“I don’t think educated Indonesians speak any language
which can be used to express and develop their thinking.”
V.S. Naipaul, Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples (Random House, 1988).
“Am lo levadad yishkon” – A nation shall not dwell alone.
In his article titled “There is a Need for a Strategic Change,” which appeared in the Ha’aretz newspaper of September 1, 2006, well known military correspondent Zeev Schiff is completely wrong in his approach to the issue of needed change in Israel”s military, and confuses the untrained and even the sophisticated reader. At first look, the article appears to be an eye-opener, a deep and reasonable analysis of the current political military situation. But, in reality, it is faulty in the presentation of facts, and obviously one might then guess that Schiff’s conclusions are wrong and misleading. So the Israeli public is again deceived and confused as Ha’aretz’s experienced correspondent brings us what has become a familiar story.
The nation of Iran and its President converse in private and speak in public from morning till nightfall of their desire to see the Israeli nation destroyed. The immediate conclusion is that we definitely have an enemy, who is ready to destroy the Israelis. If it is only possible, I would like to state that Iran does not threaten the Israeli nation, with or without nuclear weapons.
The issue is very simple: any nation would have to be politically and otherwise totally crazy to use nuclear weapons. Even if one possesses nuclear weapons, they cannot be used, because of obvious consequences, including nuclear radiation and world opinion. Nuclear weapons cannot be used, even as a deterrent. This is the unspoken agreement among nations, and it held well in the years of the Cold War. Iran, despite all its grandiose dreams and out-of-control statements, will not use nuclear weapons for the simple reason that the world-at-large will respond, and how the world will respond I do not know at this moment.
In the 2006 war between Israel and the Hezbolla in Lebanon, this terrorist organization used weapons supplied to it by the Iranians, via the Syrians. The conclusion, therefore, is, if Iran provides rockets to Hezbolla, then Iran is actually fighting Israel via proxy. This issue needs clarification. The use of Iran’s rockets by the Hezbolla does not make Iran an enemy of Israel, just as US weapons to Pakistan does not make the US an enemy of India.
Of course, there are threats against the Israeli nation by a number of nations and people, and Israelis have to respond to them. Unfortunately, the Israeli nation, ever since its inception as a nation-state of the Israelis, has lacked the know-how to play politics. In business I would guess that Israelis have proved themselves capable. But politics is a different story altogether. For the past two-thousand years, Jews, living among many nations, were not generally involved in their region’s politics, never mind world politics. It has become increasingly clear that the politics of the Israeli nation from 1948 to 2006 have failed inside the country (cf., no constitution) and outside Israel (cf. failure to establish relations with other nations), so failures are abundant, and many more will inevitably occur in the future.
The 2006 war in Lebanon is another example of the total failure of internal and external Israeli politics. The instability and divisions among the various Israeli political parties, and the choice and election of inappropriate people to positions of power, have led to this total failure surrounding the decision to go to war. The Israeli army, in its great excitement, based its strategy on a fantasy of ideas, focusing on an air war rather than on a combined effort of military branches, while soldiers were not equipped properly to fight, and civilians had no idea that they would have to flee from the north to the south from their homes in the north. In short, the army has been fighting a “don-quixotic” war with strategy drawn by inexperienced military and political leadership.
Here is a suggestion I proposed during the war. Since Israelis have been threatened by the Iranians, and Israel just completed a war in Lebanon, why should not the Israelis ask their leader, the Israeli prime minister, to appear at a press conference, in front of the foreign press, or even at the UN in New York, to say a few words regarding these threats? This is what I might suggest:
Since northern Israel has been attacked and therefore more than a
million people cannot work and function – because of the Katusha rockets
raining on us by the Hezbolla, who received them from the Iranians and
Syrians, we the Israelis are hereby declaring, to all the UN nations, that if the
Katusha rockets do not stop falling in Israel, we will give twelve-hours notice
to stop them, before Israel begins a nuclear attack against Tehran and Damascus
using whatever weapons we have available.
Every person whom I have suggested this tactic to has said to me, “Eliyho, you are completely crazy!” People have responded by saying that it is impossible to use nuclear bombs, not as a deterrent and not as a practical weapon, neither by Israel and nor by Iran. Then, my question is, why has Israel spent billions of dollars on creating bombs which can not or will not be used? It is clear that the Iranian threat to Israel is a fantasy, and therefore there is no need, as indicated by Shiff, to change strategy. Israelis do not have to change their thinking against the Iranians, because the Iranian threat is a fiasco (dud).
There is a tiny little issue, an issue which is not really clear. The prime minister of Israel did not speak to the US president for more than a month during the war in Lebanon. I wonder why. What happened here? Is it possible that Israel hesitated to enter into battle because it had plans for a nuclear attack on Iran? Is it possible that Israel had other plans for the Iranians? Is it possible that the US did not want to be told of any alternative Israeli strategy and thus created this schism. One would be hard-pressed to explain how such a break in communication between the US and Israel could occur at such a critical time.
On the other hand, the conflict with the Palestinians does call for a new strategy. The new strategy needs to be bound by politics, by today’s political reality, and not by Zionist religious messianic ideological or other dreamlike visions. There is a great difficulty for the Israelis to understand that they won the battle in 1967, but lost the war. As a result of the 1967 war, the Israeli body politic has become unrealistic, dreamlike, religious visionary and disconnected with any reality.
The 1967 war has given rise to all sorts of religious theories that have no basis in the politics of nations, by this I mean free and independent nations. The visions of “settling” the “West Bank” and of Jews returning to ancient Jewish territories are only visions, and will not produce a basis for peace and, in light of past history, will not bring, by the way, the “Mashiach.”
The fact that various Israeli governments since 1967 and still today have not understood real politics, proves once more that this historical axiom in Jewish and Israeli past to future continues as an unwaering straight line. The lack of political experience built-up over 2000 years of history does not serve in 2006, and did not help in 1948, or in 1967.
The new Israeli strategy should be a fresh political approach: to enter into a direct dialogue with the Palestinian leadership. It is time for the government of Israel to endorse the need for the Palestinians to have a territory, a viable territory, and to help them to declare sovereignty and become a state. I hope it is clear to all sides that are involved here and especially to the radical Palestinians that we would not be talking here about the destruction of the Israeli nation. The Israelis under no circumstances have ever expressed any intention or attempted to destroy the Palestinian nation. I hope that the incendiary statements made possibly by some Palestinian factions calling for the destruction of the Israeli political entity are not serious, and have been expressed only in the heat of the moment. If the Palestinians wish to conduct themselves in an irrational political fashion, the Israelis will be able to contribute their own fanaticism to this fiasco.
There is a need to develop proper diplomacy rather than Israeli political stuttering, that was once dipped in ambiguous ideology, which has no use in serious conversations with the Palestinian leadership.
There is a need, first of all, to create an atmosphere of reconciliation, a sulcha, between the Israeli and Palestinian nations. There is a need to develop cooperation between the nations, cooperation that will bring a closer political strategic understanding between potential geopolitical friends in a new Middle East. A strategic cooperation will be the best insurance for a living together.
The Israelis must no longer act as though they are Am Levadad Yishkon, a nation dwelling alone, but rather as Am Lo Levadad Yishkon, a nation living as part of a world community. This drastic change in Israeli ideology could bring with it an important change to the region. Until today Israelis have not understood that the lack of a strategy of cooperation has actually hurt them. Israelis must seek a new approach, a less ideological religious approach which only leads us into more and more conflicts. The rebirth of the new Israeli nation after 2000 years without any experience in world and local politics has caused all sorts of irregularities, and this we must correct.
The failure of many Israelis to understand that an Israeli constitution for the Israeli nation is a necessity, coupled with the fact that Israel does not have a constitution, lead to internal and external weaknesses: this fact cannot be overlooked. The endless wars are largely caused by Israel political imbalance. Smart politics, resulting from a written constitution, is the solution. A constitution cannot be written by an Israeli Knesset, as proposed by some, or by any dubious academic scholars who may mean well but are limited by their academic approach. A constitution should be written by at least 36 people or more, coming from from diverse backgrounds, assigned to the task. The group would be sequestered for a period of one year, after which the nation would vote upon whether or not to accept their proposed constitution. A constitution is the only way to initiate stability in the chaotic Israeli political system.
The creation of a Middle East common market as a primary factor leading to cooperation between Palestine and Israel is not an illusive dream, but can be a reality, [unless there are (we are led by) those who believe/maintain that wars are forever or have an unhistoric approach to events]. If we Israelis wish to continue as a nation, we will have to adapt to today’s political reality. The Israelis will have to become Am Lo Levadad Ishkon.
