Prof. Paul Eidelberg
It should be obvious to everyone that Israel’s foreign policy has been a disaster. Oslo has been called the greatest diplomatic blunder in human history. Before I set forth a Jewish foreign policy, let us consider some basic principles of a foreign policy any rational government would pursue, but which Israeli governments have consistently violated to the detriment of the Jewish people. I begin by paraphrasing certain principles of statecraft enunciated by the 19th century Austrian statesman Prince Metternich.
A. Metternich on Statecraft
Principle One: To base one’s conduct in an important undertaking on faith in the moderation of one of the contracting parties is asking for trouble. This principle has been repeatedly violated by Israeli prime ministers from Begin to Sharon.
Principle Two: To expect the leaders of dictatorships to be moderate is like asking them to destroy the foundation of their existence. Another principle ignored by Israeli politicians.
Principle Three: Any plan conceived in moderate terms must fail when the circumstances
are set in the extreme. Hence, in any situation where each of the possible lines
of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best. The Sharon government’s
policy of self-restraint was an obviously a failure. Even Operation Defensive
Shield was conceived in moderate terms,
which is why we suffered several subsequent suicide bombings. Recall how Mr.
Sharon allowed Shimon Peres to negotiate with the enemy when Israel’s
objective should have been the complete destruction of the enemy. Here let me
inject the ideas of the great military scientist, Carl von Clausewitz, in his
classic, On War:
1. Clausewitz defines war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will. Violence is the means; submission of the enemy to our will the ultimate object." For as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action. (Because of Sharon’s policy of self-restraint, Arafat was able to obtain and produce more and deadlier weapons.)
2. Clausewitz warns: "Philanthropists may readily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst."
3. Not that Clausewitz advocates indiscriminate slaughter. He warns, however, that "he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigor in its application." "Let us not hear of Generals who conquer without bloodshed. If a bloody slaughter is a horrible sight, then that is a ground for paying more respect to War, but not for making the sword we wear blunter and blunter by degrees from feelings of humanity, until someone steps in with one that is sharp and lops off the arm from our body." Returning to Metternich:
Principle Four: Nations with democratic forms of government are not for that reason the natural allies of each other or the implacable foes of dictatorships. We see this principle in operation especially in Europe, which appeases Arab dictatorships and opposes Israel. The “Bush Doctrine” of June 24, 2002, which calls for the democratization of the Palestinian Authority,” appears to be a departure from this principle, but the US continues to oppose Jewish “settlements,” and retains strong ties with Saudi Arabia, a totalitarian state that has long supported international terrorism in general, and Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel in particular.
Principle Five: We must rely for the execution of our plans on ourselves alone and on such means as we possess. Israeli governments rely too much on the United States, whose interests sometimes conflict with those of Israel.
Principle Six: Weaker states can ill-afford merely to react to events; they must also try to initiate them. The very contrary of this principle was taught by Shimon Peres’ mentor, the late professor Y. Harkabi, head of Israel’s Command and Staff School. It is in this light that we should understand the government’s self-effacing policy of “self-restraint” vis-a-vis Arafat.
Principle Seven: In this age of publicity, the first care of government must be not only to be right, but, even more important, to see that everything is called by its right name. By constantly intoning the words “peace” when Israel is engaged in a war, Israeli prime ministers confuse and disarm our people. Peace is neither a policy nor a goal, for it is not something tangible.
Principle Eight: When called upon to handle important matters, the statesman must tackle them vigorously. For this to happen it is necessary that the course decided upon should not only be clear in the eyes of the Cabinet, but should also be made clear in the eyes of the public. Such clarity is impossible given Israel’s system of multi-party cabinet government, when its foreign minister and defense minister publicize their own policies contrary to that of the prime minister.
B. Israeli Diplomacy
It should be obvious that Israeli politicians and diplomats do not know how to negotiate with Arab dictators. If a handbook were written on how they negotiate with such dictators, it would be based on the simplistic assumption that dictators are not open to compromise. The handbook might say something like this:
“The nature of dictatorships makes it inherently difficult for rulers of such regimes to compromise. The autocrat himself is little used to political compromise and tends to view it, as he does all domestic opposition, as a challenge to his authority, perhaps to his very life. This personal hostility to compromise or meaningful give-and-take is reinforced by the inherent instability and vulnerability of all regimes resting on coercion rather than consent. The democratic statesman must take this into account, tempering his expectations and standing ready to take the first step, going the extra mile, and perhaps giving more than he gets.”
Israel has repeatedly given a great deal more than it has ever received. As Anwar Sadat boasted In a New York Times interview dated October 19, 1980: “Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems ... After all, I got back ... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper.” There is but one conclusion to draw from the preceding: During the past three decades, amateurs have been ruling Israel!
Suppose, therefore, that we were to design a manual for democratic negotiators based on very different but generally more realistic assumptions about dictators. It might read like this:
“The nature of autocratic political systems makes it inherently easy for rulers of such regimes to compromise. Successful autocrats are above all things calculating, possessed of a shrewd grasp of facts operative in the negotiating arena. They have no difficulty envisioning the kind of settlement that would be equitable or that would at least temporarily terminate disputes with other powers; and ruling over a society resting on coercion rather than consent, they have no difficulty in imposing such a settlement should they deem it necessary.
“Negotiating problems arise exactly because the autocrat understands the propensities of democratic statesmen and the political system they represent. He knows that to the democratic mind compromise is often seen as a good in itself; that completed negotiations are frequently taken as successful negotiations serving to secure personal or domestic political advantage. The also autocrat knows that democratic politicians are impatient for results, especially during election years, in consequence of which he need only bide his time, remain obdurate, or threaten to break off negotiations in order to elicit gratuitous concessions intended to hasten and conclude the negotiating process.
“He is particularly well attuned to the fact that democratic governments are greatly influenced by public opinion, that opinion is usually divided on all issues, and that opinions in democracies can be manipulated to his own advantage. He is also aware of the democratic antipathy to violence and therefore sees the threat of conflict working in his favor. If his democratic counterparts regard him as irrational or ideologically disinclined to compromise, or if they view his system of government as one that by its nature is unable to make significant concessions, he will know this too and take manifest advantage of it.
“The democratic statesman must in no way encourage the dictator on any of these points or negotiations will degenerate into a tedious, counterproductive exercise in making unilateral concessions. He must know from the very outset what he wants out of the negotiations. He must let the dictator take the first step toward compromise and under no circumstances be willing to give more than he gets or give the slightest indication that this might be the case. It must never be forgotten that the autocrat will view all efforts to be ‘reasonable’—as this term is understood by democrats—as confirmation of his own understanding of democratic negotiating weakness, and he will press his claims unremittingly thereafter.”
Would Israel’s use of this type of diplomacy be effective with Arab-Islamic dictatorships? Perhaps, but it would not be distinctively Jewish.
Israel’s foreign policy toward its Arab neighbors has long been based on falsehood. Thus, back in 1977, when the author asked Shimon Peres’s political adviser, Asher Ben-Natan, “What is Israel’s main problem”? he replied, “We can’t lie as well as the Arabs!” to which I responded, “Then why not tell the truth?” By this I had primarily in mind the truth about the militant nature of Arab-Islamic culture and its implacable hostility toward the Jewish state. Let us set forth some principles of a distinctively Jewish foreign policy to supplement the salutary principles discussed above.
Principles of a Jewish Foreign Policy
1. Israel, the nation that represents God and God’s ways, is supposed to set an example to mankind. Whereas the individual Jew is to be humble, the nation itself is to be proud. Accordingly, Israel will not establish diplomatic relations with any tyrannical regime. To do so is to dignify tyrants and perpetuate their unjust rule over their people. To hobnob with wicked regimes is to compromise the Godly purpose, and this cannot but lower the moral standards of the Jewish people. The Torah makes distinctions between good and bad regimes, and warns against seeking relations with those that are wicked. (See Numbers 25:1-3, 17-18; Jeremiah 10:23.) To seek the recognition of Arab states only arouses their contempt for Israel; and to offer Arab despots “land for peace” not only makes them more contemptuous of Jews, but encourages them to make war. By not seeking relations with hostile Arab regimes, Israel will cease to be diplomatically dependent on the United States.
2. Consistent with the preceding, Israel should quit the United Nations. “Praiseworthy is the man who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and stood not in the path of the sinful, and sat not in the session of scorners” (Psalm 1:1.) (Tens of millions of Americans have participated in a movement---"GET US OUT OF THE UN!")
The UN, which is dominated by Arab-Islamic and other dictatorships, has repeatedly passed resolutions condemning Israel. Here is a brief summary:
The Security Council: "condemned," "censured," "deplored," "strongly deplored," etc. Israel 49 times; Arab states: Zero. The Security Council passed 131 Resolutions: 43 were neutral; 88 criticized or opposed or judged against Israel. None was critical of any Arab state or entity such as the PLO (founded in 1964).
The General Assembly: cumulative number of votes cast with or for Israel: 7,938; against Israel: 55,642. The General Assembly passed 429 Resolutions against Israel’s positions (62%); only 56 against Arab positions (8%). The General Assembly "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored," “censured," "denounced" Israel 321 times––the Arabs: Zero condemnations.
Since it first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on the nine-country Security Council in 39 of its first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Security Council. [In June 2002 Syria, which is still listed on the U.S. State Department as a Terrorist State, was voted in as Head of the Security Council.]
The vast majority of the countries represented in the UN are dictatorships which should never have been admitted to, or allowed to remain in, the UN, since they violate Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares: “Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”
The one nation/one vote principle of the General Assembly places democratic and despotic regimes on the same level. This is morally repugnant and inconsistent with Israel’s world-historical function as a light unto the nations.
Israel’s having an international forum at the UN is of dubious value, as is the UN itself. Fred Fleitz, senior adviser to Under Secretary of State John Bolton, exposes UN waste and corruption and the human costs that resulted therefrom. His book, Peacekeeping Fiascoes of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions, and U.S. Interests, provides a comprehensive and highly critical assessment of the UN. Among other debacles, he shows how the failed UN mission in Bosnia led to unmitigated atrocities; how the UN debacle in Somalia emboldened terrorists the world over; how the UN operation in Cambodia enabled a ruthless dictator, Hun Sen, to consolidate and retain power in Cambodia; how the UN peacekeeping operation in Haiti collapsed, with the billions of dollars squandered on it principally benefiting Haitian President Jean-Bertrande Artistide.1
To all this, add the UN sponsored Durban Conference, which became a vicious instrument of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing.
The very reason why Israel has (belatedly) refused to become a member of the recently formed International Criminal Court (ICC) is the same reason why Israel should cease being a member of the UN. The ICC is a supranational tribunal designed to supersede concepts of national sovereignty. The U.S. has not signed on to the ICC because Americans are concerned that the ICC will be influenced by people with anti-American, or indeed anti-Western agendas. Its officials may launch frivolous prosecutions against American soldiers or diplomats to further their own political ideas and ambitions. What applies to the U.S. applies doubly to Israel. The UN’s unfriendly Security Council can instruct the ICC to try Jewish settlers, soldiers, and statesmen as “war criminals”!2
The UN is not only a sinkhole of corruption and ineptitude. It is intended by globalists to metamorphose into a world government. Such a government would constitute the greatest tyranny in human history. A world government would have a monopoly of military power with agents in every country to prevent any country from developing its own arms. Such a government would impose a stultifying uniformity on all nations, contrary to the Torah. God creates nations, which have a right to develop their own cultural identity, limited only by the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality.
3. Israel, after uprooting every vestige of terrorism in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, will enact a law that explicitly incorporates this Jewish land into the State. Such a law will merely confirm Amendment 11B of the Law and Administrative Ordinance of 1967, which authorizes the Government to apply Israeli law to any area of the Land of Israel that had come under the control of the IDF and which was not previously included within the jurisdiction of the State. By a simple order, the Government can thus bring Judea, Samaria, and Gaza within the jurisdiction of the State (as was done in eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights).
4. Consistent with Jewish law, Israel will not export arms to any foreign nation except under extreme circumstances. International arms sales promote war, perpetuate tyrannies, and impoverish people. So far as possible, Israel will establish military independence and refrain from accepting foreign aid. It will pursue a pre-emptive war strategy against potential foes. When possible, Israel will disarm the enemy and, if logistics allow, establish a government committed to peace on any conquered territory. In all cases Israel’s government will try to take the initiative in international affairs, rather than merely react to the actions of other nations.
5. A school of diplomacy will be established to teach how Jewish diplomats should conduct themselves vis-a-vis other nations. A Jewish ambassador must be familiar with the way of life and government of the host country. His senior staff will include Israelis born in an educated in the host country.
6. Except in emergencies, the Government of Israel will not conduct foreign relations on the Sabbath. This will enhance Israel’s dignity in the eyes of other nations.
7. Every embassy will have a rabbi, synagogue, and a Jewish library. The embassies will organize lecture bureaus and develop electronic networks to explain Israel’s foreign and domestic policies and to encourage aliya.
8. The Government will speak with one voice only. Politics will stop at the water’s edge. Any elected official that voices opposition to Israel’s foreign policy while that official is abroad will be dismissed.
9. Israel will seek self-sufficiency regarding resources essential to national survival. Except in emergencies, Israel will not hire foreign workers
10. Israel’s government will comport itself in such a way as to sanctify God’s Name. ¡%
1,2 Concerning the ICC and UN peacekeeping, George Jonas writes (National Post, July 6, 2002):
The U.S. hasn't signed on to the supranational tribunal designed to supersede concepts of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, Americans have been concerned that the ICC will be influenced by people with anti-American, or indeed anti-Western agendas. Its officials may launch frivolous prosecutions against American soldiers or diplomats to further their own political ideas and ambitions….
In practice, peacekeeping has had a chequered history. For a cost of about US$25-billion since 1948, the UN's peacekeeping bureaucracy has been prolific in its production of acronyms. The rest of its accomplishments have been far more modest. Often, as in Somalia, (UNOSOM I and II) peacekeeping only succeeded in making the world secure for warlords. UNIFIL in Lebanon (last year's budget US$143.9-million; fatalities since 1978, 245) achieved next to nothing. UNAMIR and UNOMOUR, in Rwanda and Rwanda/Uganda, achieved rather less than nothing; arguably they facilitated, or at least masked, genocide. UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone amounted to a sheer waste of 82 lives and (last year alone) of US$717.6-million.
UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group) in India/Pakistan has been on the job since 1949, during which the two countries fought three wars. This year UNMOGIP has been a career for 66 international officials and a living for 47 local civilians. The mission will cost another US$6.2-million in 2002, without reducing the danger of a nuclear exchange by one iota.