Ruthlessness and Cowardice
Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, January 15, 2006.
Part I
One of the most paradoxical and most important statements in Lee Harris’ book Civilization and Its Enemies, is this: “Only those who have mastered ruthlessness can defend their society from the ruthlessness of others.” But how can Western civilization be ruthless without discarding the humane values on which this civilization is based? Does this mean that the values we associate with liberal democracy are obsolete, and if so, what will take their place?
One of these values is tolerance. Tolerance, however, can degenerate into moral indifference or neutrality. Moral neutrality is a basic principle of the social sciences, where this neutrality is called “objectivity.” And as is known, the social sciences have been generating moral relativism for some 100 years, until now it has infected the mentality of politicians, journalists, and ordinary people.
The social sciences give rise to a vital issue: How should academics and journalists in the West write or speak about Islam, a religion diametrically opposed to liberal democracy? How should these opinion-makers deal with Jihadic Islam’s commitment to the destruction of Western civilization? Can Western pundits afford to be morally neutral when the very civilization on which their individual freedom and moral neutrality depend are threatened by an enemy that utterly rejects individual freedom and moral neutrality?
During the Second War in Lebanon, pseudo-intellectuals in America, and even several members of the Democratic Party, expressed neutrality in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah—a proxy of Iran. Surely these Americans were influenced by the intellectually stultifying doctrine of moral relativism imbibed at American universities.
George Orwell was profoundly critical of the moral relativism that prevailed among English intellectuals during the 1930s; and he argued that one cannot remain neutral and intellectually honest in the face of barbarism. He put it quite simply:
… if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails, and burn holes in children with lumps of thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet, no one has suggested a practical way out.
Orwell was commenting on the Spanish Civil War, in which the Republicans were aided by Stalinist Russian and international communism, while the Francoists were aided by the Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy—not exactly a black-and-white affair compared to Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah.
In any event, both the English and French governments took a neutral position in the Spanish Civil War. By not aiding the Republicans, England and France facilitated Franco’s victory. Moreover, their neutral or non-interventionist policy encouraged German aggression toward Czechoslovakia and Poland, which suggests that English and French neutrality was largely responsible for Hitler’s long night.
Contrast the attitude of English and French politicians, academics, and journalists toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Far from being neutral, they support the Palestinian Arabs even though these Arabs use their own women and children as human bombs to kill Jews. Europe remains Europe: anti-Semitic.
What a fatal irony! Europe, the home of humanism, supports Islam’s inhuman war against the Jews, which cannot but hasten Europe’s own demise by encouraging Europe’s must ruthless enemy, Islamic Jihad. Another Hitler has appeared on the scene, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmanidejad. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, Europe, whose capitals are succumbing to the influx of Muslims, will be lost. Contrary to what Europeans believe, their fate cannot be severed from the fate of Israel.
Part II
Unfortunately, the left-wing appeasement mentality that dominates Europe also dominates Israel’s government. The Left in Israel includes individuals who have adopted, at best, a neutral posture in the war with the Arab Palestinians. Indeed, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin hobnob with Arab terrorists in the spirit of moral egalitarianism. But let us be honest: What word other than treason describes politicians anxious to give Judea and Samaria to the successors of the Nazis—to truncate Israel just as Czechoslovakia was truncated before it was overrun by the Nazis in 1938?
And what are we to say of Israel’s Supreme Court? Under its former president Aharon Barak, the court ruled that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza—land conquered by Israel in a war of self-defense, land over which no other country could justifiably claim sovereignty—what are we to say of judges who ruled that this land is “belligerent occupied territory”? This ruling violated section 99 of the Penal Law, which defines treason as giving assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel—and section 99 specifically includes a terrorist organization.
What are we to say of judges who gave the color of legality to Sharon’s disengagement plan, which expelled 10,000 Jews from their homes and turned their thriving communities over to Arab Jew-killers? This betraying of Jewish patriots and rewarding their enemies—this moral inversion—combines cowardice and ruthlessness. Verily, a Pandora box of evil has been opened by Israel’s political and judicial elites, and if the enemy—Fatah and Hamas—were united, woe indeed would Israel be under their spineless elites.
Given their treachery, their defeatism, and their lack of Jewish national pride, is it any wonder that the Arabs feel so free to bomb Israeli towns like Sderot? Notice the moral indifference displayed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who opposes retaliation? Not that Olmert is incapable of ruthlessness, which he displayed against Jews in Amona.
Of course, what deters him from ruthlessness against Arab terrorists is fear of adverse world opinion. This suggests that Olmert has succumbed to cowardice, so typical of Israeli politicians. Did he not say in New York on June 9, 2005: “We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies …” Which means Olmert lacks the courage to carry on the struggle and is therefore seeking a convenient way of surrendering to Israel’s enemies.
Like other prime ministers who could not muster the ruthlessness required to put an end to Arab terrorism, Olmert resorts to bribery, as if the leaders of the terrorists were his colleagues in the cabinet or in the Knesset!
He has given $100 million to Fatah leader, PA president Mahmoud Abbas to compete with Hamas leader, PA prime minister Ismail Haniya—as if Fatah is not committed to Israel’s annihilation. Let’s face it: Israeli prime ministers have been paying Arabs to kill Jews—or course with a good conscience, for they do so in the name of “peace”—the Big Lie of Israeli and American politics.
And of course there is Olmert’s policy of arse licking, when he met with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, imploring him to stop the river of arms flowing into Gaza—for which Olmert is largely responsible, having championed Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Honorable people would resign after such a fatal blunder, but honor is the first casualty of Israel’s phony democracy.
And so the prospects for Israel are not encouraging. To expect Olmert to be ruthless toward Israel’s enemies is equivalent to expecting a lamb to be ruthless toward wolves. Yes, and what about his would-be successor, Tzipi Livni? It’s absurd to think that Israel can survive under its present governmental structure, which entrenches traitors and fools in power, and makes jobbers and play-actors their political opponents.
I’ll put it this way: Just as America cannot prevail over Muslim Arabs because it knows only how to talk democracy and make Americans rich, so Israel cannot prevail over Muslim Arabs because it knows only how to talk democracy and make Jews homeless. Both practice ruthlessness against Jews, one covertly, the other quite openly. Jews will not overcome this ruthlessness by democratic elections or by joining a party that is itself part of a ruthless, self-perpetuating Establishment.
