If we exclude Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirac nuclear reactor in 1981 and the Syrian reactor in 2007, it would not be wrong to say that Israel has pursued a defensive military strategy. Unless I am mistaken—and without forgetting the Six Day War—this has long been the normative policy of the Israel Defense Forces.
Apparently, Israel’s Command and Staff College has been influenced by the doctrine that small states cannot afford to take the military initiative. The doctrine is fallacious and pernicious. It may be one reason why Israel is fixated on a futile diplomatic track, hence to wait and absorb the first blow.
Weapons of mass destruction aside, a large country like the U.S. can afford a policy of self-restraint because it can absorb lesser blows and still have the wherewithal to conquer its enemy. Pearl Harbor did not cripple America, let alone the al-Qaeda attack of 9/11. But a small country like Israel cannot rationally pursue such a policy; it must take the initiative and without being deterred by adverse world opinion, the bogey man of Israeli prime ministers.
Israel must devastate the Arabs from top to bottom so as to erase the Islamic arrogance that prompts them to wage war against “infidels.”
Israel’s policy of self-restraint has been the norm of these prime ministers, most obviously toward the attacks of Arab terrorists. “Targeted assassination” of terrorist leaders, cease fires that actually favor the enemy, limited force against Hamas in Gaza—all this is indicative of an effete doctrine, as well as of effete prime ministers. No less than Ariel Sharon was once quoted as saying “self-restraint is strength”—true in the domain of morality, not the domain of war against Jihadists.
Israel’s “purity of arms” doctrine is therefore insane [For more on this subject read Kill for Peace]. It cannot but increase Israeli casualties and lower the morale of any fighting force. This doctrine is actually a manifestation of the deeply ingrained “havalaga,” or self-restraint policy of Israel’s the pre-state period, and is very much animated by fear of “what will the world say.” Jews are supposed to be sheep.
The policy of self-restraint—the norm of Israeli prime ministers vis-à-vis Arab terrorists—has surely contributed to the murder of some 1,600 Jews and the maiming of many of many thousands more since Oslo 1993.
If I-ARI’s posts get you thinking, share them with your friends on Twitter. And, if you are not already a member of I-ARI, follow the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (+ all the extras) on Twitter.
Israel’s General Staff would do well to emulate George S. Patton, the general most feared by Nazi Germany. On the eve of battle, Patton would admonish his soldiers: “The object of war is not to die for your country. It is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his.” “Never let the enemy rest.” No cease fires. “We want the enemy to know that they are fighting the toughest fighting men in the world!” Just as Hamas or Hezbollah warriors would show no mercy to you, so you should show no mercy to them. These warriors must be killed even if this results in civilian casualties.
The defeat of these Arab warriors must be so thorough that it will eradicate their desire to wage war for a hundred years—the policy of the Allies that made militant Germany and Japan lovers of peace.
Patton’s famous admonition, “Grab the Enemy by the nose and kick him in the pants,” though simple, is profoundly significant in the war between Jews and Arabs. Israel must devastate the Arabs from top to bottom so as to erase the Islamic arrogance that prompts them to wage war against “infidels.” Indeed, the defeat of these Arab warriors must be so thorough that it will eradicate their desire to wage war for a hundred years—the policy of the Allies that made militant Germany and Japan lovers of peace.
That’s taking the offensive to eliminate the necessity of further offensives.
FOLLOW I-ARI on Twitter.
JOIN I-ARI on Facebook.
