Paul Eidelberg
Some time ago I read a poll that Israel, per capita, reads more newspapers and listens to or watches more radio and TV news than any other country. If true, this may explain why Israeli experts were taken by surprise by the current Egyptian uprising. I dare say they would not have been had their education included serious attention to what Aristotle said about tyranny some 2,400 years ago in his Politics.
First, one must understand that the term "dictatorship," so often applied to Arab-Islamic regimes, is a euphemism for "tyranny." Let’s consult Aristotle, the father of political science, in comparison with whom, what Machiavelli knew about politics could be put on a postage stamp.
For Aristotle, the standard of what is a just form of government—be it of the one, the few, or the many—is whether the ruler or rulers govern in the interest of the common good. Accordingly, tyranny is the most unjust form of government since the tyrant rules in his own interest. Moreover, tyranny goes against the natural inclination of man’s desire for freedom. This raises the question: if tyranny is contrary to human nature, what must tyrants do to retain their rule?
Aristotle offers several measures: (1) liquidate public-spirited and outstanding men; (2) prevent the formation of parties and other associations; (3) have people meet in public or isolate individuals as much as possible; (4) sew distrust and mutual suspicion (this and the preceding require the use of spies and informers); (5) impoverish subjects so they have no time for conspiracies; (6) make subjects believe that the cause of the their suffering or grievances is due to external hostile forces; (7) pursue a policy of war or fear of foreign attack.
Consistent with (7), the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, Anwar Sadat as well as Hosni Mubarak, had Egypt’s state-controlled media vastly augment anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda. This also served to justify their increased public expenditures on military hardware.
Sewing fear of external attack is the tyrant’s choice method of diverting and dampening down domestic discontent, and this accounts for Egypt’s stepped-up demonization of Israel after the March 1979 peace treaty. The trouble is that the Mubarak regime has itself been demonized by various media, including the anything-but-liberal Al-Jazeera and the ultra-liberal New York Times. And then there’s the omni-present Internet. So the Mubarak tyranny—there are worse—has been savaged, as Israel has been savaged, by the naive as well as by cunning.
Notice, however, that Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel is the bête noir of the Muslim Brotherhood now poised to undo the Mubarak regime. Notice too that this gang of necrophiliacs (who love death more than life), has the virtually obtained the unsought support of the "yes-we-can" Obama Administration. It’s so easy for twittering doctrinaire democrats to feel so moral or so self-righteous weighing in against the nasty Mubarak regime. Moralists love simple moral principles or formulas to save them the effort of engaging in political judgment, of considering life-and-death priorities, of weighing immediate versus long-term consequences —and for countries not engaged in the conflict.
It seems that Israel’s political echelon and its Intelligence services need a good dose of Aristotle. But what advice might Aristotle have given Mubarak early on to avoid Egypt’s present crisis?
1. Make your tyranny appear as a Kingship. (Note: Modern political science is based on Machiavelli’s denial of any distinction between tyranny and kingship, which is why the term "common good" does not appear in The Prince.)
2. Appear as the steward of the people by showing concern for public funds.
3. Levy taxes so as to be seen as intended for public services.
4. Appear grave, simple, austere—inspire awe, not fear.
5. Don’t arouse envy or hatred.
6. Show respect for religion.
7. Distribute honors personally, and leave punishment to others.
Under this dispensation, subjects will be treated more justly, and the tyrant’s rule will be more lasting. Indeed, the tyrant himself will improve, even if he does not become really virtuous.
We see here that Aristotle’s advice on how to preserve a tyranny, the worst regime, is actually based on his model for the best regime—kKngship. But inasmuch as Aristotle is a wise man, he knows that given the general run of men and nations, the best regime in theory is not to be expected. Hence he offers a model for the best regime in practice, a Polity or Republic, which, in a variety of ways, combines the principles of democracy and oligarchy—something like America’s original Constitution.
To rational and concerned Americans: Would the learned critics of Obama's abominable betrayal of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak kindly do the following: 1) Place a one-page ad in the NY Times demanding that Mr. Obama resign from his office for reasons already published by his critics, and which constitute a "clear and present danger" to world peace and the security of American citizens stationed or domiciled in any Arab-Islamic country. 2) Invite a group of high-profile personalities, including experts on the Middle East, to a two- or three-day conference in Washington, DC to expose Obama's perilous incompetance. The group should also urge the House of Representatives to inquire into possible grounds for impeaching this post-American president. The group should also form a "Blue Panel" committee to investigate whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. Lest analysis lead to paralysis, action is urgently needed. The Middle East may explode because of the Obama Administration's inane, irresponsible, and treacherous behavior. Indeed, Obama has given Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more time to develop nuclear bombs. Prof. Paul Eidelberg Former officer, United States Air Force President of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute, Jerusalem and Philadelphia ============== Aristotle and Egypt Paul Eidelberg Some time ago I read a poll that Israel, per capita, reads more newspapers and listens to or watches more radio and TV news than any other country. If true, this may explain why Israeli experts were taken by surprise by the current Egyptian uprising. I dare say they would not have been had their education included serious attention to what Aristotle said about tyranny some 2,400 years ago in his Politics. First, one must understand that the term "dictatorship," so often applied to Arab-Islamic regimes, is a euphemism for "tyranny." Let’s consult Aristotle, the father of political science, in comparison with whom, what Machiavelli knew about politics could be put on a postage stamp. For Aristotle, the standard of what is a just form of government—be it of the one, the few, or the many—is whether the ruler or rulers govern in the interest of the common good. Accordingly, tyranny is the most unjust form of government since the tyrant rules in his own interest. Moreover, tyranny goes against the natural inclination of man’s desire for freedom. This raises the question: if tyranny is contrary to human nature, what must tyrants do to retain their rule? Aristotle offers several measures: (1) liquidate public-spirited and outstanding men; (2) prevent the formation of parties and other associations; (3) have people meet in public or isolate individuals as much as possible; (4) sew distrust and mutual suspicion (this and the preceding require the use of spies and informers); (5) impoverish subjects so they have no time for conspiracies; (6) make subjects believe that the cause of the their suffering or grievances is due to external hostile forces; (7) pursue a policy of war or fear of foreign attack. Consistent with (7), the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, Anwar Sadat as well as Hosni Mubarak, had Egypt’s state-controlled media vastly augment anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda. This also served to justify their increased public expenditures on military hardware. Sewing fear of external attack is the tyrant’s choice method of diverting and dampening down domestic discontent, and this accounts for Egypt’s stepped-up demonization of Israel after the March 1979 peace treaty. The trouble is that the Mubarak regime has itself been demonized by various media, including the anything-but-liberal Al-Jazeera and the ultra-liberal New York Times. And then there’s the omni-present Internet. So the Mubarak tyranny—there are worse—has been savaged, as Israel has been savaged, by the naive as well as by cunning. Notice, however, that Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel is the bête noir of the Muslim Brotherhood now poised to undo the Mubarak regime. Notice too that this gang of necrophiliacs (who love death more than life), has the virtually obtained the unsought support of the "yes-we-can" Obama Administration. It’s so easy for twittering doctrinaire democrats to feel so moral or so self-righteous weighing in against the nasty Mubarak regime. Moralists love simple moral principles or formulas to save them the effort of engaging in political judgment, of considering life-and-death priorities, of weighing immediate versus long-term consequences —and for countries not engaged in the conflict. It seems that Israel’s political echelon and its Intelligence services need a good dose of Aristotle. But what advice might Aristotle have given Mubarak early on to avoid Egypt’s present crisis? 1. Make your tyranny appear as a Kingship. (Note: Modern political science is based on Machiavelli’s denial of any distinction between tyranny and kingship, which is why the term "common good" does not appear in The Prince.) 2. Appear as the steward of the people by showing concern for public funds. 3. Levy taxes so as to be seen as intended for public services. 4. Appear grave, simple, austere—inspire awe, not fear. 5. Don’t arouse envy or hatred. 6. Show respect for religion. 7. Distribute honors personally, and leave punishment to others. Under this dispensation, subjects will be treated more justly, and the tyrant’s rule will be more lasting. Indeed, the tyrant himself will improve, even if he does not become really virtuous. We see here that Aristotle’s advice on how to preserve a tyranny, the worst regime, is actually based on his model for the best regime—kKngship. But inasmuch as Aristotle is a wise man, he knows that given the general run of men and nations, the best regime in theory is not to be expected. Hence he offers a model for the best regime in practice, a Polity or Republic, which, in a variety of ways, combines the principles of democracy and oligarchy—something like America’s original Constitution. |
Machiavelli and Metternich in the Middle East
Paul Eidelberg
Obama’s "yes-we-can" mantra of 2008 has morphed into a "no-we-can’t" foreign policy in 2011. But if America can’t, what are we to expect from minuscule Israel, who's prime minister has yet to achieve much acclaim for courage. All he seems capable of doing is playing the "stability card," which of course requires him to support Mubarak in the enfolding Egyptian crisis.
This attitude is typical in a country whose erstwhile head of Israel military intelligence, the late Hebrew University Professor Director of Israel Military Intelligence, who taught politicians and military officers alike the erroneous doctrine that small states cannot take the initiative in international affairs. Hence Israel must behave like a banana republic.
Alexis de Tocqueville attributes this timidity to the democratic mind, more precisely, to governments steeped in egalitarianism. Egalitarianism fosters caution in contradistinction to daring and ambition. Churchill said as much in The Gathering Storm":
"It is my purpose … to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been avoided; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the … habits of democratic states … lack elements of persistence and conviction.… We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster."
Leaving aside the character of the Israel’s prime minister, it seems to me that the crisis in Egypt offers Israel a tremendous opportunity. Consider: the greatest threat to Mubarak is the Muslim Brotherhood, the most serpentine and destabilizing actors in the Middle East. The head of this snake, however, is Iran—a mortal threat to Israel and even to the United States given Tehran’s increasing ability to interrupt the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz and thereby collapse, for starters, the American economy.
It seems to me, therefore, that Israel’s prime minister should follow of the advice of Machiavelli in chapter 25 of The Prince, which calls for boldness rather than caution in the present Middle East crisis. Or as Metternich put it: "Any plan conceived in moderate terms must fail when the circumstances are set in the extreme. Hence, in any situation where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best."
In minimal terms, Metternich would say, and Machiavelli would surely agree, "Better to err on the side of boldness than of moderation when confronted by life-and-death situations." What Israel must then do is cut off the head of the snake by destroying Iran’s nuclear development program and fulfill the ardent desire of its "we-love-death" leadership. A successful strike will not only save Mubarak and Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood. It will be a giant step toward eliminating Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and it would also terminate the Iranian-Syrian axis.
Last but not least, it will put an end to the Barak Obama administration and bond America to Israel to such an extent that Washington could hardly resist moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Posts
