The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

Arab rulers, for example, Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, have learned from Anwar Sadat how to get territorial and other strategic resources from Israel for nothing. Thus, in an interview with The New York Times dated October 19, 1980, Sadat boasted: “Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems … After all, I got back … the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper.”

Two years earlier, in November 1978 (hence four months before the signing of the March 1979 Israel-Egyptian peace treaty), I warned Israel’s government in these words:

The Arab rulers aren’t fools. They surely see the utility of Sadat’s strategy, which provides them with a model for regaining their own lost territory. One can go so far as to say that even if Sadat were assassinated, he would continue to be useful. Having served the Arab cause, he isn’t physically necessary any more. But his example is. (Sadat’s Strategy, p. 41, English edition.)

Arab leaders probably look at Israel’s ruling elites as “useful idiots,” to use Lenin’s cynicism. (more…)

An early version of this article appeared in 2004.

The Art of War: Part I

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written about 500 B.C.E., is the oldest military treatise in the world. Even now, after twenty-five centuries, the basic principles of that treatise remain a valuable guide for the conduct of war.

Perhaps Sun Tzu may be of interest to the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, in view of the Arab Terrorist War which erupted in September 2000. Since then more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded and maimed by Arab terrorists.

Referring to the IDF’s limited response to this Arab terrorism, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, “self-restraint is strength”! At first glance one might suspect that Mr. Sharon had been inspired by the Sermon on the Mount. It may well be, however, that he derived that dictum from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—or rather, from a misreading of that treatise. Sun Tzu would have a general exhibit, at first, “the coyness of a maiden”—to draw out the enemy—but thereafter he would have him emulate the fierceness of a lion.

Instead, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is emulating a pussy cat. (more…)

Nazi Germany never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on the American continent. Yet the U.S. declared war on Germany, bombed its industrial and civilian centers, invaded its territory, but not before invading and liberating France—at the necessary cost of killing civilians. America’s war policy? “Unconditional surrender.” The outcome? Germany surrendered, unconditionally.

North Korea, a Soviet proxy, never attacked, killed or maimed a single American on the American mainland. Yet the U.S., under United Nations auspices, waged war against North Korea (some 10,000 kilometers away), bombed and invaded its territory, killing many thousands of civilians in the process, until driven out by the Chinese. America’s war policy? Restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome was precisely that: Korea remained divided. The U.S. did not win the war and did not lose—except tens of thousands of American soldiers. (more…)

It has been reported that Hamas is demanding 1,000 terrorists now in Israeli jails in exchange for IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held hostage for two years in Gaza. Hence, let’s consider an article by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s on the subject of prisoner exchange in Jewish law, but only insofar as it refers to the imprisonment of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg in the thirteenth century.

“Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293 c.e.), known as the Maharam, was one of the greatest of the early Jewish codifiers. At the age of seventy he was taken captive and placed in a prison in France. Emperor Rudolf I proceeded to demand an exorbitant sum for his release.

“To understand the full significance of this act it is important to realize that almost all of the rabbis and leaders of the Jewish communities in that generation were the Maharam’s students…Even the great rabbis of the generation that followed were greatly influenced by the teachings of the Maharam. The most famous of his students was Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh, whose rulings are cited extensively in Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Arukh. (more…)

To radically change Israel’s dysfunctional system of government, which is leading to Israel’s demise, one has to know a little bit about Clausewitz’s concept of ‘the center of gravity.’

As I wrote thirty years ago in Sadat’s Strategy, an enemy’s ‘center of gravity’ is the necessary but vulnerable precondition of its strength. With respect to Israel, Clausewitz’s dictum that in “small states dependent on greater ones, it lies generally in the army of their allies would seem to apply. However, since the army or military power of Israel’s ally, the United States, cannot itself be directly attacked, it must be outflanked by an assault on public opinion”—in a democracy, a force more powerful than armies.

Clausewitz’s dictum prompted Anwar Sadat to shift his allegiance from Moscow to Washington in 1975. (more…)

War is a serious matter. So ponder the following when you think of replacing one coward with another.

“What’s needed is wisdom … but there are no wise men in Israel.”
—Jonathan Netanyahu

“War is not to be avoided but is only deferred to the advantage of others.”
—Machiavelli
(more…)

The government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has assigned some 10,000 police and security personnel to protect President George W. Bush, who has come to Israel to promote peace between Jews and Arab Palestinians. What an absurdity!

The Olmert government has ordered Israeli security forces to close all entries from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to prevent Palestinian terrorists in these areas from killing the American President, who is committed to establishing in these same areas a Palestinian state. Can anything be more absurd?

Apart from those living in the world of make-believe, no one really expects genuine peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Even Middle East expert Dr. Daniel Pipes, who supported the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, has admitted the treaty has been a failure. Let me review his November 21, 2006 article “Time to Recognize Failure of Israel-Egypt Treaty.”

To begin with: “Ninety-two percent of respondents in a recent poll of one thousand Egyptians over 18 years of age called Israel an enemy state. (more…)

The Camp David formula “land for peace,” the basis of the forthcoming Annapolis Summit, is rooted in an erroneous and fatal assumption. That certain Arab leaders agree to negotiate with Israel on the basis of this formula has induced politicians in Israel and abroad to regard such Arabs as “moderates.” This assumption stands in striking contrast to principles of statecraft enunciated by Prince Metternich, the great 19th century Austrian statesman on whom Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation.

According to Metternich, “to base one’s conduct in an important undertaking on faith in the moderation of one of the contracting parties is asking for trouble … to build on air, to gamble the future on one throw.” This faith animated Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, the architects of the disastrous Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993. The same faith animates Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on “reciprocity” when dealing with Arab leaders. It was this historically unfounded faith that led him to sign the Wye River Memorandum, which surrendered large areas of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat—a major step toward an Arab Palestinian state. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, October 8, 2007.

A Primer on Diplomacy

Back in 1978, while negotiations were going on between Israel and Egypt, I published a “Primer on Diplomacy” in the hope it would somehow influence Israel’s ruling elites. Of course it did not—otherwise Israel would not be going to Annapolis. Nevertheless, just as Bogart said, “Sing it again, Sam,” I’m obliged to voice the same message to Israeli diplomats today:

A study of autocratic regimes reveals that their methods of negotiating with democracies differ significantly with those they employ with other autocracies. Contrary to appearances, authoritarian politicians are not necessarily less politicians. Of course, they are less amenable to compromise with democratic politicians, but only because they usually don’t have to! Their “stall and threaten” technique when dealing with democracies works well for them; it does not work well when dealing with fellow dictators, and is seldom used for that reason.

Hence it is not only the character of dictatorships, but the cunning of dictators that produces the kind of negotiating tactics we always seem to experience; his tactics depend not only on his system of government, but on the tendencies of our own. (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 10, 2007.

In what follows, I am going to cite and paraphrase at length from a letter written on April 4, 1904 by President Theodore Roosevelt, a man of extraordinary erudition, wisdom, and courage. Roosevelt wrote more than 100,000 letters and 40 books, but his letter of April 4, 1904 is especially relevant to Israel. The letter concerns the question of Philippine independence and may well be applied to the question of Palestinian statehood. Of course, I mean no disparagement of Filipinos.

Before continuing, it should be noted that in 1898 the United States acquired the Philippines and Cuba as a result of the Spanish-American War.

Roosevelt’s April letter refers to a petition signed by a number of what he calls “very high-minded citizens” whose intention was to present the petition to the Republican and Democratic conventions in June. The petition urges the United States to “pledge itself to give political independence to the Philippines sometime in the future.” (more…)

Earlier today I wrote an all-too-brief account about five ingredients of national security:

1. Wise and courageous leadership.
2. A system of government that facilitates leadership.
3. National morale.
4. Knowledge of the enemy.
5. Military power.

I said little about “knowledge of the enemy,” namely, Islam. (more…)

A. There are various basic ingredients of national security, of which I will mention only five:

1. First and foremost is wise and courageous leadership.

2. Second is a system of government that facilitates leadership.

3. Third is national morale.

4. Fourth is knowledge of the enemy.

5. Fifth is military power.

B. Notice I mention military power last. (more…)

Transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 6, 2007

1. We need to publicize the idea that Jewish control of Israel’s holiest site, the Temple Mount—on which stood the Beit HaMikdash and the Great Sanhedrin—is the key to uncontested Jewish control of Jerusalem and the restoration of Jewish national honor. Once Jews maintain unequivocal control of the Temple Mount, the United States and other nations will move their embassies to Jerusalem.

2. Conversely, so long as Arabs control the Temple Mount, gentile nations will despise Israel and kowtow to the Arabs. Arab control of the Temple Mount not only exposes Jewish weakness, but increases Arab arrogance and even incites Arab violence. (more…)

Friends:

Extreme situations, such as that now confronting Israel, require extreme measures. This is why I wrote “The IDF: A Politician’s Army.” Israel faces the threat of Total Annihilation from Iran, or piecemeal destruction from Hamas and Fatah, either one of which may obtain more lethal weapons.

Israel’s present government is utterly incapable of dealing with this threat. (more…)

Unlike many Israeli leaders, who never tire of expressing their desire for “peace,” Arab leaders profess a desire for “peace and justice.” To this extent, these Arabs seems to stand on a higher moral level than their Israeli counterparts.

Also, Arab spokesmen frequently invoke the name of G-d in their quest to gain control of “Palestine,” i.e. the Land of Israel. Even if these Arabs have murder in their hearts, their appeal to G-d sanctifies His name and thereby furthers the Arab cause vis-à-vis Israel whose current leaders are unabashed secularists, not to say atheists.

These words may disturb some readers, but they go to the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. (more…)

I have been asked to elaborate on my article “What Must Be Done To Save Israel.”

When I speak of a team of professionals forming an “alternative government,” I mean one whose projected cabinet ministers are housed in Jerusalem and are prepared to exercise political power. However, to dramatize the magnitude of Israel’s precarious situation resulting from the spineless and treacherous character of the Olmert regime, this “alternative government” must organize a “Congress of National Salvation.”

This Congress—I have a working paper for such a Congress—will be animated by one general idea: (more…)

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, July 16, 2007.

In his classic Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville writes: “There is hardly any human action, however particular it may be, that does not originate in some very general idea men have conceived of the Deity …”

Muslim clerics make this absolutely clear In a sermon delivered at the Qabaa mosque in Al-Madina, Sheikh Abd Al-’Aziz Qari declared: “Two groups—the Jews and the Christians—are the main elements constituting the ‘Camp of Kufur’ [infidels] and will continue to be its two foundations until Allah allows their downfall and annihilation at the end of days…”

In a sermon at a Mecca mosque, Sheikh Adnan Ahmad Siyami said: (more…)

The government’s releasing terrorists as good will gestures to Muslims and Arabs has never brought Israel or the world one step closer to peace. To the contrary, such gestures reward terrorists and therefore encourage terrorism everywhere.

The only way to deal with terrorists is to punish them—and so severely as as to discourage further acts of terror. (more…)

It has been suggested that Israel’s government issue the following ultimatum to Hamas:

Return Gilad Shalit unharmed to Israel or we shall cease supplying Gaza with fuel and electricity.

This suggestion should be carefully weighed vis-a-vis current efforts to obtain Shalit’s release. (more…)

See the final paragraph (highlighted) of Prof. Inbar’s article (below) before reading my critique.

Does Professor Inbar really believe that any Arab state or combination of Arab states can solve the existential problem of the Jewish state?

1) No less than Daniel Pipes recently and belatedly realized that Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt has been a failure. In addition to its rabid anti-Semitic media, Egypt has for years facilitated the arming of Arab terrorists in Gaza.

2) As for Jordan, it remains a capital offense in that country to sell property to Jews. Besides, Jordan, whose own survival depends on Israel, has nonetheless provided at least moral support for the terrorism perpetrated against Israel by the PLO-Palestinian Authority. (more…)