Column for January 3, 2006
Morris J. Amitay
Who Said All Jews Are Smart?
There have been some recent glaring examples which prove that some Jews may not really be that smart when it comes to acknowledging their own self interest.
Writing in Ha’aretz, (the Israeli equivalent of the New York Times when it comes to undermining national security), an Israeli academic suggested that the solution to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is for Israel “to initiate nuclear disarmament”. By undertaking this “diplomatic initiative”, according to the learned professor, “Israel could bring real international pressure to bear” on Iran. This reminds one of the black sheriff in Mel Brooks’ classic “Blazing Saddles” holding a gun to his own head and threatening to shoot himself if the hostile racist crowd did not disperse. Only in the movies, would a threat of suicide convince the sheriff’s enemies to let him escape. In the real world, Iranian threats to annihilate Israel must be taken seriously.
Whether is was Saddam Hussein in 1991 admitting that
he did not put chemical warheads on the SCUDs that hit Tel-Aviv fearing Israeli
nuclear retaliation, or Egyptian plans not to advance too deeply into the Sinai
in 1973, for the same reason, Israel’s Arab foes have taken Israel’s nuclear
arsenal into their calculations. But in December 2001 former Iranian President Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani publicly proclaimed that a single Iranian nuke could
completely devastate Israel, but Iran, with its 70 million people, could sustain
an Israeli nuclear retaliatory strike. More recently we have heard Iran’s
current President calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. These unequivocal
statements of intent were made while Iran is going full speed ahead with its
covert efforts to develop nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. While
there is considerable ferment in Iranian society which could eventually lead to
regime change – it is a safe bet Iran’s mullahs will have their nukes long
before this happens. Given these circumstances, for Israel to set a good example
by relinquishing its nuclear deterrent gives new meaning to stupidity. What
we could hope for over time, in the best of circumstances, is that norms of
civil society, genuine democracy, religious reforms and modernity slowly seep
into most of the Arab and Muslim world, therby lessing the threat to Israel and
the region. But until then, it is better for stability in the region that
Israel’s foes acknowledge the terrible destructive power of provoking an
Israel nuclear response.
Other
voices, equally disingenuous, have counseled that Israel can learn to live with
a nuclear-armed Iran, with the same kind of balance of terror that prevailed
during the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Wrong! The calculations of
religious fanatics are simply not the same as those were of cold-blooded
commissars. Israel, by necessity, is reportedly developing a “second strike”
capability utilizing its small number of Dolphin submarines armed with
nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. However, given Israel’s small size and
concentrated population, upon completion of its retaliatory mission, these
undersea craft would have very little to return to following any successful
nuclear detonation in Israel. Also, there is the possibility of the acquisition
of a nuclear device by an amorphous terrorist group which might claim
responsibility for the attack on Israel, thereby raising the dilemma of whether
Israel obliterates a dozen Iranian cities in response.
It
is precisely because of these uncertainties that any abandonment at this time
– and for the foreseeable future given attitudes in too much of the Muslim
world – of Israel’s nuclear deterrent would be unmitigated folly. There
might indeed be a day when the offspring of Ahmadinejad, Zarquawi, Bin Laden and
Assad sit around the campfire with future Israeli leaders and sing Kumbaya
– but then again – we should all live so long. The inevitable conclusion is
that Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons – by whatever
means.
Closer
to home, there is also reason to question the wisdom of some of our
co-religionists. The American Jewish Committee’s recent poll results showed
that 70% of Jewish Americans disapporving of the war in Iraq, with some 60%
unhappy with the way the Government is handling the campaign against terrorism
– the assumption being that this 60% doesn’t think we should be tougher! At
the same time, however, 79% in the poll stated that “caring about Israel”
was a very important part of their Jewish identity. Something must be missing
here. Isn’t it the goal of the Islamofacist terrorists to end Israel’s (and
America’s) existence? Didn’t the removal of Saddam Hussein from power
eliminate a very real threat to Israel and create the opportunity for greater
democracy to spread in the Middle East? Wouldn’t all this be considered
“good for the Jews”?
This
glaring inconsistency might be attributed by the fact that the largest
percentage of those polled identified themseles as either Reform Jews or “just
Jewish”. This would fit in with the Reform movement’s recent public call for
“a clear exit strategy with specific goals for troop withdrawl” from Iraq.
The Union for Reform Judaism’s titular head, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, seems obsessed
with having to frequently burnish his liberal credentials at Israel’s expense.
The Union’s positions on a variety of issues it deems to be “Jewish”
concerns only reinforce the impression that Yoffie’s particular brand of
Judaism could aptly be described as “the ultra-liberal wing of the Democratic
Party – with holidays”. And following suit, the head of the Union’s
Washington office has expressed his “great concern” over what he
questionably called “domestic spying”.