Zionist Historian: Comparing Israeli Leaders to Genghis Khan is an Insult to Mongols
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, Amidst rising global condemnation of Israeli atrocities, a Zionist author and historian has penned an article published in the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz, asserting that comparing the current leaders of the Zionist regime to Genghis Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire, is an insult to the Mongols themselves.
Rooven Amitai, the Zionist writer and historian, emphasized a key difference between contemporary Israeli leadership and the Mongols: the Mongol Empire, despite its savagery, harbored distinct strategic goals and long-term plans. He posited that power and brutality alone do not guarantee security, and that wars necessitate clear objectives and political conclusions.
Amitai, a specialist in Mongol history in the Middle East, referenced remarks by retired Zionist officer Assaf Orion, who had likened the regime’s policy towards border regions to Genghis Khan’s logic. Amitai stated that this comparison is more an insult to the Mongols than to Israeli leaders, as Genghis Khan and his successors, despite extensive massacres and destruction, followed clearer and more organized strategic logic in their wars.
The article further noted that the Mongols deliberately employed terror and destruction to intimidate their enemies into submission. Their campaigns in Central Asia and the Middle East during the 13th century included the establishment of buffer zones.
The Zionist author acknowledged certain similarities between this policy of Mongol-era barbarism and the security policies and zones implemented by the Zionist regime in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. However, he qualified that these parallels are limited due to differences in context and scale.
Amitai elaborated that the fundamental divergence lies in the nature of strategic thinking. Genghis Khan and his successors, while practicing cruelty and violence, set long-term objectives and strived to secure the necessary means to achieve them. The article highlighted that Mongol leaders also incorporated logistical considerations into their military planning, particularly given their heavy reliance on cavalry, which required vast amounts of pasture, water, and horses during prolonged campaigns.
In contrast, the article asserts that the Zionist regime’s policies in recent years have been characterized by ambiguous or unattainable objectives, coupled with political and military rhetoric speaking of “absolute victory” without a realistic definition of how to achieve it or the resources required.
The Zionist historian pointed out that prolonged warfare without clear political objectives may only serve the government politically by maintaining a state of emergency and limiting the space for debate and protest. He stressed that even the establishment of long-term strategic goals, accompanied by violence and displacement of peoples, did not grant the Mongols long-term military superiority. After nearly six decades of conflict, the Mongols in Iran and surrounding regions eventually moved towards ending their confrontation with the Mamluks, ultimately reaching a peace treaty in 1323 AD.
The author contends that this historical conclusion carries significant implications: even an expansionist military empire, like the Mongol Empire, eventually recognized the limitations of military power and the necessity of a political settlement with its adversary. The article concludes by noting that the history of the conflict between the Mongols and the Mamluks is not merely a narrative of ancient warfare; rather, it offers a contemporary lesson on the relationship between military power and political objectives. In essence, destruction and barbarity alone do not guarantee security or lasting supremacy, while clear objectives, long-term planning capacity, and a willingness to negotiate can be critical factors in concluding conflicts.
From this perspective, the Zionist historian emphasized that comparing current Israeli leaders to Genghis Khan is unfair even to the Mongol Empire, which, despite its bloody history, possessed a clear strategic vision and ultimately sought peace with its enemies.
