Part II. What Must Be Done to Win an “Unwinable” War

Let us transcend our present era—an era trapped in the trivia and transience of the media, which know nothing of wisdom and courage and of national pride and purpose.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, INN

Kill for Peace, Part I concluded with a simple message: “We should not negotiate with warriors until they surrender. Until then we must kill them.”

To the contrary, Israel’s government has been wedded to the timid and castrated policy of “land for peace.”

I therefore propose a bold and ultimately life-enhancing policy of “Kill for Peace”—a policy seemingly cruel, but not one of indiscriminate killing, but one that would actually reduce Jewish as well as Arab death and destruction. The rationality and effectiveness of such a policy is substantiated not only by Ralph Peters but also by the greatest military theorists in history, Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.

Moreover, the thinking of these military geniuses is supported by principles of statecraft enunciated by the great nineteenth-century Austrian scholar-statesman Prince Metternich. Accordingly, I shall now enumerate ten principles of statecraft and rules of warfare required for the policy “Kill for Peace” vis-à-vis Israel’s Janus-faced enemies: but with this challenge, let us be bold enough to escape the dungeon of political correctness.

Let us transcend our present era—an era trapped in the trivia and transience of the media, which know nothing of wisdom and courage and of national pride and purpose.

First Principle: A wise and courageous statesman must set forth a clear military goal. For Israel, this goal, justified by the historical mission and territorial prerequisite of the Jewish People, is the destruction of the Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The statesman must tackle this goal vigorously.

For this to happen it is necessary that the goal should not only be clear in the eyes of the cabinet, but it should also be made clear in the eyes of the public and even clearer in the eyes of the enemy. Israel’s enemies must recognize that they are facing a spiritually dedicated and implacable force that will break them.

Second Principle: In this age of publicity the first concern of government is not only to be right, but more important, to see that everything is called by its right name. Israel’s political leaders must stop deluding themselves and others by using such Orwellian language as the “peace process” or about “peaceful coexistence” with the “Palestinians.”

Indeed, they should remove the word “Palestian” from their vocabulary, for this mendacious word represents the anti-thesis of Israel’s sacred and immemorial right to the Land of Israel. The constant use of this Orwellian language by friends and foes alike signifies that Israel is in a war for its survival. In this war, linguistic and moral clarity will decide the outcome.

Third Principle: There is no compromising with an uncompromising enemy—an enemy that regards compromise as weakness. Israel is confronted by the most evil of enemies—warriors contemptuous of human life who lust especially for Jewish blood.

Fourth Principle: Eliminate this evil at its source by eliminating the enemy’s Jihad-inspired leadership. Disarming the enemy must be the immediate object of hostilities, for as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action.

Fifth Principle: Know that any strategy conceived in moderate terms will fail because the circumstances confronting Israel are extreme—its very existence is at stake. Therefore, where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best.

Sixth Principle: Tell the people of Israel that there will be casualties to Arab non-combatants or civilians. But let’s not be stupid: most of these civilians are not innocents. They allow terrorists to use them as human shields. Indeed, under the guise of democracy, they knowingly vote tyranny, for tyrants who vow to “wipe Israel off the map”.

Seventh Principle: for a change, and in the name of sanity and morality, impose rules of engagement that favor one’s own soldiers. Alas, Israel’s political elites are so insecure that to prove Israel’s moral superiority and thereby avoid hostility from abroad, these elites place greater value on the lives of the enemy than on the lives of their own people.

Accordingly, bomb terrorist havens from the air, rather than endanger Jewish soldiers by house-to-house combat.

Eighth Principle: Operate offensively, never passively or defensively, and operate continuously. Give the enemy no rest. Hence, no ceasefires. They allow the enemy to regroup, obtain more weapons, and prepare for deadlier attacks. At the same time, they short-circuit the fighting spirit required in military combat, the spirit which Israel especially requires visi-a-vis her fanatical, Jihadic enemies.

Ninth Principle: Sun Tzu, who actually hated war, warns that “to kill the enemy, men must be roused to anger.” This leads to a tenth principle, for which we should consult Israel’s poet-statesman, the psalmist King David.

Tenth Principle: The statesman must exhibit hatred of his country’s enemies. King David said, “I hate them, O God, that hate you” (Psalm 139:21). In this context, to hate God means to hate God’s laws as well as the chosen bearer of those laws, the Jewish people. Hatred, however, is futile if it does not issue in action. Therefore King David writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise …” (Psalm 18:38-43)

This is what must be done to Israel’s implacable enemies, whose fourteen-century bellicose theology is at war with the ethical and rational foundations of Western Civilization.

We therefore propose a high-minded policy of “Kill for Peace,” one that a civilized nation will pursue when attacked by a foe that scorns man’s natural rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This tough but high-minded policy must replace the soft and self-effacing policy of “land for peace.” Obviously, this may be beyond the ability of a government led a chance coalition of paltry political parties. Israel therefore needs a very different kind of government, one whose elected leader represents the grandeur and purpose of the nation, something more than its transient parts and passions.

Israel also needs different generals. When bogged down in war, Lincoln discovered Grant and Sherman; Roosevelt had Bradley and Patton; and G. W. Bush found David Petraeus. As we learn from the statecraft of Metternich and of Machiavelli, in the protracted war between Israel and the disciples of Muhammad, better for Israel to err on the side of boldness than on the side of caution. This practical wisdom underlies the proposed policy, “Kill for Peace.” No other policy is worthy of a people that cherishes life and human dignity.

(The writer is founder and president of the Israel-American Renaissance Institute (I-ARI)and co-founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. In 1976, Eidelberg joined the faculty of Bar-Ilan University. His books, on the Arab-Israel conflict and Judaism, include Demophrenia, Jewish Statesmanship, and Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America . His latest book, America’s Unknown Hebraic Republic, discusses the Hebraic background of the American Republic in which he sees a solution to the threat of Islamic imperialism. He has a weekly program on Israel National Radio, writes and lectures throughout Israel and the United States on a broad variety of subjects.

For more by the writer, whose basic theme is “How to make Israel more democratic by means of Jewish principles, and how to make Israel more Jewish by means of democratic principles”, see Israel-America Renaissance Institute (www.I-ari.org).

November 14, 2011 | 8 Comments »

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. A number of points arise from Prof Eidelberg’s excellect article. The first two are that his points 9 & 10 need to be qualified; anger and hate must not be allowed to destroy the Jewish spirit of humanity which could lead to atrocities and could lead to the same primitive method of combat as the militarily laughable Arab armies display. The third point is that to apply Eidelberg’s wise suggestions, professional Jews world-wide, but especially in Israel must abandon not only the appeasing, the oh so clever and the Orwellian and the obsequious diplomacy and just speak the plain truth, fearlessly, firmly and politely; they must noreject second-class status for Jews. Bibi should long ago have approached the US people and its congress or through the press told the international community that the incompetence and lack of manners of Baracka Hussein Soetoro was unacceptable. This leads to the fourth point: Israeli generals must stop acting like politicians and political leaders must stop acting like generals. The military’s role is to win the war and the politician’s role is to win the peace. The military must not stop until it has achieved its objectives and if foreign governments object, they must be told that the Arabs always have the choices of unconditional surrender or annihilation; the IDF must never again accept the situation of cynical self-serving foreign nations saving the Arabs and here the US’s saving of Egypt’s 2nd army from defeat in the Yom Kippur war and its safe conduct of Arafat and his cut-throats from Beirut come to mind. Another example is when in the second Lebanon war soldiers took villages were then ordered back by criminally cowardly manipulating politicians; those fighters were our sons and brothers and not mere cannon fodder that can be wasted to appease Israel’s perpetual critics among the Arab lovers or the human rights industry. And this leads me to the last point, which is that none of this will occur unless Israel’s political elite (political rabbis included) is replaced by lovers of Jews and the Jewish state. As long as the bulk of the elite comes from the old Jewish establishment, which is fixated on co-existence with and respect for blood-thirsty jihadis and which appoints like-minded cronies to the supreme court, to IDF and police command positions, to intelligence postitions and to law regulation positions, there will only be stagnation and Israel will be a nation of lions led by packs of jackals.

  2. Kill for Peace, Part I concluded with a simple message: “We should not negotiate with warriors until they surrender. Until then we must kill them.”

    Let me explain why there are no truer words.

    Arabs have attacked Israel many times and tried to terrorize it. In each case Israel has won. But what price have the Arabs truly paid? Have they paid much of a price at all?

    The road to peace is paved by making the Arabs pay the price for their actions, and that price is not “land for peace.” That price is Arab blood. That price is taking more land from the Arabs. That will bring peace.

    Moral Hazard

    In economic theory, moral hazard is a situation in which a party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

    Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

    When you don’t make Arabs pay a price for losing their wars, then the concept of moral hazard applies. You are encouraging them to behave badly in the future. “Land for peace” ensures that there will be no peace.

    How will spilling more Arab blood bring peace?

    You have to kill so many Arabs that the survivors will shake in their boots at the mere mention of “Israel”. This is coming anyway. The next war will bring chemical warheads down on Israeli cities. What will Israel do then? Israel will bring peace in one night.

  3. Great article. The goals it mentions might better be visualized
    by considering Israel’s Muslim enemies as Nazis. In fact, that’s what
    they are, in most respects. The only doubt I have is: Does Israel have
    the military capacity to fight a multi-front war, and win against ALL
    of its enemies? After all, this isn’t 1967; the weapons are much more
    advanced, and more deadly; and the Muslim barbarians have had a lot of
    time to gather together and plan. And to what extent can Israel count on
    America? Again, this isn’t 1967, and the United States is now led by a
    Muslim sympathizing socialist, and his lackeys. This is the monkey wrench
    in the works……what can I do to help Israel?

  4. It has been said before: There will be no peace until the Arabs are forced to accept that they are a defeated people, and begin to behave accordingly. Successful pursuit of the suggested policies herein will contribute to that result.

    President Roosevelt understood that, in demanding unconditional surrender in exchange for the cessation of hostilities at the end of WWII. Only after that, was rebuilding and the Marshall Plan possible. It is a major blunder for Israel to try to develop adjacent Arab economies and society before that happens. Such a policy leads to national suicide, not peace. The historical evidence is incontrovertible.

  5. November marks the 16th anniversary of the death of Yitzhak Rabin, whose assassination followed a “Peace” rally. The bloodstained lyrics to the “Peace Song”, retrieved from the Prime Minister’s coat pocket prophesied the perilous path to peace that Oslo portended. Finally,after the deadly rocket attacks coming on the heels of the trade of 1027 Arab terrorists for Gilad Shalit, there seems to be recognition that the perilous path to peace has born only bitter fruit. Surrounded by armed enemies and with Iran’s nuclear ambitions revealed on the world stage, Israel is preparing to change course and pursue the equally perilous path toward war.

    As in WWII, where detante with a contained Nazi Germany was unthinkable in January 1945, the folly of negotiated compromise with the PA (the PLO in suits) should be taken off the table. Abbas has declared his recalcitrance in never asceding to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. His vision of two states involves an aparatheid Palestinian/Arab/Islamist state, next to a diminished Israel of mixed (and increasingly Arab) citizenry! This intermediate situation is the step toward a greater united Palestine, with Jews either living in dhimmi status or scattered in yet another diaspora! Perhaps under the fog of the coming war, decapitation of the PA, Hamas and Hezbollah as well as administering swift and decisive justice to the 1027 Arab terrorists, now released from the protective custody of Israel’s cushy prisons.
    More than the US, Israel is paralyzed with ‘professors’ and self denigrating liberals, who serve as useful idiots, hampering the pursuit of victory and serving as sockpuppets for the Arab narrative. Perhaps these professors of ‘peace at any price’ can be best deployed sweeping mines on the Syrian border or as forward negotiators in a war of deception.