The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest....The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000....The third case is that of the Taliban [after 9/11].Lord knows that these were all stupid and ultimately destructive positions, as is Hamas's continued shelling of Israeli towns (the subject of Rubinstein's column). But unprecedented in the annals of history? Isn't it just the opposite? I'd say that every culture in the history of mankind has examples of both individuals and countries that would rather fight to the death than surrender. Sometimes this is admirable, sometimes it's stupid, but it's not uncommon. So why try to pretend that this is some kind of mysterious attribute unique to Muslim culture?
....In all three cases, the conclusion is plain: prolonged war, death, destruction and national suicide are preferable to peaceful solutions of conflicts....These cases, while unprecedented in the annals of history, should not be that surprising. If you glorify individual suicide, if death is the key to a happy afterlife, if war itself is sanctified, why not extend these ideas from the individual to the collective?
Answer: because Rubinstein wants to convince us that "Israel, as well as the West, should be prepared for a long, irrational and costly war, unlike any other fought in the past." Since this requires a uniquely irrational enemy, one must be created. And one has.