREAT. IT HAS ADERNALIZED THE VEINS OF PALESTINIAN TERROR, at a devastating cost of human life. The application of such a concept to Judea&Samaria could be fatal – humanly and financially – due to the proximity to Israel’s major population centers, the scarcity of geographic depth, the inferior topography of the coastal plain and the dense Palestinian population along the 1967 Lines. THE SOLUTION TO TERRORISM IS NOT THE ERECTION OF A “SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE,” BUT RATHER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH FEEDS 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