Can There Ever Be Peace?

1. A modern state cannot survive without a monopoly (under law) over military, police and judicial powers.

2. If that monopoly is broken, the state is weakened, often irrevocably.

3. Israel has that monopoly within the Green Line.

4. But Israel in effect does not have that power in the West Bank, where fear of settler rebellions and violence dictate Israel's actions as much, if not more so, than Palestinian terrorism.

5. There are therefore two "states," so-to-speak, the first a Western democracy, the second a primarily religious state governed by extremism.

6. If a peace deal is ever reached that calls for evacuation of significant parts of the West Bank or of eastern Jerusalem, the second "state" will clash with the first.

7. Israel's army, conditioned for years to overlook settler misbehavior, will be ill-prepared to deal with this clash, which will be exponentially larger and more violent than anything we've seen so far with the Gaza evacuations.

8. In other words, any Israeli government will have to weigh seriously the risk of civil war. This risk will thwart genuine peace deals and will eventually – when a deal too good to pass up comes along – lead to internecine violence and the majority will be held hostage, so-to-speak, by the radical minority.

This is the basic thesis put forward by Yehuda Bauer, the noted Israeli historian, in a controversial op-ed in Ha'aretz.

Although he does not say it directly, I suspect what Professor Bauer wants is for Israel to enforce its laws and curtail the activities of extremist settlers now, before it is too late. I also suspect Professor Bauer believes there is a very narrow window of time for doing so.

He closes this way:

…There is no truth to the well-known tradition that the Second Temple was destroyed due to baseless hatred or internecine rivalry. The Temple was destroyed because religious, messianic extremists forced the nation to rebel against a global empire that it had no chance of defeating. [A time may come] in which a radical religious minority thwarts peace because the fanatic political assassins of the Second Temple period have found worthy successors.

Professor Bauer's history is correct. It was religious nationalist zealots – the children of rabbis, in part – who largely caused the Destruction. Is his prediction correct, as well?

Comments

[Eliezer]

"The Temple was destroyed because religious, messianic extremists forced the nation to rebel against a global empire that it had no chance of defeating".

I have to admit I see comments like this and they are mostly made by individuals who know nothing about history. The Roman Empire did not have B-52 bombers, cruise missles or nuclear weapons. In fact after fighting the Parthian empire for hundreds of years they made almost no progress. The ancient world ( Europe, Middle East and Northern Africa ) had a population of approx 40 million people. The City of Rome had a population of 4 million. Israel's population at this time is estimated at approx. 4 million. Therefore Jews represented approx 10% of the ancient world and were equal to Rome. Bar Kochba'a army was equal to and perhaps larger than the Roman army. One could say that the Temple was destroyed because Josephus betrayed his people. He had a critical post, being responsible for the defense of the Galilee. It would appear that the Rabbinical leadership had no desire to fight and this may have been one of the main reasons for the Roman victory both over Bar Kochba and at the time of the destruction of the second temple. A free nation does not seem to be a significant goal for Rabbinacal leadership. If Israel is oppressed by a dictatorship, if the dictator permits individuals to practice Judaism and learn in Yeshiva Rabbinical leaders do not seem to have much desire to support any revolt. Rabbi Akiva was an exception but in the end he too abandoned Bar Kochba.

[Skeptodox]

Eliezer,

Where are your figures from regarding Israel's population? They seem quite farfetched.

[Eliezer]

Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz - The History of the Jewish People. There are other historians that have similar figures. Actually Rabbi Rabinowitz makes the Statement about Bar Kochba that it is totally inexplicable that he lost the war. By any natural evaluation of the situation he should have been victorious.

[steve]

By any natural evaluation of the situation he should have been victorious.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Roman Empire was THE dominant power in the world at the time and their armies had already conquered most of the world. In fighting against the Jews, they drafted men from many of these conquered countries such as Egypt, Greece and Turkey. The fact that the decimated and starved Jewish army was able to withstand the assault was nothing short of an open miracle. The reason the Romans succeeded in the end was because of the treachery of a few Jews. In the Bar Kochba revolt, it is said that his haughtiness and arrogance led to his downfall.

[Eliezer]

Once again people are showing their ignorance of history. Hannibal was one of Rome's most bitter opponents. He raised an army of 100,000 men and Rome sent an army of 200,000 men against him. He was not concerned about this. He crossed the Alps and bypassed the Roman army and in the process it is estimated that he lost 50,000 men in the winter. He crushed every Roman army that went up against him despite the fact that he was fighting on enemy territory without supplies from home. After his greatest victory when his army killed 50,000 Roman soldiers his second in command told him that he should march on Rome. If he had Rome would have been destroyed but he decided not to. Despite this he fought on Roman home territory for 10 years and was not defeated. Bar Kochba was a great general, very well experienced with a well trained army and should have crushed the Roman army. The fact is that several Roman legions were totally destroyed by Bar Kochba. This concept of an invincible Roman army is fiction. As the expression goes it seems that you are saying " please do not confuse me with the facts".

[steve]

Hannibal was 250 years before the destruction. It's like comparing the US army today with the Continental army of George Washington.

Don't want to interupt the historical argument by some folks who need to do research and not quote what their 2nd grade rebbe told them but, question on this post;

1. A modern state cannot survive without a monopoly (under law) over military, police and judicial powers.

2. If that monopoly is broken, the state is weakened, often irrevocably.

3. Israel has that monopoly withing the Green Line.

Where did you ever get the idea that that the state of Israel has a monopoly on police and judicial powers within the green line. Last time I checked Mhea Shearim and Ramat Beit Shemesh were within the green line, and those nuts do whatever they want. (I don't mean to argue the point that a monopoly is needed, just that there is a lot more work to do to get it everywhere.)

[PishPosh]

Bar Kochba was Hadrians worst nightmare. He had to pull his best and brightest, Julius Severus from the Briain Campaign to take charge. The rest of the Roman world was watching carefully to see what would happen. Hadrian knew a loss here would set the rest of the empire into unmanageable turmoil.
This months Biblical Archaeological Magazine actually has articles regarding Hadrian and the Jewish Revolt.

[PishPosh]

Bar Kochba was Hadrians worst nightmare. He had to pull his best and brightest, Julius Severus from the Briain Campaign to take charge. The rest of the Roman world was watching carefully to see what would happen. Hadrian knew a loss here would set the rest of the empire into unmanageable turmoil.
This months Biblical Archaeological Magazine actually has articles regarding Hadrian and the Jewish Revolt.

[aryeh]

The reason for Bar Cokhbas and the The Jewish wars initial sucess was that the romans had crappy generals in the area. Once the romans decided throw
the full force of the Empire into crushing the Revolts and sent their best generals to the area,because a sucessful revolt would lead to other revolts,We had no hope of winning.

[Nachman]

Do any of these arguments have anything to do with my steak dinner tonight?
No?
Then who cares...

[Nachman]

Just kiddin'
It's just interesting that Shmarya posted regarding today's situation in Israel and suddenly the topic shifts to ancient he says she says...

[Rowan Berkeley]

It seems to me that the re-religionisation of Israel is part of a plan to suppress zionism by devouring it and regurgitating it as orthodoxy. Rav Kook was plain enough about this, wasn't he?