Share
-
Heaven On Earth
Clausewitz’s Lesson for the Israelis
A gem from Clausewitz that I recently came across:
“We see then that if one side cannot completely disarm the other, the desire for peace on either side will rise and fall with the probability of further successes and the amount of effort these would require. If such incentives were of equal strength on both sides, the two would resolve their political disputes by meeting half way. If the incentive grows on one side, it should diminish on the other. Peace will result so long as their sum total is sufficient- though the side that feels the lesser urge for peace will naturally get the better bargain (emphasis mine).” (On War, Book One, Chapter Two).
The last line especially is quite appropriate when considering the Israeli efforts for peace with the Palestinians. The Israelis have a pattern of convincing themselves that if they don’t sign some peace bargain immediately, they will be in existential danger because of some inevitable threat in the future. These days, the demographic threat is often blared in the newspapers as a pressing reason for accepting any deal that will get Israel out of the West Bank. The Palestinian’s patience and willingness to endure hardship puts them in an advantage over the desperate Israelis, who have been willing to take gambles on security and to partition Jerusalem in order to hastily bring about peace agreements. Their foolhardy dedication to insufficient peace deals ironically makes real peace less likely.
For the Arabs and Israelis, the incentives to peace have never been equal, and will not be equal in the foreseeable future. The very equation,’land for peace’ suggests that the incentives to peace are not equal.
Economically and militarily, Israel has no equals in the region, and this further accents the inequalities between the parties.
I’m afraid that there will be no peace in our lifetimes.
“… though the side that feels the lesser urge for peace will naturally get the better bargain”
And the implications of this relative to Israel and the Sunni Arab population in its midst, aka “Palestinians,” in turn funded by both Sunni and Shi’a Arab despots, should be stunningly obvious.
But somehow, it isn’t. Why? At base it’s due, in large measure, to the amount of work and courage that would be required, on an inter-generational plane, after that acknowledgement is made. It is too daunting or, to put it in another vernacular, it requires too much faith in the real-world sense of the term (i.e. a well grounded vision combined with a willingness to work toward that vision), which is the only real and genuinely plausible solution, one that avoids illusions and delusions such as those reflected in Oslo-like wishful thinking and similar au courant and PC sensibilities. To be willing to wake up from such dreams is no mean thing.