"It was in our power to cause the Arab governments to renounce the policy of strength toward Israel by turning it into a demonstration of weakness"
About this Quote
Dayan’s sentence is blunt enough to feel like a slip, but it’s actually a doctrine. “In our power” frames the relationship as asymmetrical from the start: Israel isn’t merely reacting to Arab policy, it can shape it. The key move is the pivot from “policy of strength” to a “demonstration of weakness,” a phrase that treats public posture as the real battlefield. It’s not just about defeating an army; it’s about making the very idea of confronting Israel look self-humiliating to Arab capitals and their publics.
The intent is coercive and psychological. Dayan is describing deterrence not as quiet insurance but as theater with consequences: push opponents into renouncing “strength” because trying it produces visible, repeatable failure. That visibility matters. A government can survive private losses; it struggles when weakness becomes the lesson everyone draws from its choices. Dayan’s syntax makes renunciation sound voluntary, but the logic is forced choice: renounce strength, or have it exposed as performance.
Subtext: he’s speaking from a post-1948, especially post-1967 Israeli strategic confidence where battlefield victories translated into a broader message about inevitability. In that era, Israel’s leadership often saw time as an asset and Arab unity as brittle, vulnerable to embarrassment, factionalism, and blame.
The darker implication is that the target isn’t only armies but political legitimacy. “Demonstration” hints at deliberate escalation calibrated for optics, not just defense. It’s a hard realist line: security achieved by manufacturing futility in the opponent’s imagination, until their only sustainable policy is restraint.
The intent is coercive and psychological. Dayan is describing deterrence not as quiet insurance but as theater with consequences: push opponents into renouncing “strength” because trying it produces visible, repeatable failure. That visibility matters. A government can survive private losses; it struggles when weakness becomes the lesson everyone draws from its choices. Dayan’s syntax makes renunciation sound voluntary, but the logic is forced choice: renounce strength, or have it exposed as performance.
Subtext: he’s speaking from a post-1948, especially post-1967 Israeli strategic confidence where battlefield victories translated into a broader message about inevitability. In that era, Israel’s leadership often saw time as an asset and Arab unity as brittle, vulnerable to embarrassment, factionalism, and blame.
The darker implication is that the target isn’t only armies but political legitimacy. “Demonstration” hints at deliberate escalation calibrated for optics, not just defense. It’s a hard realist line: security achieved by manufacturing futility in the opponent’s imagination, until their only sustainable policy is restraint.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Moshe
Add to List
