Prof. Paul Eidelberg
“Thou shalt not murder” would not be one of the Ten Commandments if it were not a common or natural tendency of man. This being the case, we should expect war to be the norm of international relation. This was the conclusion of Pitrim Sorokin, chairman of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University in 1941, one of the profoundest students of Western civilization.
In one of his monumental historical studies, Sorokin investigated all the known wars of Greece and Rome, as well as those of the Western Europe from the year 500 before the common era to 1925. This involved examination of some 967 important wars from the standpoint of duration, size of armies, and casualties! Considering the casualty rate per million of the corresponding population, the war magnitude was as follows:
Greece: 29 for the 5th century B.C.E.; 42 for the 4th century B.C.E; 26 for the 3rd century B.C.E.; and 3 for the 2nd century B.C.E.
Rome: 12 for the 4th century B.C.E.; 63 for the 3rd century B.C.E.; 33 for the 1st century B.C.E.; 5 for the 1st century C.E.; and 14 for the 3rd. (If we take the whole Roman Empire during the Pax Romana, then the respective indicators are much lower.)
Europe: 2.5 casualties for the 12th century; 4 for the 13th century; 7.5 for the 14th century; 9.5 for the 15th century; 15 for the 16th century; 45 for the 17th century; 40 for the 18th century; and 17 for the 19th century.
When we turn to the 20th century, however, the indicator for the first quarter alone stands at 52! Needless to say, if we add the casualty figures of World War II, it will be obvious that the 20th century is the bloodiest in human history.
Now, merely to conclude that modern technology has made war so bloody an affair is superficial. For as Sorokin emphasizes, the 20th century is the century of triumphant secularism, and secularism has removed all moral restraints on the conduct of war--as the bombing of cities in World War I had already indicated. And yet, despite the inhumanity of that conflagration--I did not mention the use of poison gas--secular and religious humanists and pacifists, enthralled by the League of Nations, were predicting "the end of war."
Less than a generation later they anticipated and intoned the disarming slogan of "Peace Now," while Hitler was acting on the strategy of PEACE NOW, WAR LATER.
We see, therefore, that war and not peace is the norm of international relations,
as Sorokin's study--nay, as daily experience--clearly indicates. During the
last 2500 years there have been almost 1000 wars in the Western world alone!
But this means that "peace" is little more than a preparation for
war. It also means that peace treaties are worthless.
In fact, after studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times,
Lawrence Beilenson (in THE TREATY TRAP) concludes that they are made to be broken;
that treaties for guaranteeing the territorial integrity of a nation are useless
to the guaranteed nation, and worse than useless insofar as they engender a
false sense of security. Such treaties can only benefit nations governed by
rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient.
There are crucial lessons to be drawn from these facts, especially for Israel which, unlike Arab dictatorships, incline towards peace.
First, there is no such thing as a "peace process," except in the minds of fools and in the deceits of scoundrels.
Second, the only possible way Israel can remain at peace vis-a-vis Arab despotisms is to prepare for war.
Finally, the alternative confronting Israel is not between war and peace, but between war with victory and war with defeat.
It follows from these considerations that Israeli governments have been led by fools!