The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

I. Sharon’s Ha’Aretz Interview
After almost two years of humiliation under Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon may appear to the people of Israel as a man of great dignity, wisdom, and honesty. Indeed, his April 13 interview with Ha’aretz Magazine reveals a surprisingly thoughtful and forthright prime minister with Zionist convictions. As we shall soon see, however, Sharon harbors a tragic flaw, one that has emasculated Israel’s political and intellectual elites. But first, let us mention some of the refreshing statements of Sharon’s Ha’aretz interview.

“The War of Independence,” he candidly declared, “has not ended. 1948 was just one chapter.” Asked, “Are you saying that we will always live by the sword?”—he wisely answered: “A normal people does not ask questions like that. A normal people knows it has a homeland, has national honor and has a full right to its land, which it is ready to defend.”

Sharon went on to enumerate Israel’s tremendous accomplishments since 1948: the development of over one hundred cities, an enviable scientific and technological infrastructure, the absorption of millions of immigrants—and all this was done, he said, “with one hand holding the sword.” He therefore suggested that Israel can continue to make great progress, provided she has the will to persevere in her protracted conflict with the Arab-Islamic world. “I don’t believe that it is possible to resolve a conflict that has lasted 120 years in one jump.” “We need forbearance and decisiveness and inner quiet.”

Sound and courageous words, until he was asked: “Is there a new Sharon ideologically?” He replied: “The only thing that has changed is my opinion about Jordan as Palestine. And even that because a fact was created. You know, I never intended for there to be two Palestinian states [to which he is now resigned]. That is the only change in my position.”

The fact alluded to is the Oslo Agreement, i.e., the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993. As everyone knows, that agreement, in the course of time, was followed by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, Jericho, Hebron, and other areas Judea and Samaria. It should also be remembered that in October 1998, Sharon, as Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign minister, signed the Wye Memorandum, which required further withdrawal from Israel’s historic heartland. Sharon is committed to this agreement, even though he now emphatically rejects abandonment of any settlement. Will Sharon remain true to his word, or will he yield and repeat Yamit?

His Ha’aretz interview troubles me. For Sharon’s most significant statement in that interview is the seemingly innocuous remark that his son Omri taught him “not to see things in black and white.” Therein is Sharon’s and Israel’s tragic flaw. For Israel’s enemies, being Moslems, most emphatically do see things in black and white. This being the case—and quite apart from other reasons—Israel’s surrender of any land to her enemies is suicidal folly. One does not compromise with an uncompromising foe.

This is what Israel should have learned from Anwar Sadat. In his Knesset speech of November 20, 1978, the Egyptian dictator declared: “To speak frankly, our land does not yield to bargaining … We cannot except any attempt to take away … one inch of it nor can we accept the principle of debating or bargaining over it.” What land and whose land? Egypt’s maps depict all of Israel as “Palestine” (as does the logo on the PLO’s stationery).

There is no solid evidence that the Arab-Islamic world accepts the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, not now nor in the foreseeable future. To the contrary, not only Iraq and Iran and Syria, but Egypt, despite its peace treaty with Israel, is engaged in a military build-up whose only objective is to destroy this country. What is more, Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which was created by Egypt, has but one function: to truncate Israel and thereby facilitate the coup de grace.

Why have Israeli prime ministers behaved like blind-deaf-mutes vis-a-vis the black intentions of Israel’s enemies. Can it be that, like Omri, Israel’s ruling elites cannot see things in black and white? Can it be that they have been tainted by the cultural or moral relativism that Israeli universities imported from the democratic world? a relativism that undermines conviction in the justice of one’s cause? a relativism that erodes Jewish pride and thereby leads Jewish politicians to negotiate with a murderous villain like Yasser Arafat? a relativism that prompts these politicians to seek America’s (fictitious) “even-handed” or morally neutral diplomacy? a relativism that stifles their moral outrage when Jewish children are murdered or crippled by Arab savages? Not to see things in black and white means not to distinguish between good and evil, and this cannot but emasculate Israel’s ruling elites.

This, more than any other single factor, is why they have lacked the will and the wisdom to deal with the Moslem’s culturally-induced hatred of “infidels,” a hatred that erupts in violence and terrorism almost everywhere on the planet, as Daniel Pipes recently documented. This bellicosity, this satanic evil, is personified by Arafat, the most authentic representative of resurgent Islam. Yet Sharon could equivocate: “if there is no terrorism, Arafat can be a partner.”

True, Sharon warns Arafat (who only makes “mistakes,” according to Shimon Peres) not to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state. Which means that Sharon wants such a state to be negotiated with Israel’s consent and certain safeguards, such as demilitarization and Israel’s right to fly over Palestinian territory. Never mind this unrealistic expectation vis-à-vis someone who sees and acts in black or in white terms.

Because Sharon cannot see things in such terms, he can empathize with Arab aspirations—something no Arab can or will do vis-a-vis the Jews. “They [the Arab Palestinians] suffer from a lack of [territorial] continuity and we have to find a solution for that.” This can only mean further Israeli withdrawal.

Having signed Wye, Sharon believes that “to take back sections of Area A that were transferred to the Palestinian Authority is impossible.” Why “impossible”? Why impossible when Israel is at war with the Palestinian Authority? Let us disregard the fact that that Area A is part of the Jewish people’s historic homeland. Let us even ignore the more revealing fact that, for Sharon, the Covenant of Oslo takes precedence over the Covenant of Mount Sinai, I ask: Why should he or Israel feel bound to Oslo?

The conventional answer is American pressure. I say that this answer is not only superficial; it obscures the quintessential reason for Israel’s retreat: the fact that the supposed-to-be Jewish state has never had a prime minister committed to the Covenant of Mount Sinai, a prime minister who, inspired by that Covenant, could see things in black and white and still employ wisdom and subtlety in dealing with Israel’s enemies and so-called friends. Before elaborating, let us consider how certain Israeli leaders may justify their adherence to Oslo.

II. Oslo
Let us first go back to March 1993—before Oslo—when the Likud Central Committee elected Benjamin Netanyahu party chairman. Uzi Landau introduced a resolution to the effect that a future Likud Government would not be bound by any agreement of the Rabin Government that compromised Israel’s security. Mr. Netanyahu responded that a democracy must honor its agreements. To this Sharon countered that Israel was established to be a Jewish state, not a democracy.

Has Sharon forgotten this demonstrable truth, or is he reluctant to face the inherent conflict between democracy and a Jewish state?[1] Be this as it may, was Netanyahu right about Israel’s obligation to abide by the Oslo agreement?

Let us suppose, contrary to a scholarly petition to the Supreme Court (HC 3414/96) submitted by attorney Howard Grief, that the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles and the ensuing implementation agreements do not constitute violations of various Israeli statutes. Let us also ignore the countless violations of these agreements by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. The question arises: Can the present Knesset of Israel rightly nullify these agreements?

Despite its weakness de facto, Israel’s Knesset, de jure, is one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. Its powers are not limited by any constitution. In fact, the Knesset is a perpetual constituent assembly: it can enact, amend, or abolish, the so-called Basic Laws of the country. It can curtail the powers of the Executive as well as of the Judicial branches of government without referring such changes to popular referendums.

Let us now turn to democratic America. In the famous case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Chief Justice John Marshall (who may well be regarded as one of the founders of the American Constitution) affirmed the principle “that one legislature is competent to repeal any act which a former legislature was competent to pass; and that one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature.”

Consistent therewith, in 1889 the American Supreme Court, citing precedent, declared “that so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such Acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification or repeal.” The Court went on to state: “It will not be presumed that the legislative department of the Government will lightly pass laws which are in conflict with the treaties of the country; but that circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in disregarding their stipulation, but demand in the interests of the country that it should do so, there can be no question.” In the instant case, the American Congress nullified a treaty between the United States and China which allowed for the free flow of Chinese laborers to the U.S. from China.

With infinitely weightier reasons—for Israel’s survival is at stake—the Knesset has every right as well as the power to nullify any agreement which any Israeli government concluded with the PLO. (All the more so in view of the repeated violations of these agreements by the PLO and the so-called Palestinian Authority.)

It is unnecessary to add that the United States has frequently violated its agreements with Israel. No rational government abides by an agreement that undermines its interests, let alone its survival. Mr. Netanyahu’s response to Mr. Landua is pure nonsense, to put it kindly.

Besides, nothing in the Oslo agreement mandates a Palestinian state. Such a state on Israel’s doorstep is not going to be benign, temporary arrangements to the contrary notwithstanding. The Arab birthrate is twice that of Jews, and this, more than anything, will be decisive for Israel’s future given prime ministers who do not see things in black and white and fail to act accordingly.

Here, a brief digression. Interviewed by David Allen Lewis, the well-known Christian Zionist, for whom Israel should be the light unto the nations, Prime Minister Sharon humbly remarked that he never believed that Israel should be the teacher of the Islamic Middle East. “There should be reciprocity, each side learning from the other.”[2] The present writer does not know what Israel, whose Jewish heritage is unequaled in depth and breadth, can now learn from the Islamic world, stagnant since the twelfth century. I do know that the Islamic world does not share Sharon’s cultural egalitarianism. That egalitarianism, which led to Oslo, has placed at least four Israeli prime ministers on the same level as Yasser Arafat. It has cast an appalling cloud of gray over Israel, blotting out the sun.

III. Seeing Things in Black and White
Having learned from his son not to see things in black and white, one may infer that Sharon, prior to this enlightenment, had regarded Israel’s conflict with the Arabs as a conflict between good and evil. After all, since he regards Israel as a democracy, and since democracy today is the standard of what is a good regime, it follows that Sharon must have once regarded Arab dictatorships as bad regimes. Despite the morally neutral notion of “conflict resolution” imported from America and now operative in Israeli universities, I ask in all innocence: Can one really resolve a conflict between good and bad regimes? And if a dictatorship is bad, must we not conclude that its rulers are evil men, hence, that by negotiating with such men Israeli prime ministers dignify them and thereby disarm the Jewish people?

Had Sharon seen the Arab-Jewish conflict in black and white terms, he could never have signed the Wye Memorandum without sacrificing his intellect as well as his integrity. For he would have seen that the asymmetrical character of this conflict makes nonsense of the policy of “territory for peace.” This asymmetry contains the following contradictions:[3]

1. Whereas democracy is based on the primacy of consent, Arab-Islamic states are based on the primacy of coercion.
2. Whereas freedom (including freedom of speech) is one of the two cardinal principles of democracy, Arab-Islamic culture is strictly authoritarian (which is why their media is state-controlled).
3. Whereas equality is the other cardinal principle of democracy, Arab-Islamic culture is strictly hierarchical. (Top-down leadership is a fundamental principle of Islamic theology.)
4. Whereas democracy exalts the individual, even to the extent of abolishing capital punishment, Arab-Islamic culture will sacrifice even children in the name of Allah.
5. Whereas democracy allows individuals to pursue diverse “lifestyles,” Arab-Islamic culture binds everyone to the substantive values prescribed in the Koran.
6. Whereas democratic societies are preoccupied with the present (Peace Now), Arab-Islamic culture exists under the aspect of eternity (which enables its rulers to pursue objectives extending beyond the present generation).[4]
7. Whereas democracy is steeped in secularism, Arab-Islamic culture is rooted in religion. (Even Arab rulers who are not devout Moslems identify with the basic goals of Islam.)
8. Whereas democracies incline toward peace, Islam inclines toward war. (Some 40% of the arms sold in the world are purchased by Arab-Islamic states).

If Prime Minister Sharon no longer sees things in black and white, then he cannot see with clarity the above contradictions between Israel and its enemies. If so, he will the more readily be deceived by Arab peace ploys and may therefore make mistakes that endanger Israel’s existence.[5] Lacking a black and write perspective of the Arab-Jewish conflict, he will be less capable of educating Jewish public opinion and thereby uniting his country behind a wise and resolute national strategy. At the same time, he will be less capable of defending Israel’s cause before the United States, to which extent Israel will be the more exposed to American pressure. There are perhaps fifty million Christian fundamentalists in the United States, who see things in black and white. These and many other Christians see Israel’s enemies as enemies of G‑d.

IV. Enemies of G-d
As Prime Minister Sharon indicated in his Ha’aretz interview, since Israel’s rebirth in 1948, the Arab-Islamic world has been engaged in an unremitting war against the Jewish state. Israel’s enemies employ various means of warfare: military, diplomatic, economic, and psychological. Although Israel has won certain battles against her enemies, her leaders have never contemplated, let alone pursued, a strategy designed to win this protracted war. Of course, they are overwhelmed by the number of Moslems surrounding their minuscule country, and they feel utterly dependent on the United States. They seldom go on the offensive vis-à-vis the enemy, and they genuflect to Washington. Their modus operandi is to react to events rather than to shape them. Why is this so?

The primary reason was alluded to earlier: Israel has never had a Torah-educated prime minister skilled in the art of statesmanship. Such a person, in the first place, would understand that the Jewish people have an absolute and G-d-given right to the Land of Israel. Hence he would have no doubt whatever about the righteousness of Israel’s cause.[6] Second, he would know how to apply Jewish philosophy to action. Third, he would know the metaphysical motivations of Israel’s enemies. Admittedly, Ariel Sharon knows, and even said in his interview with David Allen Lewis, that even moderate Arabs hate Israel.[7] Lacking a Torah education, however, Sharon does not grasp the metaphysical depth and world-historical function of this hatred. Without such knowledge, he not will know how to teach the Jewish people about their enemies, today the most urgent task of a Jewish statesman. To this subject I now turn.

In his Kuzari, the poet-philosopher Judah Halevi (1095-1150) quotes Psalm 129:21: “I hate them, O G-d, that hate you,” and writes: “‘haters’ of G-d is a reference to those who hate G-d’s people, G-d’s covenant, or G-d’s Torah, because actual hatred has no meaning in terms of G-d’s essence.”

Consistent with King David’s teaching, Judah Halevi would instruct Israel’s prime minister to hate Israel’s enemies. Hatred, however, is a futile passion if it does not issue in action. Hence, in Psalm 18:38-43, Israel’s greatest king writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise; …. I pulverized them like dust in the face of the storm …”

King David’s hatred of Israel’s enemies should animate Israel’s prime minister. It should prompt him to crush Israel’s enemies—so far as this may be possible—because Israel’s enemies, in hating the Jewish people actually hate the G-d of Israel. Israel’s prime minister should understand that hatred of Israel involves envious hatred of the Torah or G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people, which entitles the Jews to the Land of Israel. That covenant imposes upon Jews the sacred duty not to surrender an inch of that land to the descendants of Ishmael.[8]

A prime minister’s hatred of Israel’s enemies will be proportionate to his love of the Jewish people. If Israel’s enemies murder a single Jew, a prime minister should understand that this is a desecration of G-d’s Name, that he should therefore wreak terrible vengeance on Israel’s enemies. This will deter the murder of other Jews and thus render further acts of vengeance unnecessary.

Now it should be obvious from the preceding that to crush Israel’s enemies, Israel’s prime minister must see things in black and white terms. Absolutely confident in the Jewish people’s G-d-given right to the Land of Israel, he must speak and act in such a way as never to convey to the world in general, and to Israel’s enemies in particular, the impression that the Arabs have a just claim to any part of the Jewish people’s homeland. He must never say, as various prime ministers of Israel have said, that “everything is negotiable.” Such words encourage Israel’s enemies and doom Israel to disaster. Nor should he say that Israel will not negotiate under fire. The truth is he should not negotiate at all with Israel’s enemies! One does not negotiate with those who hate G-d and who hate Jews!

This will sound like the words of a fanatic. But the policy I am advocating will convey to Israel’s enemies that they are confronting a knowing and determined adversary, that Israel will not be lured into “land-for-peace” policy, which, from a logical point of view would require Israel to relinquish land whenever her enemies threaten war.

Consider what Israel’s enemies have gained by virtue of that Munich policy. Who ever thought that a thug, the leader of gang of terrorists, would bring Israel to its knees, would have its leaders begging him for peace? Has not Arafat been animated by the uncompromising policy I am advocating for Israel?

I am well aware of the unhelpful role of the United States and of the hostility of European nations in this tragic-comedy. But they too have been encouraged by the infirmity of Israel’s leaders. They despise Israel, and why not? Here is a Jewish state whose political and intellectual elites proudly display their secularism, their democratic credentials, their remoteness from G-d. These elites invite pressure from Washington in proportion to their lack of Jewish pride and Jewish wisdom. Indeed, having abandoned G-d, having rejected His Torah and His Covenant, Israel’s leaders have succumbed to extraterrestrial stupidity or madness. (See Isaiah 44:25.) Only a nation led by fools surrenders part of its homeland which it regained in a war of self-defense. Only a nation led by madmen arms its sworn enemies.

The policy I am advocating is actually based on cool reason and on solid empirical evidence. Fools and madmen aside, it is incontrovertible that Israel’s policy of “land for peace” is a bloody failure and provokes further bloodshed. Israel needs an uncompromising prime minister who sees things in black and white if only because Israel’s enemies are uncompromising and see things in black and white. One does not have to be Jewish to draw this conclusion. Allow me to repeat what Sadat said in the Knesset: “To speak frankly, our land does not yield to bargaining … We cannot accept any attempt to take away … one inch of it …”

Does this mean ceaseless war? But Israel has been at war at least since 1948. The choice confronting Israel is not between war and peace, but between war with victory and war with defeat. Know well, however, that Israel is eternal. Know well that Israel’s enemies are programmed—I say programmed—not to give Israel peace until Israel makes peace, as she eventually will, with G-d.[9] Israel will therefore need a Torah statesman at the helm. The statesman I have in mind must first prompt Israel to strive for internal perfection as a proud and Torah-oriented commonwealth. He must then translate Israel’s moral and intellectual progress into an ideologically oriented foreign policy that places the Arab-Islamic world on the defensive. That world is quite vulnerable, but one must be wise and subtle as well as strong and determined to win the victory.

V. Epilogue
By using his son Omri as his emissary to Yasser Arafat, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon knew not what he was doing. The prophets warn us not to come into contact with uncleanliness. The actions of the unclean and their very existence in the country defile the Land of Israel (Jeremiah 2:7).

This last sentence will be better appreciated by turning to Red Horizons, a book written by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of Rumanian Intelligence under the Ceausescu regime. Pacepa records this statement about Arafat: “I’ve never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man.” He then mentions an intelligence report which speaks of Arafat’s “incredible fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss bank accounts, and of homosexual relationships when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards.” Pacepa then concludes: “After reading that report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaken his hand.”[10]

This is the man to whom Israel’s Prime Minister sent his son. Surely Mr. Sharon would never have done so had he not learned from his son not to see things in black and white. This moral leveling or obscurantism stands in stark contrast to Israel’s prophets, who, because they could see things in black and white, could admonish kings and be the teachers of mankind.

How tragic that Arafat was allowed to enter the Land of Israel. His presence defiles the Land and degrades the Jewish people. Israel will continue to pay a terrible price in Jewish blood so long as this vile creature remains here.

Know, therefore, that Israel will suffer grievously until it has a Prime Minister that sees things in black and white.

---

[1]See Paul Eidelberg, Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall, (Ariel Center for Policy Research, 2000), chapter 3.

[2]The interview was published in the March/April 2001 issue of the Jerusalem Courier.

[3] See Eidelberg, Jewish Statesmanship, pp. 187-189.

[4] Anwar Sadat put it this way in an interview with al-Anwar on June 22, 1975: “The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders. Afterward the next generation will carry the responsibility.”

[5] Nevertheless, see note 7 below, which indicates that Sharon has no illusions about the Arabs.

[6] Admittedly, Israel’s government has usually included one or more representatives of the religious parties. However, because of their long dependence on secular parties, the religious parties lack the breadth of vision and spiritedness required for Jewish statesmanship. Regrettably, the narrowness and timidity of Israeli politics have infected them. Without denying the accomplishments of the religious parties, too often they use Torah for politics rather than politics for Torah.

[7] Sharon told Lewis: “We must not be eager to reach an agreement, to make concessions …” And he went on to say that “the Arab radicals … hate us [but] even the moderates hate us of course.”

[8] All the talk about pekuach nefesh is nothing but obscurantism when applied to the Arab-Jewish conflict.

[9] See Paul Eidelberg, Judaic Man: Toward a Reconstruction of Western Civilization (Middletown, NJ: Caslon, 1996), pp. 156-158.

[10] Ian Mihai Pacepa, Red Horizons (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1987), p. 36.