Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Thrasybulus Syndrome: Israel’s War on Gaza ( History/Context )
Well written OP with embedded links..props to bemildred for the post in I/PJuly 29, 2014
?itok=rRz4H0Ku
David C. Hendrickson is professor of political science at Colorado College. He is the author of Union, Nation, or Empire: The American Debate over International Relations, 1789-1941. (Kansas, 2009).
Francesco Guicciardini, the Florentine historian and diplomat, was the contemporary and friend of Niccolò Machiavelli. The latter now enjoys an everlasting fame (or infamy, as you please), having gotten an adjective named after him, but his friend Francesco, now forgotten, often had the better of Niccolò in argument. After Machiavellis death, Guicciardini read his Discourses on Livys Roman history in manuscript and wrote a lengthy analysis of it. Discussing Machiavellis observation that a new prince in a city or province taken by him, must make everything new, Guicciardini insisted on the weaknesses invariably incurred by force: Violent remedies, though they make one safe from one aspect, yet from another . . . involve all kinds of weaknesses. Hence the prince must take courage to use these extraordinary means when necessary, and should yet take care not to miss any chance which offers of establishing his cause with humanity, kindness, and rewards, not taking as an absolute rule what says, who was always extremely partial to extraordinary and violent methods.
The difference of opinion between Machiavelli and Guicciardini over the utility of force echoes down the ages. Every age presents some variation of it. But the old argument is displayed with a ferocious intensity in the ongoing controversy over Israels approach to Hamas and to the Palestinians. In dealing with its neighbors, there is no contemporary state more partial to extraordinary and violent methods than Israel. Israel has fought four major wars in the last eight years, including the Lebanon War of 2006 against Hezbollah and three devastating wars against Hamas in Gaza from late 2008 to the present (not counting several smaller operations from 2006 to 2008). It has assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists and bombed sites in Syria, Lebanon, and Sudan over the same time period, just as it has continually agitated for U.S. military strikes against Irans nuclear infrastructure. In Israel, hawks have found a welcome abode; doves are an endangered species.
The regularity of Israels perceived need to use force is illustrated by the notorious expression, mowing the lawn, that one of its military officers used to describe strategy toward Gaza. It is reminiscent of the advice that Thrasybulus gave Periander of Corinth, recounted in Herodotus. Walking through a field, Thrasybulus broke off the tallest ears of grain by way of showing Perianders envoy the best way to rule violently. The envoy couldnt figure out his meaning, but Periander, the prototype of the ancient tyrant, understood immediately on hearing the envoys report. The analogy showed that violence could not be a one-time affair. New stalks would grow up. It would remain necessary to keep lopping off the top onesi.e. mowing the lawn.
Machiavelli offers a view different from Thrasybulus. It is unfortunately all too true that Machiavelli did have a penchant for extraordinary and violent methods, as Guicciardini alleged, but his thought also reflected an appreciation of the economy of violence. The indiscriminate exercise of force and the constant revival of fear, as Sheldon Wolin observed of Machiavellis teaching, could provoke the greatest of all dangers for any government, the kind of widespread apprehension and hatred which drove men to desperation. This sense of the limits of force, even among one of its greatest partisans, was given expression in another of Machiavellis famous sayings, in which he advised, One must be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those that wish to be only lions do not understand this. Israels strategy toward Hamasseeking peace by periodically pummeling the Palestinians, shedding the blood of numerous innocentsviolates Machiavellis injunction. It generates hatred as well as fear. It produces desperate men.
in full: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-thrasybulus-syndrome-israel%E2%80%99s-war-gaza-10968?page=show
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
10 replies, 1526 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Thrasybulus Syndrome: Israel’s War on Gaza ( History/Context ) (Original Post)
Jefferson23
Aug 2014
OP
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)1. This is a good analysis.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-thrasybulus-syndrome-israel%E2%80%99s-war-gaza-10968?page=show
The counterproductive and useless character of Israels uses of force has always seemed to me the best argument against them, the one most likely to gain some kind of purchase in officialdom. But the sad state of affairs is that the Israelis think they are succeeding. They also believe they are using force in a limited and proportionate way, and no exhibition of telegenically dead Palestinians will convince them otherwise.
Even more important, by way of criticism of Israeli strategy, is the point made by Guicciardini. The idea that Israelis might improve their relationship with the Palestinians by treating them with humanity, kindness and rewards seems alien and even risible to Israeli opinion. The Palestinians, the Israelis think, hate them and will hate them for eternity. It is worse than useless to take an interest in their well-being, because doing so has the fatal liability of demonstrating weakness. Much as this viewpoint must be regarded as a profound mistake, it is written all over the conduct of Israel toward Gaza since the withdrawal of soldiers and settlers in 2005. Ensconced in the worlds largest open-air prison, encircled by a stringent blockade, the inmates too often behaved like those locked up in solitary confinement, a dementia attributable in large part to their loss of dignity. Israels belief that it can solve the Palestinian problem by ever-larger doses of the old medicine appears delusionalbut there it is.
There are three expert timelines of the Israeli assault on Gaza published by John Judis, Larry Derfner, and Scott McConnell. They make clear that the first rockets fired by Hamas, after having observed a cease-fire since November 2012, came after a wide range of Israeli provocations. Israel had to deal with intermittent rocket fire from Gaza splinter groups, especially Islamic Jihad, throughout the previous eighteen months, but Hamas kept its fire. In March 2014, Netanyahu acknowledged that the number of rocket attacks from Gaza in the previous year was the lowest in a decade. The shock of the three Jewish teenagers kidnapped on June 12 led to widespread official calls for collective punishment, 1500 building searches, and some 500 arrests in the West Bank in the following two weeks, even though the government had every reason to believe that the teenagers were dead and that a group antagonistic to Hamas was behind the kidnappings. The clear purpose was to disrupt the accession of Hamas to the Palestinian national consensus government in early June. Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge.
The previous experience with the cease-fire should have shown that it was possible to maintain a relationship of deterrence with Hamas, and not really possible to eliminate, save at a horrific cost, its capacity to lob inaccurate rockets into Israelrockets that, in the aggregate, could kill no more people than a few traffic accidents. Though Hamas was in all likelihood not responsible for the kidnappings, its leader did publicly laud them, an incendiary and reprehensible comment. Israel was looking for an excuse; Hamas provided it. But Israel was wrong to attempt the disruption of the unity government, the terms of which required Hamas to subordinate itself to the far more conciliatory platform of the Palestinian Authority. It was deeply cynical for Netanyahu to use the kidnapping and death of the three teenagers as a cover for that purpose. In no way can the formation of the unity government be seen as a threat that would justify the war that Israel has fought.
Thanks for the thread, Jefferson.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)2. You're always very welcome, Uncle Joe. n/t
oberliner
(58,724 posts)7. When Larry Derfner is cited an "expert" there is a problem
That being said, there are some reasonable points made in this piece.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)3. The Israeli apologists never talk of Netanyahu's treachery. Why is that?
Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)4. The general tactic is this...
"iI in no way shape or form support Bibi Netanyahu, Likud, or the rest of israel's right wing! ...But they haven't done anything i disapprove of."
it's the pro-Israel version of a Rush Limbaugh caller going "I used to consider myself a liberal BUT..."
countryjake
(8,554 posts)5. Kicking
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)6. Thanks for the kick..the OP is worth another one, I feel. n/t
countryjake
(8,554 posts)10. I thought so
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)8. kick n/t
malaise
(269,023 posts)9. Good read
but Israel would be wise to remember that the Germans also thought they were 'mowing the lawn'. No power remains powerful for ever.