In his speech at the Aqaba summit, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) declared: ?We will act vigorously against incitement and violence and hatred, whatever the form or forum may be.? Prime Minister Ariel Sharon followed, saying: ?There can be no peace without abandonment and elimination of terrorism, violence, and incitement.?
But surely Mr. Sharon knows that the 1979 Israel-Egyptian peace treaty did not diminish by an iota the vilification of Israel purveyed by Egypt?s state-controlled media. Does he expect the Palestinian Authority (PA) to be different?
Just as incitement against Israel is the staple of Arab regimes, so incitement is the fuel of Arab Palestinian terrorism. To expect the PA to stop inflaming Arabs against Jews is tantamount to asking Arafat to surrender (and renounce 1,400 years of Arab-Islamic history).
Shocking as it may seem, instilling Arabs with a murderous hatred of Israel is an absolutely necessary ingredient of the war Arafat has been waging against the Jewish state. Indeed, to incite one?s people and soldiers with hatred of the enemy is, with one exception, the universal practice of nations engaged in armed combat. The exception, of course, is Israel, and for various reasons.
First of all, Israeli prime ministers are reluctant to call Israel?s conflict with the Palestinian Authority a war. Second, given Israel?s own Arab population on the one hand, and the law prohibiting ?incitement? and ?racism? on the other, the government has precluded itself from imbuing Israeli citizens and soldiers with hatred of the enemy by portraying Arab Palestinians in black terms, even though most of these Arabs exalt homicide bombers and reject Israel?s existence. Israeli citizens and soldiers have thus been psychologically disarmed, which alone precludes Israel from winning the (undeclared) war.
No one has disarmed them more than Prime Minster Ariel Sharon. Despite the savagery of the Arab Palestinians, Sharon publicly declared in April 2001 that he does not think in ?black and white? terms. This moral obscurantism inhibits him from doing what every intelligent democratic leader or general has done throughout the history of warfare: paint the enemy black and thereby imbue one?s own people and soldiers with moral fervor and confidence in the justice of their cause.
Thus, President George W. Bush refers to an ?Axis of Evil.? By so doing, he placed America on the moral high ground against Saddam Hussein and thereby justified putting American soldiers in harm?s way in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Every great general will instill his soldiers with hatred of the enemy before and during combat. He will portray the conflict in black and white terms, for it is only in such terms that a democratic army, consisting of civilians reluctant to leave the comfort of their homes, will not only risk life and limb to destroy the enemy, but will not be squeamish about killing other human beings. In no other way can a democratic general shorten the war and thereby save lives on both sides. This is real, not sentimental, humanism.
General William Sherman in the American Civil War is a good example. Because his army consisted mostly of recruits from the mid-West who had no strong feelings about slavery, it was critical that Sherman (a former professor) instill his soldiers with an ethical zeal that conveyed the real ideological differences between the North and the slave-holding South. Sherman?s incredible march through Georgia and the Carolinas, in which his army utterly destroyed the south?s infrastructure, shortened the war and saved thousands of lives, Confederate as well as Union. Similarly, hatred of Hitler and the Germans was the moral cement of the Allied war effort in World War II. The foremost (and most erudite) general in that war, George Patton, understood better than most that the Allies could only defeat evil when their soldiers were better motivated than those of the enemy ? a difficult task, he felt, when soldiers come from a democratic society, where egalitarianism, moral laxity and material comfort are widespread.
Returning to the Arab Palestinians: how could they persevere in a war with the far more powerful Israel Defense Forces if Arafat and his coterie were to refrain from inflaming the Arabs with unrelenting hatred of Israel, urging them to liberate ?Palestine? for the sake of Allah?
In contrast, not only are Israeli prime ministers ever preaching ?peaceful coexistence,? but they display hardly any nationalist, let alone religious, fervor. Notice that when the late Yitzhak Rabin was both prime minister and defense minister, he had the words ?Zionism? as well as ?Judaism? and ?Eretz Yisrael? deleted from the Soldiers? Code of Ethics. Thus, while Arafat incites Arabs, Israeli prime ministers anesthetize Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor Eidelberg is the President of the Yamin Israel movement.
But surely Mr. Sharon knows that the 1979 Israel-Egyptian peace treaty did not diminish by an iota the vilification of Israel purveyed by Egypt?s state-controlled media. Does he expect the Palestinian Authority (PA) to be different?
Just as incitement against Israel is the staple of Arab regimes, so incitement is the fuel of Arab Palestinian terrorism. To expect the PA to stop inflaming Arabs against Jews is tantamount to asking Arafat to surrender (and renounce 1,400 years of Arab-Islamic history).
Shocking as it may seem, instilling Arabs with a murderous hatred of Israel is an absolutely necessary ingredient of the war Arafat has been waging against the Jewish state. Indeed, to incite one?s people and soldiers with hatred of the enemy is, with one exception, the universal practice of nations engaged in armed combat. The exception, of course, is Israel, and for various reasons.
First of all, Israeli prime ministers are reluctant to call Israel?s conflict with the Palestinian Authority a war. Second, given Israel?s own Arab population on the one hand, and the law prohibiting ?incitement? and ?racism? on the other, the government has precluded itself from imbuing Israeli citizens and soldiers with hatred of the enemy by portraying Arab Palestinians in black terms, even though most of these Arabs exalt homicide bombers and reject Israel?s existence. Israeli citizens and soldiers have thus been psychologically disarmed, which alone precludes Israel from winning the (undeclared) war.
No one has disarmed them more than Prime Minster Ariel Sharon. Despite the savagery of the Arab Palestinians, Sharon publicly declared in April 2001 that he does not think in ?black and white? terms. This moral obscurantism inhibits him from doing what every intelligent democratic leader or general has done throughout the history of warfare: paint the enemy black and thereby imbue one?s own people and soldiers with moral fervor and confidence in the justice of their cause.
Thus, President George W. Bush refers to an ?Axis of Evil.? By so doing, he placed America on the moral high ground against Saddam Hussein and thereby justified putting American soldiers in harm?s way in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Every great general will instill his soldiers with hatred of the enemy before and during combat. He will portray the conflict in black and white terms, for it is only in such terms that a democratic army, consisting of civilians reluctant to leave the comfort of their homes, will not only risk life and limb to destroy the enemy, but will not be squeamish about killing other human beings. In no other way can a democratic general shorten the war and thereby save lives on both sides. This is real, not sentimental, humanism.
General William Sherman in the American Civil War is a good example. Because his army consisted mostly of recruits from the mid-West who had no strong feelings about slavery, it was critical that Sherman (a former professor) instill his soldiers with an ethical zeal that conveyed the real ideological differences between the North and the slave-holding South. Sherman?s incredible march through Georgia and the Carolinas, in which his army utterly destroyed the south?s infrastructure, shortened the war and saved thousands of lives, Confederate as well as Union. Similarly, hatred of Hitler and the Germans was the moral cement of the Allied war effort in World War II. The foremost (and most erudite) general in that war, George Patton, understood better than most that the Allies could only defeat evil when their soldiers were better motivated than those of the enemy ? a difficult task, he felt, when soldiers come from a democratic society, where egalitarianism, moral laxity and material comfort are widespread.
Returning to the Arab Palestinians: how could they persevere in a war with the far more powerful Israel Defense Forces if Arafat and his coterie were to refrain from inflaming the Arabs with unrelenting hatred of Israel, urging them to liberate ?Palestine? for the sake of Allah?
In contrast, not only are Israeli prime ministers ever preaching ?peaceful coexistence,? but they display hardly any nationalist, let alone religious, fervor. Notice that when the late Yitzhak Rabin was both prime minister and defense minister, he had the words ?Zionism? as well as ?Judaism? and ?Eretz Yisrael? deleted from the Soldiers? Code of Ethics. Thus, while Arafat incites Arabs, Israeli prime ministers anesthetize Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor Eidelberg is the President of the Yamin Israel movement.