Israel ON the Brink

By Dr. Meir Stieglitz

01/10/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Galvanized by the mounting Iranian nuclear crisis, the "survival" word and its synonymies is the talk of Israel, rising in volume from day to day and spilling to almost all sectors of Israeli life. The prevailing dark mood is epitomized by Prime Minister Olmert rush to publicly stress, for all the world to hear, that for the first time in his life he feels that there is an existential threat against the State of Israel. On this background, an analysis of the Israeli open discourse indicates that the national security paranoia is dangerously nearing "a point of no cure".

Did Israel really cross the line between legitimate strategic security concerns and existential obsession? Yes, and perilously so. How did it get there? Well, in the last two decades, sowing WMD security alarms was a rather expedient move for the Israeli politicians and media and recently it has reached an exceptional intensity. It is imperative to remember that Israel is a country with long-range strategic capabilities and as such an injection of non-rational survival fears can turn it, in a short time, into a source of global hazard.

Consider these characteristic manifestations of the Israeli frame of mind: on May last year Israel's society was swept by a wave of righteous anger. The eruption was brought about by a fabricated reporting in the Canadian newspaper the "National Post" (5/19/06) about a plot to force Iranian Jews to wear yellow badges on their cloths. In what amounted to Holocaust-leeching propaganda, cries of "Never Again" and demands for a swift Israeli response rose all over the Media. Among others, Avi Dichter, the Internal Security minister and a rising "security oriented" politician, issued a speedy public threat that those who force Jews to carry a yellow mark will be put in "caskets covered with black cloth"(5/19). In his former capacity as head of Israel Internal Security Service, Dichter used the same cool and reasoned deliberation to decide which Palestinian is worthy of "targeted prevention", namely, loosely-targeted killing.

Still, measured In Israeli standards, Dichter is thinking small. Take for example Prof. Arie Eldad, a member of the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) and a media commentator. Eldad was among the most vocal and fear-mongering advocates of the invasion of Iraq. But he does not allow himself to be satisfied with his contribution to the liberation of hundreds of thousands Iraqis from the burden of life. He has bigger people to fry. Now a day, he finishes his opinion articles (on unrelated subjects) with the admonition: "And beside, said Old Kato, Iran must be destroyed" ("Maariv", 8/18/06, 8/25/06). "Maariv" editors find it appropriate to allow unyielding promotion of the annihilation (not merely "wiping from the map") of a nation of 70 million people.

Is Eldad's genocidal cant only a marginal aberration? Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel sends to Jewish the world in general and the Israelis in particular a prophetic wake up call. In an interview to "Yedioth Ahronoth" (12/22/06) he proclaims the conflict with Iran as a "Mitzva War" which he hails also as a "just war". I won't go here to the kind of commandments that one is obliged to follow in a Mitzva War, suffice it to say that all of them will most likely be considered as war crime, many of them as a crime against humanity and some of them make even Bin Laden version of Jihad look less genocidal.

In this atmosphere, a mixture of self-righteousness and deep-seated fears – intensified by the bitter experience of the recent Lebanon war -- just imagine what the strategic consequences could be in case of a false alarm about a "Sheehab" missile launched in the direction of Tel Aviv.

The national paranoia is influenced by and reflected in the main Media channels. In the last two years, it has moved from run of the mill tabloid-style fear-mongering to what amounts to WMD jingoism. One glaring example is the publication by Israel's mass-circulation newspaper "Yedioth Ahronoth" (recognized as the most influential media organ in the country) of a news article under the headline: "An Iranian bomb within few months" (12/6/05). Who said so? According to Yedioth, no less an authority than Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of IAEA. He was quoted as asserting that "Iran may finish its nuclear program within few months". Enlarging on the subject, the main editorial article that day stated that ElBaradei's strategic assessment gave a clear answer to those who doubt Israel's warning that Iran poses "a clear and present danger".

I doubt if Elbaradie's statements were twisted that way anywhere outside Israel. When interviewed in the British newspaper "The Independent" (12/5/05) Elbaradie surmised that once the enrichment facility in Natanz is fully operational (I.A.E.A officials estimated than that it will take at least two years to do so) the Iranian could be "a few months away" from nuclear weapon. Considering the fact that Natanz is still under international inspections (however reduced) this is really a "worst of the worst cases" kind of estimation. Commenting on another venue to weapon-grade enrichment, Elbaradie added that only when a country succeed in "acquiring the full cycle" it means that it is "months away from nuclear weapons".

Nevertheless, the "news" of an Iranian bomb larking on Israel's doorstep was repeated that day and the days after all over the Israeli Media by journalists and politicians. No one bothered to question such rather out of the ordinary conclusions. On the contrary, Rafi Eithan, a former high ranking member of the intelligence community, and now a member of Olmert's cabinet, was quoted as claiming that "Iran already have one or two nuclear devices" (quoted in "Maariv" 1/26/06). The shocking spurious strategic prognosis, caused responses that ranged from cries of "burn them all now" on the radio talk shows to an academician justifying massive preemption by using simplistic "game theory" logic.

And the WMD alarmist howl still resonates in the nation's consciousness. The self-styled liberal newspaper "Haaretz" find it appropriate to publish as the main feature in the weekend magazine a series of short interviews answering the question "What would you do if in two months Ahmadinejad drops here a nuclear bomb". The article is accompanied by a full page illustration of a couple on the beach watching a nuclear mushroom [10/27/06]. The various responses, titillated between rather forced mass-destruction humor, practical suggestions and holocaust mental demons. But what really stuck in the mind of the readers is the short (already mute) timetable for doomsday. Before rushing into equating this panic manifesto with masterpieces of the cold war area like the animated film "When the Wind Blows", one should remember that at least until the end of the decade Israel will almost certainly retain its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Nevertheless, spreading the siege mentality about the nuclear barbarians are at the gate is good for circulation and ratings.

To make things worse, the Israeli scientific community basically allows the media, the army and the politicians a free hand in persistently cultivating WMD fears. For more than a decade pictures of the Bushehr reactor, with accompanying alarming headlines, regularly decorated Israeli newspapers front pages and television news programs. All those years, I have not noticed even one Physicist endeavoring to publicly explain how suitable (actually unsuitable) is the Iranian project at Bushehr for producing weapon-grade material. However, the tight Russian control of the fissile material is usually mentioned in the Media only to poke doubts at its effectiveness. And, of course, there is no discussion of the difference between a Dimona-type reactor and the Bushehr-type reactor as bombs breeders. The lack of scientific standards makes it possible for a respected business magazine like "Globes" to publish a magazine article which opens with the statement: "almost everyone agrees on the facts: in one year Iran is going to have its first nuclear bomb" ("Globes", 28/8/03). What kind of a bomb? Well, "a 3 Megaton yield" device which will be "produced continually". Enough said.

The vigor of the nuclear incitement is revealed in the degree in which calls for nuclear use are a legitimate feature of the open nuclear discourse -- especially in times of security distress. On the background of an atrocious slaughter of an Israeli family during the peak of the Second Intifada Nadav Haetzni calls in "Maariv" editorial page "to stop the massacre of the babies at all costs…even if it means dropping an atomic bomb on Shechem [Nablus]" (12/ 12/ 03).

Advocating "nuking" a civilian city of a far weaker enemy who clearly possesses no WMD is a ghastly travesty hardly surpassed. But Haetzni's "tactical suggestion", so he put it, was treated by his editors and readers (demonstrated by the talk-back responses) as a valid proposition. The foreign press, not surprisingly, basically ignores the glut of various kinds of nuclear incitement in Israel. It is if Israel has an undeniable privilege to conjure survival ghosts as a national excuse to endorse extreme policies. Just imagine the international uproar if an Iranian leading journalist will urge the Islamic world to nuke Tel Aviv as a necessary ("tactical") response to the Qana massacre or as a "strategic" response to Shimon Peres's unveiled "reminder" that "Iran too can be destroyed"(Reuters' interview, (5/8/06).

In its academic mode the national fright campaign is disguised as strategic thinking. The gem of this year annual report published by the Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University is a confident assessment that "barring military action, Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is only a matter of time". In their statement (Haaretz, 1/2/07) they also assure the public that "Israel would be capable of carrying out such an attack". This is a poisonous corollary of the even more influential "point of no return" stratagem employed by Meir Dagan, chief of the Mossad. Dagan succeeded in planting in the Israeli consciousness the fabricated idea of a rapidly nearing point (but like the speed of light always constant at "two to three months") from which nothing but extreme military measures can stop Iran from getting the bomb. What possible measures? Well, if on believes the "Sunday Times" (1/7/07) the Israeli air force is preparing and exercising for the option of using tactical nuclear warheads.

If that’s not enough, the "bolt from the blue" deterrence rational has resurrected in Israel's Defense establishment in full rigor and with a bizarre twist – crude conventional missiles supposedly threatening a "first strike" against a country that is assumed to have the fourth largest nuclear force. One of its most enthusiastic promoters is Dr. Y. Steinitz, the former chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Interviewed in "Haaretz" (4/21/06), Dr. Steinitz laments that the "deployment of perhaps thousands of surface-to-surface missiles around Israel" has broken "the strategic pillar of Israel's security". Steinitz belongs to a high-ranking cabal of strategic analysts and military officers who insist that Israel has already lost its widely recognized awesome deterrence capability. The grotesque nature of Steinitz's whimpers (demonstrated now, if ever needed, by the zilch strategic effect of thousands of rockets launched by Hezbollah on Israel) must not divert us from the all-important conclusion: extreme worst-case rationalization is actually the mind-set on which the Israeli strategic build-up and planning are based.

If you find it hard to believe try examining the IDF Chief of Staff, D. Halutz, belief system. In an Independence Day (5/2/ 06) interview to "Haaretz" he admonished Israelis not to get confused (meaning unrealistic) because: "Israel is under permanent threat. This is my world view". And as to Iran: "It is a threat from the family of survival threats". In this seminal Independence Day interview, the general's designed emphasis on a clear and present survival threat turns Israel's true geo-political security predicament into a contrived emergency and thus heighten the risk of an immediate regional escalation.

On a deeper level, the Military Chief sermon exemplifies and promotes the prevailing national skepticism about the possibility of an historical change, ever. No wonder that Israeli politicians and generals describe the current overwhelmingly uneven confrontation against the Hezbollah as a fight for no less than the state's existence and the public exemplify a growing believe that Israel faces "an everlasting conflict, fundamental, and eternal war" ("Yedioth Ahronoth", 7/14/06).

Enters Lieberman. Avigdor Lieberman's appointment to the position of Deputy Prime Minister in Olmert's government constitutes a dangerous step towards the destabilization of the Middle East. Riding the waves of existential fears, Lieberman succeeded in positioning himself as the most vocal Iranian's alarmist. Lieberman rose to power by vociferously advocating a strategy best described as "contrived preemption" against Aswan and Teheran. One should ask himself how would a rational, patriotic, up-coming middle-level decision maker in Iran or Egypt view the assignment of Lieberman as the minister responsible for dealing with "Strategic Threats". Most likely as both a mounting strategic hazard on his country, and as an opportunity to shoot up his own career by calling for long-term effort to contain the Israeli nuclear monopoly.

Iran should not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons. Nuclear Iran will be a crushing blow to the non-proliferation regime and much worst in the context of the Middle East conflict. That said, international inspections are the most important demand from Iran; actually, they should be the only demand. A reasoned strategic analysis would reveal that the chances of Iran producing weapon-grade uranium under strict supervision are even less than the chances that the Bush administration would have endeavored to liberate Iraq if Saddam was five times more evil than he actually was and Iraq's oil reserves five times smaller. There is no evidence of an urgent need to Iran to the corner. Thus, the prudent and moral option is to let Teheran play its prestige (and internal politics) game of nuclear low-grade enrichment, but only under the IAEA regulations (on the lines of the "Additional Protocol" it basically accepted not long ago). That said, if Iran will insist on turning down international monitoring of the whole range of its nuclear activities, than, and only than, Ahmadinejad and his cronies should be treated as manifest harbingers of global evil.

The historically prudent and moral way was for Israel to stay diplomatically low while in covert ways let the U.S. and the rest of the relevant powers understand that it will accept a solution based on tight international inspections. But, Israel's diplomacy concentrates on a persistent call for "more dramatic measures" (Prime Minster Olmert in his last visit to Germany, Haaretz, 9/12/06). As before the Iraq invasion, Israel is pushing for an all-or-nothing endgame by presenting any compromise (involving Iranian nuclear activity) with Teheran as a Munich-like capitulation. We are presented with an alarming picture of a society where the definition of security threat is exceedingly twisted and past Jewish persecutions are summoned to fabricate justifications for breaking the WMD taboos.

Israel is teeming with nuclear incitement. Nuclear incitement breeds nuclear use. In the May 06 issue of the "New York Review of Books", Jeremy Bernstein mentions a conversation with the young Netanyahu who told him that "if the survival of the country was at stake, the Israelis would use it [nuclear capability] and worry about the consequences later". Considering Israel's definition of "at stake" and the fact that everyday Netanyahu and Lieberman are getting closer to the Israeli strategic trigger, the world should worry about it now, right now.

Dr. Meir Stieglitz, has a PhD in International Relations from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Dr. Stieglitz did his Post-Doctoral in Nuclear Studies at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is an independent lecturer and is employed as a consultant to International Investments Groups on global Geo-Political, Strategic and Macro-Economic issues.