"Arabs respect only the language of force"
About this Quote
A line like this isn’t policy so much as a permission slip. “Arabs respect only the language of force” compresses a vast, heterogeneous set of people into a single behavioral rule, then weaponizes that simplification to make coercion feel not just effective, but morally inevitable. The phrasing is doing careful work: “respect” recasts fear and compliance as a kind of earned esteem, while “only” forecloses alternatives in advance. Diplomacy, compromise, even coexistence get pre-dismissed as naive because the other side is presumed incapable of meeting them.
Sharett, a senior Israeli statesman in the state’s early, precarious years, was operating in a landscape of fresh trauma, regional hostility, and recurring violence. In that context, the quote’s intent reads as strategic hardening: an argument aimed at Israeli audiences and decision-makers that security must be demonstrated, not negotiated. It also functions as a critique-by-proxy of doves: if “force” is the sole intelligible medium, then restraint becomes a luxury the nation cannot afford.
The subtext is more corrosive. It treats an entire ethnic-linguistic category as psychologically fixed, turning conflict from a political problem into an anthropological one. That move is rhetorically potent because it replaces messy, contingent history with a tidy axiom. It’s also politically useful: once you claim the other side understands “only” force, escalation becomes self-justifying, and every cycle of retaliation can be read as proof of the premise rather than evidence against it.
Sharett, a senior Israeli statesman in the state’s early, precarious years, was operating in a landscape of fresh trauma, regional hostility, and recurring violence. In that context, the quote’s intent reads as strategic hardening: an argument aimed at Israeli audiences and decision-makers that security must be demonstrated, not negotiated. It also functions as a critique-by-proxy of doves: if “force” is the sole intelligible medium, then restraint becomes a luxury the nation cannot afford.
The subtext is more corrosive. It treats an entire ethnic-linguistic category as psychologically fixed, turning conflict from a political problem into an anthropological one. That move is rhetorically potent because it replaces messy, contingent history with a tidy axiom. It’s also politically useful: once you claim the other side understands “only” force, escalation becomes self-justifying, and every cycle of retaliation can be read as proof of the premise rather than evidence against it.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Moshe
Add to List

