By its reticence to engage in a decisive offensive against its despotic adversaries, Israel is continually backing away from conflicts that it can win, while risking backing itself into a conflict that it cannot.

If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. —Winston S. Churchill, in “The Gathering Storm“.

…the proposition that democracies are generally at peace with each other is [so] strongly supported… [it] has led some scholars to claim that this finding is probably the closest thing that we have to a law in international politics—Profs. Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett, in International Interactions, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1992,  pp. 245-6.

Events of the last year—such as the hastily concocted agreement by the recently ousted Lapid government (read “arrangement”) with Lebanon over the maritime boundary with Israel, allegedly to avert war; and the injudicious attempt to resurrect the two-state formula as a means of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—have once again stoked the discussion over the fabric of the relationship between the Jewish state and its still-belligerent Arab antagonists.

Antithetical types of “peace”

Inevitably, this focuses attention on the notion of “peace”, its feasibility, its durability, and its elemental components.

To adequately contend with this question, it is crucial to realize that the word “peace” is one that is decidedly both dictatorial and deceptive.

It is “dictatorial” because, just as one cannot declare opposition to a dictator, one cannot oppose peace—certainly not if one wishes access to “polite company“. Indeed, much like a dictator, “peace” commands support from all

However, “peace” is also a “deceptive” word, because the same five letters can be used to describe two completely different—indeed, antithetical—political configurations.

On the one hand, peace can mean “mutual harmony” between parties; on the other, it can mean the “absence of violence maintained by deterrence”.

Vastly different sets of conditions make for the feasibility of these distinctly different kinds of peace.

In a political system comprised of democratically governed states–-such as in Western Europe or North America—with open borders, free exchange of ideas, and largely unhindered movement of people, mutual harmony is a feasible kind of peace.

However, in a political system comprised mainly of dictatorial regimes—as in the Arab and much of the wider Muslim world—such unregulated flows of ideas, funds, and people are clearly not the case—and are largely incompatible with the unchallenged rule of the incumbent dictator.

Deterrence vs harmony

Now in conditions of “mutual harmony”, peace (i.e. the absence of violence) is the natural equilibrium state of affairs, and when disputes arise, there will be a strong tendency for the system to revert to its former non-violent stability.

However, in the alternative case, where non-violence is sustained only by adequate deterrence, this is not true. Indeed, if deterrence wanes, violence between the parties will result. There will be no tendency to restore stability and the system will descend into belligerent conflict.

Clearly then, for peace-making/maintenance to be successful, it is imperative to correctly diagnose what political realities prevail. After all, if the conditions are those, in which only a “peace of deterrence” is feasible, adopting a peace-making/peace-maintaining policy, designed to attain a “peace of mutual harmony”, will not succeed.

Quite the opposite! It will make war more probable —by one side making conciliatory gestures that are likely to undermine its perceived deterrence.

This duality in the typology of “peace” is reflected in a related divergence in the structure of conflictual situations. Accordingly, there exist two archetypal and antithetical contexts of conflict: In the first, a policy of compromise and concession may well be appropriate in advancing a resolution; while in the second, such a course would be disastrously inappropriate.

Sign of goodwill…or weakness

So, on the one hand, a protagonist in a conflict may make an initial concession and the opposing protagonist may understand that this concession was made as a sign of goodwill—and therefore feels obliged to make a reciprocal concession.

Thus, via a process of concessions and counter-concessions, matters converge into some kind of consensual resolution.

However, there is another, equally feasible, situation, in which a protagonist is tempted into making an initial concession, but the opposing side sees this not as a sign of goodwill, but as a sign of weakness. Therefore, rather than inducing a process of reciprocal concessions, the initial concession induces demands for further and more far-reaching concessions. So, instead of converging toward some consensual resolution, the interaction diverges into a coercive or violent response.

Clearly, even the most pliable protagonist will, at some stage, reach the limit of the concessions that can be made. Accordingly, when such a limit is reached, he will find himself in a far weaker position than he was in, prior to his proffered concession(s).

“If you will not fight…”

For over a decade, I have warned repeatedly that, by its innate reticence to engage in a decisive large-scale offensive against its despotic adversaries, Israel is continually backing away from conflicts that it can win, while risking backing itself into a conflict that it cannot win—or win only at ruinous cost  See for example here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This danger was eloquently described by Winston Churchill in the first volume of his seminal series on WWII: “…if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”

The futility of compromise

In the perennial conflict with its Arab neighbors, attempts at compromise by Israel have proven not only futile but counterproductive. Despite a series of gut-wrenching concessions, peace seems further away than ever. Every concession made was not followed by an offer of a counter-concession but by demands for further and more far-reaching concessions. Clearly, the only kind of peace that is feasible in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a peace of deterrence – not a peace of mutual harmony. Indeed, it is a peace that concessions and compromises serve only to undermine.

Unless the Jews convey the unequivocal message that any challenge to their political independence and national sovereignty will be met with overwhelming lethal force, they will increasingly be the victims of such force at the hands of their Arab adversaries.

©Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

The media, and therefore most of us, have recently been fixated on the new Speaker of the House, the Republican from California, Kevin McCarthy, and the fifteen votes that had to be taken among the Republicans before he won the support of enough recalcitrant conservatives to be elected as Speaker. Now that particular hurly-burly’s done, and that breathless contretemps is over, a little more attention can be given to the head of the House Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and his uncle Leonard Jeffries, about whom Hakeem Jeffries has said, quite understandably, little – except to clearly distance himself from his brain-addled relative. “Doctor” Leonard Jeffries has for decades been spouting conspiracy theories about Hollywood Jews; along with his antisemitic hate he promotes anti-white theories. Let’s lay out the case against the unseemly Leonard Jeffries before returning to his admirable nephew. More on Uncle Leonard can be found here: “Why Hasn’t Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Repudiated the Jew Hating Rhetoric Espoused by Uncle Leonard Jeffries?,” Elder of Ziyon, January 9, 2023:

According to an extensive report entitled “Dr. Jeffries & the Anti-Semitic Branch of the Afrocentrism Movement” by Kenneth S. Stern, during a July 20, 1991 speech at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, New York, Dr. Leonard Jeffries, the chairman of the African-American Studies department at City College [forced to resign his chairmanship in 1992], claimed, among other things, that there is an anti-black “conspiracy, planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood,” by “people called Greenberg and Weisberg and Trigliani and what not. It’s not being anti-Semitic to mention who developed Hollywood. Their names are there. MGM , Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Adolph Zukor. Fox. Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a system of destruction of black people.”

How did Hollywood become a “system of destruction of black people”? Hollywood was one of the first places to give black Americans a chance to succeed. Last I looked, a great many black people have made out quite well in Hollywood, piling up hundreds of millions of dollars apiece. Here’s a list of just a few of those actors, and their fortunes:

1. 1. Tyler Perry: $700 million.
2. Bill Cosby – estimated worth $450M.
3. Will Smith – $370 million.
4. Morgan Freeman – $300 million.
5. Samuel L Jackson – $280 million.
6. Denzel Washington – $220 million.
7. Eddie Murphy — $200 million.
8. Ice Cube – $190 million.

Hollywood, like the sports industry, is one of the places where African-Americans have managed to thrive. Leonard Jeffries is way off base in accusing Hollywood of “destroying black people.” And when Leonard Jeffries mentions the Mafia as the financial partner of Jews in Hollywood, he’s confusing the movie business with Las Vegas, where there was indeed a connection, when the city was just getting started as a gambling resort, between Jewish gangsters such as Bugsy Siegel and the Mafia. Finally, one wants to ask the demented Leonard Jeffries, who the hell is “TriglianI”?

The report written by Stern also indicated that prior to his July 20, 1991 speech, CCNY professor Leonard Jeffries was already known for his teaching that blacks are racially superior to whites because blacks, whom he calls “sun people,” have more melanin in their skin than whites, whom he calls “ice people.” (Even though Jeffries is generally believed to be the inventor of this theory, it was actually founded by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing who, according to the Amsterdam News, contended that “white racism and aggression are the result of the lack of melanin. This genetic deficiency, the lack of color, compels while people to be hostile to people of color.”)

Leonard Jeffries is not just an Antisemite; he is also a black supremacist, with a cockamamie theory about the “sun people” (richly endowed with melanin), who are in all ways superior to the “ice people” (whose lack of melanin makes them aggressive racists).

Let’s put Leonard Jeffries aside, preferably out of sight. It’s his nephew whom we should care about. Hakeem Jefferies has said he does not agree with, will have no truck with, his uncle’s bizarre “theories.” Should we believe him? I do, and here’s why:

“Jeffries has consistently and forcefully spoken out against antisemitism throughout his career,” the congressman’s office told Just the News. “His on the record comments made to the Wall Street Journal speak for themselves.”

Hakeem Jeffries has been steadfast, ever since being elected to the House in 2012, in offering words of support for Israel, as when he wrote in reply to an Amnesty report denouncing Israel as an “apartheid state”: “Israel is a democracy. It is not an apartheid state. Any conclusion to the contrary is demonstrably false, dangerous and designed to isolate Israel in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the world. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is anchored in our shared democratic values and geopolitical interests. I strongly support that special relationship, and look forward to redoubling efforts in the region to bring about a lasting two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with a self-governed and demilitarized Palestinian state.”

Some of this might be seen as pro-Israel boilerplate – “two-state solution,” “a safe and secure Israel living side-by-side in peace and prosperity” with a “self-governed” Palestinian state. But it is not without feeling. Despite its being a prefabricated paragraph, passed out by pro-Israel lobbyists, it’s still welcome, especially coming from someone who is thought of as a “progressive” Democrat, but who has nothing to do with the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. One is particularly pleased by Jeffries’ mention of a “demilitarized” Palestinian state, something that these statements of support often fail to include, even though from Israeli’s point of view, demilitarization of that future state, should it ever come about, is absolutely essential.

Jeffries has also warned about the rise in antisemitism. In May 2021, he tweeted that “the dramatic rise of antisemitic attacks in NYC and throughout the country is deeply disturbing and unacceptable. Any and all perpetrators must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We will crush intolerance whenever and wherever it is found.” He recently wrote to the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. that “Despite the Ukrainian government’s efforts to battle racial intolerance, use of xenophobic language that endorses Nazi ideology by the fourth largest political party in the Ukraine, Svoboda, continues to be disconcerting. It is critical that top governmental leaders and officials recognize the dangers of working with this extremist group that was founded on and promotes antisemitism.”

Jeffries opposed a bill introduced last year by another Democrat, the far-left and anti-Israel Betty McCollum, to ensure that the nearly $3.3 billion in annual American aid to Israel not be used, as she outrageously phrased it, to “illegally annex Palestinian land, to demolish Arab homes and forcibly remove Palestinians, or to detain children in Israel’s labyrinthian military judicial system.” The bill got nowhere.

He has spoken out repeatedly against the BDS movement.

He has been endorsed by both AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel. The latter group hailed Jeffries’ election, saying he “has always been a strong and effective fighter for the Democratic agenda and a staunch supporter of the critical relationship between the United States and Israel.”

As the next House Democratic Leader, and the first Black person to lead either party in either chamber of Congress, he’ll continue to be a consensus builder and lead Democrats in addressing the most pressing issues facing our country,” the center-left DMFI group said in a statement. “A frequent traveler to Israel, Leader Jeffries has often remarked that Israel ‘lives in a tough neighborhood.’ He has worked tirelessly to make sure that, in this tough neighborhood, Israel has the tools to defend itself, by itself.”

An AIPAC spokesman said that the group congratulated Jeffries on his election.

Representative Jeffries is a stalwart supporter of the US-Israel relationship and we look forward to working with him to further strengthen the alliance between the two democracies,” he said.

That’s all good. There are those who are now trying to sow doubts about Hakeem Jeffries by trying to suggest that he hasn’t sufficiently distanced himself from his infamous uncle. But he has. How many times need he reassure us? And every time he denounces BDS, or those who malignantly call Israel an “apartheid state,” every time he denounces, with feeling, antisemitism, whether at home or in the Svoboda Party in Ukraine, every time he calls for a “demilitarized” Palestinian state (and does not urge Israel to return to the “1967 lines” which is a deceptive way of calling for Israel’s return to the now-indefensible 1949 armistice lines) he reconfirms our faith that he means what he says.

AUTHOR

HUGH FITZGERALD

RELATED ARTICLES:

China Increased Its Donations to the Biden Center 400% with $50M in Donations After Biden Announced his Campaign

Jihadi Who Murdered Eight People in NYC Was In the U.S. on a Diversity Visa

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.