 |
Aryeh Tepper is a research fellow at the Ernest Schwarcz Center for Judaism, Ethics, and State, at Beit Morasha in Jerusalem.
|
|
|
|
By Aryeh Tepper
July 24, 2006
According to a popular saying, in a democracy political power derives from the people. Political scientists and other critical observers usually counter that the popular saying is really a myth. In fact, various kinds of elites rule the country, and they pay lip service to democratic pieties such as the power of the people when it suits their interests.
Even the most cynical observer, however, must admit that the consent of the governed is essential when waging war. As a rule democratic citizens prefer to pursue comfortable self-preservation rather than risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones on the battlefield. This preference then translates into votes in the next election. In other words, all things being equal, voters will prefer the candidate who promises peace.
Conversely, authoritarian regimes and terror organizations don't take into account the desires of the people they nominally 'represent.' They can weather wars of attrition because they face no internal pressure to pursue peace. For example, approximately one million Iranians lost their lives in the Iran-Iraq war.
Thanks to the critical role that democratic citizens play in waging war, wartime democratic leaders invest tremendous efforts in securing popular support for their policies. In a country like Israel, where military service is nearly universal and the army relies heavily upon the reserves, the need to secure popular support is thus doubly crucial.
But what kind of political rhetoric can democratic wartime leadership use in order to prepare citizens for war? To the degree that liberal democracies increasingly foster the modern values of rights and personal fulfillment in place of the classical values of duties and the common good, the rhetoric of war will become less and less intelligible to the average citizen.
In order to strengthen the resolve of the Israeli public, signs with the Israeli flag and no less than God's words of encouragement to Joshua, hazak ve'ematz, be strong and of good courage (Joshua; 1: 6, 7, 9, 18), have begun to appear throughout the land. But this appeal to traditional virtue is rare. Most of the time various generals and ministers are estimating for the daily papers how much damage the Israeli army has inflicted upon Hizbullah, optimistically forecasting the end of the fighting, and reminding us that, in the meantime, ha'am hazak, the people is strong. Aristotle called this epideictic rhetoric; the speaker points to and amplifies the good qualities of a certain object: look at the fortitude of this people! Advertisers are masters of this art. Moreover, praise in this case replaces guidance. Instead of telling us to be strong, the ministers and generals tell us that we are strong, and wanting to believe what we are told, we strive to act accordingly.
Of course, one cannot hope to influence behavior by simply replacing guidance with praise. In order to be effective such rhetoric must be somewhat grounded in reality. A people that prefers servitude to the harsh demands of independence -- moral, intellectual and material -- cannot be inspired by the rhetoric of heroism. One strains to imagine a Tibetan Churchill. Thankfully, the history of Israel is blessed with an abundance of stories of personal and communal sacrifice.
And this is the bottom line: in our age of terror the enemy purposefully targets civilians, and wartime rhetoric, if it hopes to speak to the heart of the challenge facing the people, must become a rhetoric of sacrifice. Churchill, when faced with the Nazi bombing of British cities, promised his people blood, sweat, and tears.
So why don't Israel's leaders recall for the people great acts of heroism and resilience and self-sacrifice from the Jewish tradition? The Jewish tradition in this case means the Book of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, among others, not to mention the long history of the eternal Jewish people, Am Ha'Netzach, as well as recent Israeli military history. After all, where are the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, etc.?
One answer is that today's Israeli citizens are more individualistic than citizens of the past, and true to Tocqueville's description of democratic citizens, their lives revolve more and more around one puny object: themselves. Once upon a time the Israeli hero was the halutz, the pioneer. Today, those who sacrifice their own good for the sake of the common good are in danger of being called freiers, suckers. The truth is that, so far from believing that we are strong, our leaders sense that we are weak. Their praise points to their fear: they are afraid of losing our support if the war drags on.
This is unfortunate and unnecessary, because when it really matters the classical notions of duty and sacrifice for the common good still move the masses of Israelis. One need only recall the number of volunteers who were turned away from serving in Homat Magen, Operation Defensive Shield, in 2003.
The Israeli public is conflicted, if not confused. On the one hand the Israeli people are, like most Western peoples, becoming more and more individualistic and self-absorbed, while on the other hand there is a deep reserve of classical virtue lurking beneath the surface of Israeli society. One of the roles of democratic wartime leadership is to continually recall for the people their 'true nature,' but our leaders, afraid to demand our sacrifice, are not calling it out.
For great leaders crises are also opportunities, and the present crisis presents a great opportunity for Israeli leaders to clarify for the nation of Israel who we are. Why are so many citizens performing so many acts of bravery and self-sacrifice each and every day? In order to take advantage of the opportunity and assume this responsibility, however, such leaders must be willing to transcend the horizon of present-day liberal politics. One worries that our leaders are either too limited or too afraid to make the jump, and one fears for our future if the fighting in South Lebanon is the first battle in a war with Iran, that has only just begun.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
