I do not hate Neo-Nazis. They are just enemies, and must be dealt with rationally. I dislike anti-Semites, but cannot
object to their opinions as long as they remain passive.
I dislike irresponsible idealists who in the
worst totalitarian manner shut out voices of realism
Would anyone challenge the right of Caucasians to
fight for their own jurisdiction within California? Many would not. Ethnically, religiously, and even ideologically diverse states that fail as melting pots dissolve. Who was there first and who came later does not matter; much of Israel was not settled fifty years ago. A coherent and importantly distinct group living compactly is entitled to sovereignty, or at least it makes sense to give them sovereignty to keep them from living in perpetual conflict with their neighbors. What, except anti-Semitism, denies the same logic to the Jews in the Middle East?
People need to denigrate their benefactors to
preserve self-esteem, attributing hidden motives and hating
them.
No regime that comes to power by force can
sustain itself by grace without first exterminating its enemies.
Goodness as a device to mollify subjugated people is a theoretical construct.
Absolute cruelty is superficially as much an extreme as
absolute goodness and should be as unrealizable if the object of application of either were immutable. Cruelty, however, eliminates the object itself by destroying opposition and dispersing potential supporters to other countries where they are eventually assimilated and lose nationalist aspirations.
Sufficient cruelty can often reduce the dissident population to conformity. Goodness, on the contrary, emboldens dissent— exactly the case with Palestinian nationalism
The seemingly irresolvable situation has, however, a
solution. Israel should drive the Palestinians into Jordan and Lebanon and treat the other Arabs with kind indifference but react with cruelty to any violation of her interests. Negotiators know an opponent is much more likely to give way if pressured from the beginning and then offered a way out. Machiavelli left a message to future generations. He disdained government force and war; he admired just, wise rulers. He considered murder and deceit distasteful but natural, but like a good surgeon, he saw the need to do repulsive and painful things quickly and effectively.
It is better to live and let live, but if you decide on territorial expansion and war, at least do it knowledgeably. Politics is a cold-blooded game with no place for moralizing and hesitation for the victors. Be coherent and
single-minded; smother the weakness of humanism, and
weaken the enemy by inducing him to act according to moral rules while you disregard them as fiction, inapplicable in crises.
Israel has yet to accept and adopt the truth of warfare.
The Americans stole a piece of Mexico but not of Canada because of their cultural affinity with the latter. They spared Haiti because there was no profit in controlling and upgrading the alien population, not to mention damaging their international image. Arabs will agree to Israeli
annexation if they admire her the way Mexicans admired the United States. Lacking this sense of inferiority, Arabs will resist encroachment, as the Canadians did.
The hard-liners in many countries who argue against
compromise with perceived evil and for harsh action against it, are not extremists but rather realists who realize that civility will not solve the problem.
Defense hardly ever wins peace; the threat of offense
does. Arabs will not make peace with Israel unless they fear
attack. They are comfortable in thinking Israel will not attack them and have no reason to negotiate, especially when certain concessions are involved. Arab disinterest in peace means changes in Israeli military doctrine.
A disadvantageous status quo can be accepted de jure only if things threaten to get worse, that is, only if peace prevents further aggression. If Israel wants to retain the Golan Heights, she should take or threaten to occupy a much larger territory and then offer a trade ...
What do you think? Leftists and anti-Semites don't waste your breath...
object to their opinions as long as they remain passive.
I dislike irresponsible idealists who in the
worst totalitarian manner shut out voices of realism
Would anyone challenge the right of Caucasians to
fight for their own jurisdiction within California? Many would not. Ethnically, religiously, and even ideologically diverse states that fail as melting pots dissolve. Who was there first and who came later does not matter; much of Israel was not settled fifty years ago. A coherent and importantly distinct group living compactly is entitled to sovereignty, or at least it makes sense to give them sovereignty to keep them from living in perpetual conflict with their neighbors. What, except anti-Semitism, denies the same logic to the Jews in the Middle East?
People need to denigrate their benefactors to
preserve self-esteem, attributing hidden motives and hating
them.
No regime that comes to power by force can
sustain itself by grace without first exterminating its enemies.
Goodness as a device to mollify subjugated people is a theoretical construct.
Absolute cruelty is superficially as much an extreme as
absolute goodness and should be as unrealizable if the object of application of either were immutable. Cruelty, however, eliminates the object itself by destroying opposition and dispersing potential supporters to other countries where they are eventually assimilated and lose nationalist aspirations.
Sufficient cruelty can often reduce the dissident population to conformity. Goodness, on the contrary, emboldens dissent— exactly the case with Palestinian nationalism
The seemingly irresolvable situation has, however, a
solution. Israel should drive the Palestinians into Jordan and Lebanon and treat the other Arabs with kind indifference but react with cruelty to any violation of her interests. Negotiators know an opponent is much more likely to give way if pressured from the beginning and then offered a way out. Machiavelli left a message to future generations. He disdained government force and war; he admired just, wise rulers. He considered murder and deceit distasteful but natural, but like a good surgeon, he saw the need to do repulsive and painful things quickly and effectively.
It is better to live and let live, but if you decide on territorial expansion and war, at least do it knowledgeably. Politics is a cold-blooded game with no place for moralizing and hesitation for the victors. Be coherent and
single-minded; smother the weakness of humanism, and
weaken the enemy by inducing him to act according to moral rules while you disregard them as fiction, inapplicable in crises.
Israel has yet to accept and adopt the truth of warfare.
The Americans stole a piece of Mexico but not of Canada because of their cultural affinity with the latter. They spared Haiti because there was no profit in controlling and upgrading the alien population, not to mention damaging their international image. Arabs will agree to Israeli
annexation if they admire her the way Mexicans admired the United States. Lacking this sense of inferiority, Arabs will resist encroachment, as the Canadians did.
The hard-liners in many countries who argue against
compromise with perceived evil and for harsh action against it, are not extremists but rather realists who realize that civility will not solve the problem.
Defense hardly ever wins peace; the threat of offense
does. Arabs will not make peace with Israel unless they fear
attack. They are comfortable in thinking Israel will not attack them and have no reason to negotiate, especially when certain concessions are involved. Arab disinterest in peace means changes in Israeli military doctrine.
A disadvantageous status quo can be accepted de jure only if things threaten to get worse, that is, only if peace prevents further aggression. If Israel wants to retain the Golan Heights, she should take or threaten to occupy a much larger territory and then offer a trade ...
What do you think? Leftists and anti-Semites don't waste your breath...
No comments:
Post a Comment