A few weeks after the Six-Day War, my father went for a walk with a friend in the Judean Desert. A new region has unfolded before them.
Two Jewish high school students, with acne and a changing voice, board a bus full of Arabs. They get into the bus, and every Arab who stands in their way winces into himself, making way for them.
Those sitting in chairs gather at a distance, lowering their eyes. Two 15-year-old boys in front of a bus full of Arab men, afraid to look directly at them. "It was the atmosphere, they were just afraid we would slaughter them," my father would always explain. This is what the face of an iron wall looks like: threatening, aggressive, irrationally frightening.
Exactly 100 years ago this week, on November 4, 1923, Jabotinsky wrote his seminal essay "On the Iron Wall," in which he argued that the Arabs living on Israeli soil would fight the Jews as long as they had hope of success. He explained that an iron wall, a powerful military force, was needed to destroy their hope of defeating us.
A hundred years later, and even more so after the Simchat Torah massacre, his words still stand: This is the only way to ensure our existence here.
Jabotinsky understood the mental nature of man well, and thus developed this famous doctrine. Man, after all, is a type who strives for expectancy and meaning. When he reaches the point of despair, he stops wasting energy on lost battles and creates expectancy elsewhere. The Arab people, barbaric as there may be groups within it, is not distinguished by this human trait; As long as he has hope of defeating us, it will give him spirit and bring meaning to his murderous actions. If we eradicate this hope, they will be forced to divert their energies to another expectation.
On top of this human understanding, another layer must be added: when you want to change behavior, you have to respond forcefully and consistently. This is a basic rule in psychology, and as simple as it is, it is also true. If we want, for example, to teach a baby not to bite, we will respond in a clear and angry tone every time he does. If we repeat the response consistently over time, it will learn. If we are not consistent, extinction will occur and rogue behavior will return.
Similarly, in order to preserve the Jewish state in the Land of Israel, one must act in the same way: respond forcefully and be consistent. After the six days, the Arabs of this country were afraid to look directly at us. They met Israeli power and feared every high school student who came to their midst.
The Arab people, barbaric as there may be groups within it, is not distinguished by this human trait; As long as he has hope of defeating us, it will give him spirit and bring meaning to his murderous actions
But we weren't consistent, and slowly they raised their heads and carried it in front of us. We didn't persevere, and they stopped being afraid. With all the brazenness added to them, more blood was shed on this soaked earth.
Therefore, "On the Iron Wall" is not only a call for a one-time fire strike after the massacre, but a call beyond – to the distant future, to eternity. This is a call to establish a forceful, powerful and unbreakable military apparatus. One that leaves no room for a shred of hope for our destruction. That leaves no possibility of looking directly at us. Only out of despair among them can a new hope develop among us. Only then will we be able, perhaps, to bring peace to Israel.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us