DON’T MISS IT. HE IS VERY CRITICAL OF THE US SUPPORT FOR A TSS BUT OFFERS NO HOPE OF ITS ABANDONMENT..
Subscribe to Israpundit Daily
Digest
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
I agree with @peloni1986. Ettinger’s arguments are Israel first for Israel and America First for America, but the Biden Administration is totally globalist-Islamist first, America and Israel last.
There are no arguments at all coming from Israel that will change that reality. The only answer for that problem is regime change in America.
Without regime change, should America continue totalitarian, globalist, Islamist, and shadow military-intelligence government, Israel’s best chance for survival is cutting military independence from the US. This current administration does not have Israel’s survival in mind, but Israel’s demise: her slow strangulation by Iran and Iranian assets throughout the Middle East.
Brilliant commentary by Amb, Ettinger. I am particularly happy to hear him raise the issue of the alarming activity by Iran which has been taking place in South America for a very long time, but with an ever increasing impact, something which is rarely ever discussed. The implications of this aspect of Iran’s war against America has been greatly advanced by the Liberal agenda which has purposefully defenestrated the American border and is actively importing millions from this region without inspection, consideration or alarm of the impact.
Regarding Israel’s association with the US, Ettinger posits that the State Dept has a hostile posture towards Israel and that Israel must, in effect, do a better job of advancing the relationship between the US and Israel by more or less educating the US on the many benefits which the US gains from this relationship.
I question whether this will have much of an effect upon the Arabist outlook of the State Dept which does not actually act with the best interests of America in the first place. Indeed, for Ettinger’s argument to gain purchase it assumes that the American State Dept is actually inclined in advancing American interests over those of the Liberal World Order, ie Globalism, which is hardly supportable by the facts.
I believe that the Left-Islamist union has fully overtaken the State Dept and if we assume that this is true, then having Israel maintain its dependency upon the faithless US would fail to be altered even by making a better argument to the Globalist aligned State Dept which might serve the interests of America because, in fact, their interests are viewed with globalist tinted glasses, and Ettinger’s argument is based around a MAGA type agenda.
Failing to recognize that US interests are not focally based on the US will fail to impress those US administrators who make policy in the Globalist-aligned, administratively led US govt. Indeed, a strong Israel does make for a strong US as Ettinger argues, but the US is focused not on running the US better, but rather upon running the US into the ground to make way for their globalist aligned world order.
Destabilizing the dollar, actively erasing the borders, undermining the US military, subjugating the US public, these are all just part of the Globalist aligned American agenda which has also come to openly support the Liberal-Islamist alliance which is holding Israel at bay with the largest fleet ever assembled in modern times.
Liberalism and Islamism walk hand in hand, and sink or swim, their alliance will not be persuaded by Ettinger’s arguments, persuasive as they might be to a US dominant viewpoint. America has fallen to the totalitarians, the globalists and the Islamists, and this is what must be reckoned when addressing the glaring and growing daylight which exist between US policy and Israeli security.
Hence, if we can agree that the dogmatic ideology which supports the Globalist Liberal World Order is well rooted in the US govt and State Dept in particular, should we not form an argument which would address that reality instead. Sadly, failing to address this reality will, I would argue, be seen to be a fatal flaw within Ettinger’s argument, with an equally fatal outcome.
Still, Ettinger’s arguments are powerfully persuasive if presented to the proper people, but I would argue that the people who would be persuaded are not likely to be found in the State Dept, or in much of the current US govt, regretfully.