I had been out of academics for 21 years when I began the journey that would result in a Masters. I had not been the most dutiful student previously, and although I realize now that my approach to academics, was likely not the most constructive, was to take my lumps, and through the pain learn not to do it that way anymore.
Suffice to say, I enrolled in the Masters program, and the 26 months that followed, I took my lumps. To the point that I almost wish my diploma read MLT (Master of Lump Taking.)
During this course, I gleefully and gladly (was forced) to read and understand Thucydides as part of our education on international relations. I actually did have to read it several times before it came to a point of limited understanding, which came slow. Painfully, excruciatingly, almost torturingly slow- as it was Greek to me. Thucydides is not a light read.
Along with his eventual likeminded co-conspirators who emerged later in history, Machiavelli and Hobbes; Thucydides theorized that international relations was generated by power competition, and that peace was only possible when one was too weak to conquer his neighbor. Politics through strength and doing what one needed to do without thought to the moralistic pretenses. Literally where the terms “Machiavellian” or the phrase “ the end justifies the means” originate.
It stands in contrast to the other international relations theories of Wilsonian liberalism and utopianism, which emphasize partnerships based upon mutual interests and cooperation. Realism when contrasted, looks very harsh, and it was unpopular with me when I first read it. It seemed to be vested in greed, paranoid, heavy handed, and immoral. But clearly, realism in international relations has its uses.
Realism isn’t really practiced regularly by the great powers and remains nearly obsolete as a sole theory of international relations among states. One outlier to this, is the State of Israel.
It is useful to Israel, because for a great number of times and occasions it is their only option. Israel is surrounded by her enemies, and strength is a matter of survival. They cannot allow any threat to go unanswered. What follows hopefully provides some insight into the current Gaza situation, based upon the strategic and physical position that the state occupies.
Firstly, the simplest and single answer to why Israel will not accept a cease fire, is because they cannot. They cannot risk any possibility of repetition, as afterwards flash attacks and hostage holding will become a permanent fixture in their enemies’ playbook. It represents a loss of real military advantage to Israel, and their enemies will exploit this, a non-realist bow to moralistic pretenses, if so.
Something similar happened to the US Army during our time during OIF. Mosques were not to be molested, searched, etc. unless fire came from those places, and it did so, often. It reflected on US soldiers poorly when one was subdued afterwards, caused great uproar with the local citizens, but one cannot deny the necessity if US lives were at risk.
The epilogue of this occurrence is that knowing so, the bad guys quit- or at least slowed- using Mosques, as the local leaders finally demanded it, and it was so. If it was not dealt with realistically- the phenomenon would have doubled overnight, and increased exponentially until the only times the US force would take fire, it would have been from a Mosque. The same principle applies to the situation in Gaza.
My second point is that Israel has no choice but to depend on this support or will face culmination of resources if the action goes further than Gaza. The US interests, especially in the realistic theory, cannot be bargained away, those including unrest/ escalation in the region, staging bases, US honoring a near century of commitment, interests that are intwined financially, and a clear and humanitarian US interest to avert the possibility of genocide. Israel cannot stand alone for very long if confronted by multiple international or trans-international threats, and the outcome of resource culmination will be grim indeed.
For our part, I think it is helpful to remember that throughout its history, the countries of the US and Israel are similar, if not identical in their formation. We wished for our freedom, and we fought for it, took it, and we did so not with partnerships or negotiation, but with the rifle and bayonet. They did the same, and because of where they are, and what they are, they cannot afford the luxury of slipping in their steadfastness. Machiavellian realism vs. Wilsonian liberalism.
I do not consider the formation similarities to be the only ones, either. What is a more American notion than the tough little guy that stands up to the neighborhood gangs and bullies? Americans can not only relate, but they have great respect for the little guy that puts the big guy on his behind. The story is familiar to us, David and Goliath, and in this case, it goes from the figurative to the literal.
The third point is that through the exercise of a strong and realistic defense, Israel is now looked at as the favorite in the fight. Because of the sheer toughness of their character, the people of Israel are now looked at as the Goliath in current world opinion. This by itself testifies to the utility of their use of the realistic theory of international relations.
So, are they that big enough and Goliath-like to deserve this reputation? Well, let us consider some statistics that are little likely known, and as much as I despise statistics, these I think are very telling.
- The entirety of the Jewish people worldwide, (not just in state) is about 15.2 million. There are literally more Mormons than Jews in the world, by a slim margin.
- In comparison, worldwide there are 1.8 billion Muslims. It is not to say that the Muslim world is the only enemy of the Jewish people, or the entirety of the Muslim world wishes to be done with Israel.
- One clear enemy of the state of Israel is Iran, with a population of 88 million. Add the other national states whose feelings on Israel are between indifference and hate, couched in these numbers alone, the prospect of genocide is certainly viable. Within the numbers alone, the only remaining solution to avoid extinction is the readiness to fight.
- Domestically, the Jewish people are outnumbered by 59% in the Jewish state of Israel. Popular sovereignty and true democracy (Liberalism) would place them in the hands of government that would place the interests of the Jewish people as a secondary consideration.
Naturally, this would be a matter of consequence, and likely the main reason that modern liberal policy matters of democracy are rejected in Israel. So, it is not entertained, as these interests of the Jewish state must remain Jewish. Otherwise, trusting a government that does not consider their interests in the fore, leads us back down to the path that they have barely survived historically before, more than once.
It is very possible that Israel would like to change this dynamic, and cash in their plucky middleweight military nature, and live in peace and harmony, within the Wilsonian sensibilities. The circumstances, and plainly, the math show- that it is not possible for them to do so and survive. If the US is right minded, we must understand and confront this possible (and plausible) movement towards eventual genocide, and so minded commit with them totally, and stand with them to the best of our abilities with literally anything and everything that they need to survive.
We Westerners, that have been trained by rote, and believe in the Wilsonian (Liberalism) theory are slow to understand this, and the protesters and media attention given to the matter, which is largely negative, testify to this. We are shocked by the loss of life, especially civilians within Gaza, and are quick to offer our opinion without consideration to the outcomes. Well intentioned, maybe- but one must understand the entire situation and the effects to such a policy before we start spewing about this nonsense of “From the River to the Sea”.
It really just isn’t possible. Israel has seen this movie a few times before, and they know how it ends.