Interesting take on the issue. My own opinion about why Israel is not allowed to win wars is more fundamental. The superpowers (e.g. the US, China and Russia) are afraid of Israel's fighting power and skill in so many areas. They are afraid that if other countries in the Middle East see that Israel consistently wins wars and gains territory, all but the most extreme Jihadist regimes will ally with Israel without any urging from the superpowers. An Israeli Arab said to my husband many years ago: "With the brains of the Jew and the money of the Arab, the Middle East could be a superpower." He was right then and he's still right. The superpowers just don't want the competition.
There is a way for Israel to start winning wars. Listen to Israel's Religious Right and start putting your faith in G-d; not other nations. Because the one thing that all nations fear most is the G-d of Israel. Tragically, so do many Jews.
I pray that Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide shift our loyalty from liberal/leftist ideologies and dependency on American presidents to the G-d who gave us Israel in the first place and promised to let us keep it if we kept faith with Him.
The "brains and money" argument reminds me of the brothers, Jacob and Esau. Jacob's voice, Esau's hand. Isaac's pronouncement of "The voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau" imply that either was fine with him -- Jacob with Esau's hands, or Esau with Jacob's voice, either would be a powerhouse. As these are both symbols of humankind. The Voice (communication, reason, language) and the Hand (opposable thumb, tools, technology).
When Jacob and Esau reconcile upon Jacob's return from Laban's, Esau asks Jacob to join him, and Jacob says "Go on ahead, as we have many herds and I will catch up." But he never did. Maybe at the end of history the two brothers will be reunited.
I heard some Rabbis say that Esau is a stand-in for Christianity while Arabs and Islam are usually associated with Ishmael. But does it have to be that way?
Wow. The brains + money argument is very convincing. As far the god part, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; and kind of ironic with the charedi refusing to participate in the military. I do agree, however, that Israel needs to become more independent from the U.S. in regard to manufacturing weaponry.
Charedi aside, many of the so-called "Ultra-Orthodox" are now participating in the military and not just in desk jobs. There is a huge range of issues that Israel must address "halakikally" that serve Israel's interests as a free, independent, strong and secure state. Many of these things have nothing to do with military equipment (which I agree is a priority issue!) and more to do with internal affairs that are largely controlled by leftist/liberal ideology. Like multicultural issues which threaten the Judaic core of Israel’s existence and allow enemies to thrive in our midst. I’m happy to report that Israel is importing Indian (non Muslim) workers to replace the Palestinians in the construction industry. That should have been done a long time ago. While halakah allows non Jews to live in Israel it forbids enemy non-Jews from living and working there. One of our biggest errors against Torah law (and common sense) is giving away territory that was rightfully ours to begin with – or acquired during war. Torah forbids Israeli leaders from giving away any part of Israeli land since it asserts the land belongs to every single Jew. For more info read “To Win A War (The Jewish Way)”, by Rabbi Manis Friedman and Dr. Elad Ben Elul.
This is a great article and analyzes what is ailing the powers that be in the West which foreign policy through the imaginary prism of the John Lennon School of Foreign Policy
One of my favorite cult movies is "Soylent Green" (1971). One of my favorite scenes comes when Edward G. Robinson's character (Sol; a 75ish Jewish professor, of course) and Charleton Heston's character (Thorn; a 50ish policeman and not a Jew) have just finished a rare fine meal of food "seized as evidence" by Thorn during a murder investigation. As they are reflecting upon the meal and their lot in life, Sol laments, "How have we come to this" (the dark reality of humanity and an environmentally contaminated world at the time). Thorn responds, "Yeah, yeah, Sol. In the old days men were good and the world was beautiful." Sol answers, "Ppfftt, men were always rotten. But the world was indeed beautiful." And you know what, having now reached Sol's age, I can appreciate his lament. I have no faith in the general goodness of those men or women who lead us. I have faith in G-d, in my family and closest friends, and the justice behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments to my U.S. Constitution. The world is still beautiful but only if we work to keep it that way. And as long as Israel maintains its faith in G-d above everything, it will be fine as well.
A very informed perspective in this essay, which helps to add to my thinking about Jew hatred. What's interesting about the four principles, is that they are rife with idealism, and not reality based. Idealism can be a good thing but must be peppered with a substantial dose of reality. Your comment about technocrats' worldview that context is nothing was amusing when I think about the president from Harvard, when questioned about antisemitism, said it depended on the context. The countries who have embraced thousands upon thousands of immigrants have numerous problems now growing. In my opinion, they know this and don't have the courage to resolve their problems, so they turn their attention to Israel. Israel, which not only has a multicultural society, has a strong army, and has been able to exist surrounded by countries who would like to see their demise. This probably eats away at their psyches and to maintain some sense of equanimity, they put all their focus on Israel. When you have people coming from oppressed countries, some more so than others, and they come to a Western country, they are free to express themselves in every way they couldn't in their home country. Each time their host country does nothing, they take another step and another becoming more vocal and violent. They know the governments are too weak to suppress them. It's like a lion being released from its cage, now looking for its first prey. Until these Western countries grow some backbone, Israel and Jews will be continue to be their prey.
Praising someone who has set your house on fire when they produce a fire extinguisher…that’s how Douglas Murray likens the praise for Qatar in ceasefire negotiations.
I think there may be another consideration at play, a holdover from the aftermath of WWII. It is encapsulated in the principle (if that’s what it is) of “de-escalation.” Properly viewed, it is an entirely defensive posture that cedes the initiative to the aggressor state. The attacked may only repel but, under no circumstances, may it go on the offensive. In other words, this concept allows you to defend up to your borders but not beyond.
Hidden in plain sight are two ideas. One is, as we often heard, the fear of a war that becomes regional and then maybe the much feared world war. Lurking behind this thinking is, it seems, the view that only the U.S. can control such eventualities and so, if there is to be a larger conflagration, that is a decision reserved to the U.S. alone, not to others, even if brutally aggressed, such as Israel or Ukraine.
The second idea is based on the aspiration mentioned in the article. It’s not just that war is bad and only diplomacy achieves results. It’s the creation of a new architecture to ensure a perpetual peace. It has two components, one legal and the other enforcement. The legal side (ICC and various and sundry international law “experts”) works to create a legal framework where war itself is outlawed and the equivalent of a holding action is all that is permitted. While that is going on, enforcement by the world community puts an end to the violence.
The central problem to this vision is that it recasts war as a police matter, a framework that would appear delusional. The grand design has become unhinged with the legal arm in place - but already compromised by obvious political bias and prejudice - and no mechanism to bring the enforcement element to life.
So, I come down on the following: neither Ukraine nor Israel are being allowed to win the wars imposed on them because the U.S. fears a much larger conflict for which it is currently unprepared. This calculation constitutes a form of unilateral disarmament that can only embolden our adversaries.
Churchill famously said “give us the arms and we’ll finish the war” to which Netanyahu added the word “faster.” What is both odd and concerning is the disconnect between the proclaimed U.S. goals (Russia out of Ukraine and Hamas out of Gaza) and a realistic method to achieve it (talking at a round table will self-evidently not achieve the supposedly desired result).
Where Israel is concerned, it’s not just a matter of US interference in strategy or timing of munitions delivery, it’s that the U.S. has intentionally stacked the deck against an Israeli victory. It acquiesced in Egypt’s border closure which complicated the urban battlefield. It then prioritized the safety and welfare of Gazan civilians - even over the unconditional return of the hostages (whose taking and holding is a war crime) - by ignoring the Laws of Armed Conflict and treating the matter, no surprise, as if it were some large scale police action against identifiable criminals. Worse, in so doing, the U.S. ensured a means for Hamas to remain a viable entity financially and militarily by allowing it the opportunity (which it seized) to control and distribute incoming supplies.
If that mindset doesn’t change, the U.S. guarantees never ending, smoldering conflicts one of which will inevitably spin out of control. One thing seems clear: Russia and, even more, Iran have never been weaker. Of what benefit can it be to the U.S. to give them the cover and breathing space to reorganize and rearm. After all, it’s not as if either has surrendered its stated hegemonic goals.
We delay the inevitable at our own peril. In international relations you in fact do kick your adversary when it’s down. It’s the only way to minimize overall casualties. Of course war is to be avoided where other options reasonably exist, but closing your eyes to reality is not the way forward. As Trotsky famously said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Good essay. I think the analysis conceptually is accurate as far as what the technocrats believe, but since all of their beliefs are wrong, it would be foolish to acquiesce to a policy vision driven by incorrect assumptions. The solution to Trump is to keep telling him the truth and presenting the facts. He does change his mind when presented with a convincing argument over time. His instincts are generally good on the big issues, so it’s not useful to throw your hands up if he makes a mistake and assume he’s out to screw Israel. He’s not. The other thing is that the US State Department and British Foreign Office from whence many bad ideas emanate, need to be gutted. And in the United States I think there is at least a chance of reform. War isn’t going away. Islamist ideology isn’t going to retreat without concentrated violence and ultimatums that can be backed up by violence. Somebody better alter the current paradigm for obvious reasons.
Great essay—study material galore. As another commenter said in so many words, ‘they fear our G-d.’ If I compress all of the history of the ages and rages against us by the nations—who has had no nation since Solomon—that is the only variable I see. Rome has ruled the earth for 2k years, made a stained glass image of a Jew but takes away the law he lived by and certainly prohibits a nation or kingdom (which by virtue of this same extreme hatred and murder was formed in our grandpas’ time) to arise which keeps the law. Why are we of the ghettos and pales such a threat to an empire or czar? Yeah? Because of The God of Israel. Even secular Jews are dragged in by identity. Only reaction left from the nations is to maintain war with Israel. Never let them win. But … Being a believer in ‘this deal a ruse’ as Trump’s character and ego leaves no room for negotiating with filth and murderers, he is not a military man but thinks like one. His gold gilting tendencies envisions for Israel a beachfront Cannes on the Gaza Strip and the only way to proceed is to help Netanyahu end this the way Hamas wants it: war. The God of Israel picked His Cyrus and it was Israel who recognized this and minted a coin. Can’t make this stuff up…
I hope you are wrong about the decline of the West. I think that the real reason the West tries to hold back Israel is one word, “oil” . The West still needs Moslem oil and gas. Take that out of the equation and see how fast things change. After all the Jews were not part of something called The Crusades.
I don't know; there are two types of Arab oil countries. I never thought that in my lifetime Israel would have normalization with Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Morocco and Bahrain. My hope is Saudi will follow soon. Not sure I understand the remark about the Crusades. Do you mean it was Christians vs Muslims and so there is a natural antipathy there?
This is wonderful, especially the whole ending. Although, the second to last paragraph may portray some anti-semitism after all. Still, the theory that it's also about the West being embarrassed by Israel's military capabilities, the technocrats' essential bean-counting mindset, and their desire to keep things stable for economic reasons. Fascinating!
Interesting take on the issue. My own opinion about why Israel is not allowed to win wars is more fundamental. The superpowers (e.g. the US, China and Russia) are afraid of Israel's fighting power and skill in so many areas. They are afraid that if other countries in the Middle East see that Israel consistently wins wars and gains territory, all but the most extreme Jihadist regimes will ally with Israel without any urging from the superpowers. An Israeli Arab said to my husband many years ago: "With the brains of the Jew and the money of the Arab, the Middle East could be a superpower." He was right then and he's still right. The superpowers just don't want the competition.
There is a way for Israel to start winning wars. Listen to Israel's Religious Right and start putting your faith in G-d; not other nations. Because the one thing that all nations fear most is the G-d of Israel. Tragically, so do many Jews.
I pray that Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide shift our loyalty from liberal/leftist ideologies and dependency on American presidents to the G-d who gave us Israel in the first place and promised to let us keep it if we kept faith with Him.
Shabbat Shalom.
Fascinating perspective! Shabbat shalom.
The "brains and money" argument reminds me of the brothers, Jacob and Esau. Jacob's voice, Esau's hand. Isaac's pronouncement of "The voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau" imply that either was fine with him -- Jacob with Esau's hands, or Esau with Jacob's voice, either would be a powerhouse. As these are both symbols of humankind. The Voice (communication, reason, language) and the Hand (opposable thumb, tools, technology).
When Jacob and Esau reconcile upon Jacob's return from Laban's, Esau asks Jacob to join him, and Jacob says "Go on ahead, as we have many herds and I will catch up." But he never did. Maybe at the end of history the two brothers will be reunited.
I heard some Rabbis say that Esau is a stand-in for Christianity while Arabs and Islam are usually associated with Ishmael. But does it have to be that way?
According to authentic Jewish scriptures, Esau was a complex character. Search “Esau” on Chabad.org. (Yes, Esau represents Rome and later, Western civilization) At least one rabbi, Mendel Kessin, believes there is a connection between President Trump and Esau. https://israel365news.com/321325/whats-connection-biblical-esau-president-trump/
Ishmael was also a complicated guy. Search “Ishmael” on Chabad.org. For some chillingly accurate Jewish prophecy about “the children of Ishmael” (the Muslim world) see https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1391003/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Vaeira-Day-5.htm
Amen.
Wow. The brains + money argument is very convincing. As far the god part, irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; and kind of ironic with the charedi refusing to participate in the military. I do agree, however, that Israel needs to become more independent from the U.S. in regard to manufacturing weaponry.
Charedi aside, many of the so-called "Ultra-Orthodox" are now participating in the military and not just in desk jobs. There is a huge range of issues that Israel must address "halakikally" that serve Israel's interests as a free, independent, strong and secure state. Many of these things have nothing to do with military equipment (which I agree is a priority issue!) and more to do with internal affairs that are largely controlled by leftist/liberal ideology. Like multicultural issues which threaten the Judaic core of Israel’s existence and allow enemies to thrive in our midst. I’m happy to report that Israel is importing Indian (non Muslim) workers to replace the Palestinians in the construction industry. That should have been done a long time ago. While halakah allows non Jews to live in Israel it forbids enemy non-Jews from living and working there. One of our biggest errors against Torah law (and common sense) is giving away territory that was rightfully ours to begin with – or acquired during war. Torah forbids Israeli leaders from giving away any part of Israeli land since it asserts the land belongs to every single Jew. For more info read “To Win A War (The Jewish Way)”, by Rabbi Manis Friedman and Dr. Elad Ben Elul.
I like a lot of what you say; agree with a lot of what you say.
This is a great article and analyzes what is ailing the powers that be in the West which foreign policy through the imaginary prism of the John Lennon School of Foreign Policy
…spilled my coffee…
One of my favorite cult movies is "Soylent Green" (1971). One of my favorite scenes comes when Edward G. Robinson's character (Sol; a 75ish Jewish professor, of course) and Charleton Heston's character (Thorn; a 50ish policeman and not a Jew) have just finished a rare fine meal of food "seized as evidence" by Thorn during a murder investigation. As they are reflecting upon the meal and their lot in life, Sol laments, "How have we come to this" (the dark reality of humanity and an environmentally contaminated world at the time). Thorn responds, "Yeah, yeah, Sol. In the old days men were good and the world was beautiful." Sol answers, "Ppfftt, men were always rotten. But the world was indeed beautiful." And you know what, having now reached Sol's age, I can appreciate his lament. I have no faith in the general goodness of those men or women who lead us. I have faith in G-d, in my family and closest friends, and the justice behind the 1st and 2nd Amendments to my U.S. Constitution. The world is still beautiful but only if we work to keep it that way. And as long as Israel maintains its faith in G-d above everything, it will be fine as well.
But again, you lost me with the faith in god part. Everything up until then I applaud.
A very informed perspective in this essay, which helps to add to my thinking about Jew hatred. What's interesting about the four principles, is that they are rife with idealism, and not reality based. Idealism can be a good thing but must be peppered with a substantial dose of reality. Your comment about technocrats' worldview that context is nothing was amusing when I think about the president from Harvard, when questioned about antisemitism, said it depended on the context. The countries who have embraced thousands upon thousands of immigrants have numerous problems now growing. In my opinion, they know this and don't have the courage to resolve their problems, so they turn their attention to Israel. Israel, which not only has a multicultural society, has a strong army, and has been able to exist surrounded by countries who would like to see their demise. This probably eats away at their psyches and to maintain some sense of equanimity, they put all their focus on Israel. When you have people coming from oppressed countries, some more so than others, and they come to a Western country, they are free to express themselves in every way they couldn't in their home country. Each time their host country does nothing, they take another step and another becoming more vocal and violent. They know the governments are too weak to suppress them. It's like a lion being released from its cage, now looking for its first prey. Until these Western countries grow some backbone, Israel and Jews will be continue to be their prey.
Praising someone who has set your house on fire when they produce a fire extinguisher…that’s how Douglas Murray likens the praise for Qatar in ceasefire negotiations.
https://youtu.be/hLfr1RttgCo?si=cmOgWjcKAjo2XAtk
I think there may be another consideration at play, a holdover from the aftermath of WWII. It is encapsulated in the principle (if that’s what it is) of “de-escalation.” Properly viewed, it is an entirely defensive posture that cedes the initiative to the aggressor state. The attacked may only repel but, under no circumstances, may it go on the offensive. In other words, this concept allows you to defend up to your borders but not beyond.
Hidden in plain sight are two ideas. One is, as we often heard, the fear of a war that becomes regional and then maybe the much feared world war. Lurking behind this thinking is, it seems, the view that only the U.S. can control such eventualities and so, if there is to be a larger conflagration, that is a decision reserved to the U.S. alone, not to others, even if brutally aggressed, such as Israel or Ukraine.
The second idea is based on the aspiration mentioned in the article. It’s not just that war is bad and only diplomacy achieves results. It’s the creation of a new architecture to ensure a perpetual peace. It has two components, one legal and the other enforcement. The legal side (ICC and various and sundry international law “experts”) works to create a legal framework where war itself is outlawed and the equivalent of a holding action is all that is permitted. While that is going on, enforcement by the world community puts an end to the violence.
The central problem to this vision is that it recasts war as a police matter, a framework that would appear delusional. The grand design has become unhinged with the legal arm in place - but already compromised by obvious political bias and prejudice - and no mechanism to bring the enforcement element to life.
So, I come down on the following: neither Ukraine nor Israel are being allowed to win the wars imposed on them because the U.S. fears a much larger conflict for which it is currently unprepared. This calculation constitutes a form of unilateral disarmament that can only embolden our adversaries.
Churchill famously said “give us the arms and we’ll finish the war” to which Netanyahu added the word “faster.” What is both odd and concerning is the disconnect between the proclaimed U.S. goals (Russia out of Ukraine and Hamas out of Gaza) and a realistic method to achieve it (talking at a round table will self-evidently not achieve the supposedly desired result).
Where Israel is concerned, it’s not just a matter of US interference in strategy or timing of munitions delivery, it’s that the U.S. has intentionally stacked the deck against an Israeli victory. It acquiesced in Egypt’s border closure which complicated the urban battlefield. It then prioritized the safety and welfare of Gazan civilians - even over the unconditional return of the hostages (whose taking and holding is a war crime) - by ignoring the Laws of Armed Conflict and treating the matter, no surprise, as if it were some large scale police action against identifiable criminals. Worse, in so doing, the U.S. ensured a means for Hamas to remain a viable entity financially and militarily by allowing it the opportunity (which it seized) to control and distribute incoming supplies.
If that mindset doesn’t change, the U.S. guarantees never ending, smoldering conflicts one of which will inevitably spin out of control. One thing seems clear: Russia and, even more, Iran have never been weaker. Of what benefit can it be to the U.S. to give them the cover and breathing space to reorganize and rearm. After all, it’s not as if either has surrendered its stated hegemonic goals.
We delay the inevitable at our own peril. In international relations you in fact do kick your adversary when it’s down. It’s the only way to minimize overall casualties. Of course war is to be avoided where other options reasonably exist, but closing your eyes to reality is not the way forward. As Trotsky famously said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
This is brilliant. Thank you for a new way to reframe what’s happening.
Good essay. I think the analysis conceptually is accurate as far as what the technocrats believe, but since all of their beliefs are wrong, it would be foolish to acquiesce to a policy vision driven by incorrect assumptions. The solution to Trump is to keep telling him the truth and presenting the facts. He does change his mind when presented with a convincing argument over time. His instincts are generally good on the big issues, so it’s not useful to throw your hands up if he makes a mistake and assume he’s out to screw Israel. He’s not. The other thing is that the US State Department and British Foreign Office from whence many bad ideas emanate, need to be gutted. And in the United States I think there is at least a chance of reform. War isn’t going away. Islamist ideology isn’t going to retreat without concentrated violence and ultimatums that can be backed up by violence. Somebody better alter the current paradigm for obvious reasons.
Brilliant.
Incisive.
Astute.
Too bad its clarion call will mostly falls on deaf ears.
Too bad it will be mostly read by seriously vision impaired Academia dons, newspaper editors, and government policy wonks.
Great essay—study material galore. As another commenter said in so many words, ‘they fear our G-d.’ If I compress all of the history of the ages and rages against us by the nations—who has had no nation since Solomon—that is the only variable I see. Rome has ruled the earth for 2k years, made a stained glass image of a Jew but takes away the law he lived by and certainly prohibits a nation or kingdom (which by virtue of this same extreme hatred and murder was formed in our grandpas’ time) to arise which keeps the law. Why are we of the ghettos and pales such a threat to an empire or czar? Yeah? Because of The God of Israel. Even secular Jews are dragged in by identity. Only reaction left from the nations is to maintain war with Israel. Never let them win. But … Being a believer in ‘this deal a ruse’ as Trump’s character and ego leaves no room for negotiating with filth and murderers, he is not a military man but thinks like one. His gold gilting tendencies envisions for Israel a beachfront Cannes on the Gaza Strip and the only way to proceed is to help Netanyahu end this the way Hamas wants it: war. The God of Israel picked His Cyrus and it was Israel who recognized this and minted a coin. Can’t make this stuff up…
Eloquent, insightful, and scary.
I hope you are wrong about the decline of the West. I think that the real reason the West tries to hold back Israel is one word, “oil” . The West still needs Moslem oil and gas. Take that out of the equation and see how fast things change. After all the Jews were not part of something called The Crusades.
I don't know; there are two types of Arab oil countries. I never thought that in my lifetime Israel would have normalization with Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Morocco and Bahrain. My hope is Saudi will follow soon. Not sure I understand the remark about the Crusades. Do you mean it was Christians vs Muslims and so there is a natural antipathy there?
Spot on. Thank you for a cogent summary of where we are.
Very well said. Sharing !
Brilliant. Well done!
Daniel - outstanding and thought provoking
This is wonderful, especially the whole ending. Although, the second to last paragraph may portray some anti-semitism after all. Still, the theory that it's also about the West being embarrassed by Israel's military capabilities, the technocrats' essential bean-counting mindset, and their desire to keep things stable for economic reasons. Fascinating!