ONE needn’t be a prof, nor as brilliant as Einstein, to understand the veracity of his concomitant advice:
We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. – Albert Einstein
HUH and duh? Come on, isn’t the above merely rational thinking in its purest form? Besides, even those who can’t shine a candle to Einstein’s intellectual heft should be able to discern its basis. Sheesh.
TRAGICALLY, for the most part, this is not the case within Israel’s higher-up political and military circles. Truth dare be told, it is due to an appalling dearth of rational thinking (instead, replaced by a goodly amount of stupidity, staggeringly so) that the nation’s politicians (many of whom hail from top posts within the IDF via a “revolving door” from the military into political office) almost always drag the Jewish majority citizens, reeling, from one strategic disaster into another!
BUT none of this madness – שִׁגָעוֹן – could be possible without the imposition of an ingrained “conceptzia”, hailing within a leftist-captured academia which inculcates “moral relativism” as the sine qua non of intellectual heft! Phew.
MORE specifically, this poisonous and twisted “thinking” is taught at Israel’s Command and Staff College which has adopted its twin disaster, the IDF Code of Ethics. Lo and behold, it was conceived by a die-hard leftist prof, Tel Aviv U’s Asher Kasher, a philosopher and a linguist. Oh, dear, now you know why the soldier’s hands are tied into knots! Pay heed:
“Purity of Arms” – The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.
NOW, those who are unfamiliar with its basis will opine that behaving ethically is what separates the Jewish army from its barbaric counterparts. Agreed. Yet, but more importantly, this so-called Code of Ethics gifts the enemy a blank check to terrorize at will, while tying the hands of IDF soldiers and officers, and with concomitant dangers accrued to the majority Zionist public! For enough evidence to choke a horse, see here and here. BTW, these links are just the tip of the facts on the ground, the knock-on effects from obsessive self-flagellating via “ethical” adherence.
ONTO the charges at hand, the unmasking of Israel’s Generals.
Israel’s Estranged Generals: A Serious in-Depth Analysis
In one her best articles, “Our Estranged Generals’ (April 4, 2016), Jerusalem Post journalist Caroline Glick writes: “Our generals are not on the same page as the rest of us. In fact, they aren’t even reading the same book.”
“What explains our generals’ embrace of positions that most Israelis reject? Why are they willing to sacrifice soldiers and embrace Orwellian notions that weakness rather than strength is the key to peace? It is hard to say. Perhaps it’s group-think. Perhaps it’s the selection process. Perhaps it’s overexposure to Europeans or Americans. Perhaps they are radicals in uniforms. Perhaps it is none of those things.”
It seems that Ms. Glick has never examined what “our estranged generals” learn at Israel’s Command and Staff College, which makes them “estranged from the rest of us.” As the present writer has often pointed out, the formative Director of this college was also the Director of Israel Military Intelligence, Prof. Yehoshafat Harkabi, a self-professed moral relativist. What Harkabi says about Israel’s enemies in his book Arab Attitudes to Israel will shed considerable light in why Israeli generals are estranged from the rest of us. Harkabi’s book was written (of course in Hebrew) just before the Six Day War of June 1967. The English edition appeared in 1972, that is, before the Yom Kippur War. The book is replete with hundreds of quotes from diverse Muslim Arab sources, all vilifying Jews and Israel in the most lurid terms and promising the eventual annihilation of the Jewish state. In some 500 pages one finds not a single exception to this ventilation of Arab hatred – not even from Islamic scholars. Yet Harkabi was convinced before the Six Day War as well as before the Yom Kippur War that a peaceful and political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict was possible.
I single out Harkabi because he was not only the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, but also an internationally prominent academic and reputed expert on Islam. In fact he is the reputed mentor of Shimon Peres, the genius behind the disastrous Oslo or Israel-PLO Oslo Agreement.
Harkabi’s book is dedicated to Jews and Arabs alike – a telling example of moral equivalency! Nevertheless, its central thesis is the Arab’s unmitigated hatred of Jews and Israel. However, the implacable nature of this hatred is obscured or mitigated by Harkabi’s moral equivalency on the one hand, and by his fixation on the idea of “peace” on the other.
Harkabi book does not mince words about the Arabs’ Islamic faith. He refers to what he terms the “negative characteristics of Islam. Islam, he says, is a “combatant,” “expansionist,” and “authoritarian” creed. He admits that “The idea of Jihad is fundamental in Islam,” in consequence of which “hatred,” “hostility,” and “conflict” are endemic to Arab culture (p. 133). Furthermore, and of profound significance, he acknowledges that “the use of falsehood” and “distortions of the truth” are typical of Arab political life. He points out that “Political scientists, sociologists and historians seem to feel reluctant to mention this aspect of … the Arab world” (p. 337).
Harkabi goes so far as to say that mendacity is “second nature” to the Arabs, and that one may rightly say “falsehood is an expression of [Arab] national character.” He quotes the liberated Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth” (p. 348).
Nevertheless, these “negative characteristics” of the Arabs are diluted or lose political significance by the doctrine of moral relativism which Harkabi imbibed and conveyed at the Hebrew University. This doctrine (mysteriously) induced Harkabi to believe that the Arabs would shed their negative characteristics if Israel would simply withdraw from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and permit the Arabs to establish thereon an independent and economically well-off state of their own,
This is precisely the position of a policy paper that General Moshe Yaalon produced sixteen years ago at the Shalem Center. The ideas of this paper represent the position of none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, not only is the Ya’alon study logically related to Netanyahu’s “two-state solution” to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. It also explains Caroline Glick’s confusion concerning Israel’s “estranged generals.” Recall her asking:
What explains our generals’ embrace of positions that most Israelis reject? Why are they willing to sacrifice soldiers and embrace Orwellian notions that weakness rather than strength is the key to peace? It is hard to say…. Perhaps it’s overexposure to Europeans or Americans. Perhaps they are radicals in uniforms. Perhaps it is none of those things.
That’s right Miss Glick, it’s none of those things. It’s the mind-set of these generals. They have internalized the pervasive academic doctrine of moral relativism, which undermines wholehearted conviction in the justice of Israel’s cause and in the unmitigated evil of Israel’s enemies!◙
DESPITE all else, know that it is beyond distressing, embarrassing to boot, to excoriate Israel’s leaders – this investigative journalist’s leaders, no less – before the vast world of cyberspace. But as a committed Zionist and national patriot, it is an absolute duty to speak the truth, never mind the personal discomfit.
AND this is precisely why those who have megaphones must enjoin with others – and in a groundswell of strength – shouting: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Yes, we recognize that leaders who are “stuck on stupid” (as to a growing list of military leaders who are currently politicians, we know, many of them served courageously and admirably while in uniform) must come to grips with reality on the ground and cease fantasizing that Israel’s implacable enemies will turn into “partners” for anything, let alone peace!
MOST significantly, a rational and an honorable leadership internalizes when a volte-face becomes a national imperative; when strategic decisions calculated upon faulty dogmatic perceptions must be remedied. Eradicated. Even more so, when said policies were made decades ago and proven disastrous – time and time again – with incalculable costs via countless Jewish deaths, others maimed for life, and a general robbing of the Jewish majority public’s peace of mind.
FORTHWITH, it is time they man-up (or woman-up, whatever the case may be) and proclaim proudly and loudly: our mandated and sworn duty is, first and foremost, to protect Jewish lives. Our raison d’etre is the in-gathering of the Jewish people, as opposed to mimicking multicultural western nations. Resultant, our collective national honor dictates that Israel MUST abandon (never mind the fact that the PA Arab leadership – and their increasingly murderous populace – have violated EVERY obligation they ostensibly undertook when they signed onto Oslo) the fatally flawed “two-statism” paradigm.
HENCEFORTH, it must be replaced with rational strategic imperatives that will reassert the Jewish people’s historical and legal ownership – as recommended by The Levy Report – to the land of Israel. All of it! In a Orwellian manner, this Commission was established by PM Netanyahu in 2012. Its conclusions: clear as a bell, as to the aforementioned rights. No ifs, ands or butts. However, as of yet – 4 years onward, resultant, with a continuous pile up of dead and mangled Jewish bodies – he refuses to implement it! Is he irrational, a serial accommodator, or what?
REGARDLESS, this onerous topic was dutifully explored in a March 2015 interview at Inquisitr, Can Israel Survive As The Jewish State? Indeed, it was not accidental (nor incidental) that it preceded the last election. One excerpt is particularly resonant, and its basis speaks for itself:
WOLFF BACHNER: And speaking of responsible world leaders, why isn’t the Prime Minster of Israel bringing up these serious issues with the nations involved in the peace process and especially with Obama and demanding an end to all military threats to Israel before Israel will negotiate again? Is he trying too hard to appease Obama and the various European talking heads, and by doing so, weakening Israel’s position even further in a peace process that is already an anti-Israeli charade?
ADINA KUTNICKI: It is this lock-step and debasing march which stopped him (during 9 years as PM, from 1996-1999 and 2009 -2015) from declaring victory over Hamas during the 2014 summer-long war, one which blanketed/blitzed the entire country with missile and rocket barrages. More indicting, instead of laying waste, years ago, to Iran’s mushrooming genocidal WMD program, he is still begging President Obama to lead the charge, knowing full well that he has no such intention. Chasing ghosts.
Inherently, he could have taken a page out of (the late) PM Menachem Begin’s playbook, when he defied President Carter and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor. Now, as then, Washington issued threats to “cease and desist”, but one PM ignored said orders, while the other (continuously) caved. Statesmanship, or the lack thereof.
In the main, PM Netanyahu is best described as a “serial accommodator”, comparable to a badly battered wife who just can’t help herself from going back to her abuser, one last time, for more punishment. Now, others may tsk, tsk and opine: well, the POTUS is the big man in the arena, therefore, what can poor “Bibi” do but genuflect? Hogwash.
For the record, PM Menachem Begin didn’t have a problem executing what his mantle required of him; protecting Israel at ALL costs! Similarly, Israel’s first PM, David Ben-Gurion, gave Eisenhower the proverbial finger, when he launched a war in 1956 in concert with Britain and France against an increasingly belligerent Egypt. As always, Washington attempted to stay Israel’s hand. History repeats.
In furtherance to the above charge and indictment, whereas PM Ben-Gurion took on the U.S. when Israel was little more than a military pipsqueak, PM Netanyahu behaves as if Israel is a vassal state. This is the case even though he has at his disposal the most adept forces in the region, let alone technologically advanced. Hence, the question is not one of actual force strength, but one of inner and moral fortitude. Hmm.
At its base, the moment that PM Netanyahu conceded to a PA (terror) state (during his speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009, two and a half months into his tenure…regardless of how he framed it), the fact of the matter is that he gave Israel’s “kosher” stamp of approval to carve a 23 rd Arab state out of the Jewish heartland. This historical injury lands at his doorstep. Agreed, previous PM’s have been equally appeasing and beyond injurious, but the imprimatur for the above became cemented under his watch. No doubt.
Thus, he weakened Israel’s position within (already hostile, pro Arab) international forums, once he gutted the nation’s core standing. Realistically, are others supposed to be “more Catholic than the Pope”, so to speak? Not only that, why should they disagree with Israel’s PM, in effect, after he already conceded (his “reasoning” doesn’t count for a damn) to the “rights” of the so-called Palestinians? Unforgivable.
FEEL a headache (from heartache) coming on….that’s a wrap!