Further evidence of Israel’s crisis of Iegitimacy can be read in a Realist/Israel-chauvinist piece at Foreign Affairs arguing that Israel is in danger of losing its aura of military invincibility; and when that happens no Arab country will have any realistic incentive to accept its existence. So it had better find another modus-vivendi than threat and invasion, and soon. Writes Ariel Ilan Roth:
The development of nuclear weapons by Egypt or Saudi Arabia would pose a grave danger to the Jewish state, despite the fact that Egypt has signed a peace treaty with Israel. This is because leaders who have reconciled themselves to Israel’s existence — including those of Egypt, Jordan, and certain segments of the Palestinian national movement — have done so because they believed Israel was strong but unlikely to endure in the long term. (Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, for example, justified his pursuit of a peace process with Israel by comparing the Israelis to crusaders: strong today, gone tomorrow.) More broadly, as the Palestinian-American political scientist Hilal Khashan’s work on Arab attitudes toward peace has shown, the willingness of Arabs to make peace with Israel is a direct function of their perception of Israel’s invincibility. Just as an Iranian nuclear capability would imply a nuclear guarantee for anti-Zionist proxies, an Egyptian or Saudi nuclear capability would reduce incentives for other Arab states to make peace with Israel because, shielded under an Arab nuclear umbrella, they would no longer fear catastrophic defeat or further loss of territory.
Such developments would shatter the perception of Israeli invincibility on which successive Israeli governments have pinned their hopes for eventual peace in the region. As a result, Israel’s security would be dependent on maintaining a state of perpetual armed readiness and hair-trigger alert that could counter immediate threats but only in an inconclusive manner, as displayed recently in Lebanon and Gaza…
The possibility that Israel may no longer be capable of forcing peace upon those who deny its right to exist is beginning to dawn on many Israelis. Whether Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or not, the time has come for Israel’s defense community to develop a strategic doctrine for long-term coexistence that does not rely on a posture of invincibility. But, given that widespread Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to exist does not appear to be on the horizon, most Israelis, including the current prime minister, insist that Israel’s most urgent strategic objective is to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Doing so would temporarily remove the threat of a regional nuclear cascade and maintain Israel’s superiority of arms. More important, it would hold at bay the suspicion that Israel may never attain true peace. This increasingly widespread fear has a toxic effect on national morale, is an existential threat to the Jewish state, and lies at the root of Israel’s obsession with the Iranian bomb.
A friend writes that Roth’s realist analysis has disturbed neocons, who love permanent war and strategic advantage: Realism is a dirty word to them because, for them, "realists" are all anti-semites. The knucklehead commenters on Roth here actually thought he was an "anti-Israel fanatic." The site, "Just one minute," is a popular conservative blog. The comments are dominated by neocons, who present slanted views to the sheep. I believe at least some of them do so knowingly. Roth is basically a Zionist, and what he says makes excellent sense from within that mentality. I think what he’s trying to do is to speak, not to true believers, but to the outside world of well intentioned but ill informed people who, in a mushy kind of way, are sympathetic to Israel but not keen on nuclear strikes in general–not even against Iran. Roth knows that sooner or later Israel will have to find a way to live in a world in which they no longer control all the variables. He knows that neocon fantasies will not carry the day for much longer.The neocons are enraged by this.
“The possibility that Israel may no longer be capable of forcing peace upon those who deny its right to exist is beginning to dawn on many Israelis.”
The, uh, 90%+ that supported Gaza? I recall watching a video a few months ago here with Averny at an Israeli Peace Protest…showing that there wasn’t much of them left. So where is this radical change in mentality, if anything it seems that the government is (Successfully) polarizing and turning their population further to the right.
Israeli want war as long as they can believe the war will always be on the other guy’s land, with the other guy taking all the casualties, shedding all the blood.
Bring war to Israel, and they will scream for peace.
Can you elaborate?
The author did NOT conclude what your headline implied.
Read the article again.
How was Phil wrong?
The writer did in fact suggest that Israel will be strong today and gone tomorrow if it continues its retarded policy of bombing anything that moves.
I know its tough to find things to criticize around here, but you have stooped to a new level of nagging.
“crusadors” “gone tomorrow” “will be”
Words have meaning.
Its what this site is about largely, an inquiry into the meaning of mass media presentations, no?
Mirrors are relevant.
If you consider advocacy for the green line as boundary as reactionary, then you are in “left field”.
First of all, who even said that “advocacy for the green line as boundary” is “reactionary”? What does that have to do with this post or James Bradley’s comment? Who are you debating with, Richard? The anti-Zionists in your head?
And second, since you brought it up, if you actually consider the green line a possible border, at this stage of the ongoing colonization, you’re not in left field, you’re standing in the stadium parking lot, imagining a game that hasn’t been played in sixty years and isn’t on the future schedule, either.
Are you advocating for the removal of the annexation wall, Richard? Are you in favor of granting the future Palestine total sovereignty (including air space and water and the right to a military)?
You can construct anti-Zionist “straw dogs” all day but it won’t change the fact that the two-state solution has never been further from reality. Even Ehud Olmert realized this–when are you going to remove the wool from your eyes?
Or is the dream of anti-assimilation land just too dear to your heart?
Here it is, everybody, Richard’s realistic proposal for resolving the I/P conflict and maintaining anti-assimilation land FOREVAH!
I give you, the green line!
The two-state solution is just around the corner! You just gotta BELIEVE (and ignore the wall and all those magenta blotches).
The article does assert there is no developing long-term strategy for co-existence; only a short-term strategy (tactic?) to delay nuclear proliferation in the region by somehow getting rid of
Iran’s nuclear potential ASAP–kick that can down the road and maintain superiority in conventional military arms.
The USA remains the total enabler here of this unwillingness to face the future. It even nixed the call to Israel to join in international attempts to control nuclear
proliferation by consent.
Keep rearranging those deck chairs on the Titanic, Witty.
Richard, I have no intention of engaging in any kind of a political debate with you again.
But your tone in this comment is alienating and unacceptably rude. Please do not post here if you are going to disagree with another person’s interpretation (from someone we all ostensibly respect) by making patronizing and belligerent demands, like “Read the article again.” That is not respectful, or intelligent, dialogue.
As someone who constantly positions himself as opposing “extremists”, you especially should avoid adopting the tone of an extremist.
A more accurate headline restating the gist of the article would be
“IF Israel fails, terrorists will be encouraged”
Because all Arabs are terrorists? God, you’re worse of a chauvanist than the guy who wrote this article.
How dense do you have to be to think that Phil is somehow obliged to parrot the conclusions of anything he cites? Has Richard Witty ever heard of critical analysis? Obviously he isn’t capable of applying it, but does he it at least understand the concept?
And the Witty version of the headline makes it clear that Richard is, despite his “progressive” pretenses, firmly ensconced in the neocon worldview. Israel as the first line of defense against the Muslim hordes. What a hysterial Islamophobic war-mongerer he is at heart.
He hasn’t figured out yet that the “terrorists” came into existence to oppose Israeli brutality and conquest, as they point out in all their manifestos and videotapes. Get rid of racist, colonial Israel and the terrorists would lose their principal raison d’être.
Witty also doesn’t understand that the anti-Israeli resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t linked to arms industry profiteers. They don’t make money off of war like the Zionist cause does. Even Dan Fleshler understands this, but Witty is simply too dense to walk and chew this gum at the same time. If Zionism is a GOOD, how could the neocon camp of Richard Perle et al. be MAKING THEIR MONEY from arms deals?
“Whether Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or not, the time has come for Israel’s defense community to develop a strategic doctrine for long-term coexistence that does not rely on a posture of invincibility.”
Peace as the basis of security is realistic.
Phil is not served by headlining misrepresentation of the article that he portrays, however “catchy” or provocative, generating hits.
No. Phil’s headline is perceptive; it points directly to the hidden psychology of the denier. Israel is obsessed with Iran’s nuclear potential not because it fears an Iranian nuclear attack, but because mere possession of war nukes would operate to diminish belief
in Israeli invincibility. Israel relies on its perceived enemies’ view of war with Israel
as one where Israel will always suffer relatively little compared to its enemies–that was the whole point of the Gaza turkey shoot–to remind the enemy of lethal disproportionality, the planned psychic takeaway is: “It’s not cost-effective, it’s not worth it.” Exactly what the world is condemning is what Israel pursues as it’s strategy. Any country with military nuclear capability has real creds in the world street.
You didn’t read the same headline that I did. His headline did not relate to your comments really at all.
The article proved the likud thesis that they can’t let up, can’t allow any wholes in their fortress. It is lazy to regard a nuclear deterrent as equivalent to a more comprehensive one, or to regard a wall as protection.
The IDF, and the likudniks don’t hold that view, that a nuclear deterrent is sufficient for protection.
It can be said honestly that Iran’s and Hamas’ aggressions and threats are what keeps likud in power. It can be said honestly that Israel’s agressions and threats are what hold Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant Islamicist/nationalists in power.
It can be honestly said that the far left and far right “dissenting” (demonizing, revolutionary) views are what keeps likud in power, at least partially by dismissing the perspectives of more sober dissent (even say like Walt).
It can’t be said that the US has defused the tension between Israel and Iran.
You must have read some other headline that Phil’s. Otherwise you make no sense at all. This is especially so if you actually read and understood the article itself.
Will you please honestly detail for us the ” Iran’s and Hamas’ aggressions” you refer to?
Walt was a co-writer with Mearsheimer of The Israel Lobby. Would you characterize that as a sober revelation?
What do you suggest the USA do to defuse the tension between Israel and Iran?
Also, do you believe that Iran is a security threat to the USA? If so, why? Do you
believe that Iran views itself as surrounded by USA threats on the ground? If not, why not? And do you believe the history of Iran-USA relationship gives Iranians any good reason to not trust the USA? And if not, why not?
There is no Hamas aggression. How much Israeli land has Hamas occupied lately? Only Likudniks keep repeating such lies, because what keeps them in power is fearmongering, insisting that Israel is threatened and must strike and kill all the Arabs and Muslims before they can attack Israel.
If Israel were a mental patient, it would be in a locked ward, wrapped in a straitjacket.
Witty? The phenomenon you’re refering to, when you look at something and see one thing, and everybody else looks at it and sees another, is called hallucination. It’s a useful tool for artists, perhaps, as long as they don’t completely lose perspective; for the average person, however, it means you should really seek medical attention.
Recent history has shown that Israel view peace negotiations as a posture tool; the settlements have always expanded, and are doing so now. Obviously, Israel does not indicate by its deeds (not pro forma creed) that it has any sense of Peace as a realistic security tool.
There is definitely duplicity on the part of likud, which still seems to support settlement construction vehemently in their heart of hearts.
I don’t believe the same is true for Kadima, Labor, Meretz. For Kadima and Labor, internal politics are more tricky.
There is obviously very very little support for pursuit of the Arab League proposal. Young Israelis (less than 50, if that is young) regard the territories as normally part of Israel, or within Israel’s right and control. That is the sum total of the world that they have known.
They perceive the concept of 67 borders as a CHANGE, a giveaway, not a restoration.
What do you wish us to do with your observation that Young Israelis regard the
territories as normally a part of Israel? Are you suggesting maybe they need new
history textbooks in their education system? If so, I agree with you–who knows, they might even begin to understand their Palestinians peers.
Witty – “There is obviously very very little support for pursuit of the Arab League proposal. Young Israelis (less than 50, if that is young) regard the territories as normally part of Israel, or within Israel’s right and control. That is the sum total of the world that they have known.”
Am I supposed to care that young Israelis have this mindset – and who is responsible for it anyways. The Arab League Proposal is the last best offer. I just can’t understant why Israel doesn’t take it? Can you tell me why?
Because Israelis don’t want 4 to 5 million Arabs “returning” and becoming Dhimmis.
More appropriate would be why did the Palestinians turn down Olmert’s incredibly generous offer?
You’re a goddamn idiot, Julian.
What were the details of the ‘generous’ offer? Was it swiss cheese? Did it guarantee a settlement or at least partial return of the refugees?
I mean it’s convenient to mention this generous offer when the very specific details are left out. It’s literally a superficial talking point. A convenient one to make.
And Israelis would not become Dhimmis you dumb prick.
Ah, Mr Cliche – fresh from his Hasbara 101 class at Little Green Footballs.
Cliff, if you want to see where the Julians of the world come from, just follow the term “dhimmi” through the wilds of Google. “Dhimmiwatch” is a fun hate site.
Be prepared to be disgusted and self-hating with being Caucasian when you get to see how bigots like Julian talk about the “master race” when they’re all in the same virtual room together. I know I was.
Establishing a Jewish state in the region was crazy to begin with. I just wonder what will happen to the Israelis when the fall does come. Are the Western nations obliged to take in Israeli refugees if their enemies decide that turn about is fair play? With all of the trouble that Israel-only traitors have already caused, would it be wise to take in their foreign co-ethnics, give them citizenship along with the vote, and allow them to hold a second holocaust over the rest of us?
It’s already happening; Jews are leaving Israel and going to the USA and Europe. Look at AIPAC to decide if this is a good thing for the receptive host countries.
I know it’s already happening, and I think it could very well mean trouble for the host countries. Allowing Israelis to emigrate is at least an issue that should be debated. But as we all know American’s have no voice in who comes to their country, and everyone who manages to make it here is viewed by our leaders as the future of the nation. It appears that America is not a nation, but a place where any group who can gain power can justify whatever it wishes by virtue of being in power. Israeli immigrants are really going to make this situatuin better.
Israelis are not always welcome by local Jewish communities.
I wonder how the same Jews who would not welcome Israelis into Jewish communities would view non-Jewish Americans refusing to allow Israelis or any other group into the nation, let alone shunning them from their communities?
In the previous post, American’s should be Americans.
Hey, honestly, I think the more Israelis that are outside the borders and away from the controls of F-16s and bulldozers, the better. Their children are going to stop being Israelis and start being children of whatever host nation they are part of, as things progress, and that will be the end of that.
Do you believe that Richard Witty will stop being whatever he is without Israel to support? Is Israel an extension of Jewishness, or is Israel destroying Jewishness? I don’t think the answer is as clear-cut as many would claim.
Witty’s goal is Jewish continuity and long-term survival. The cost of this goal
to non-Jews is not even in his calculations, except to the extent of furthering his goal–the PR angle. All of his comments are understandable from his POV. It’s just that if you think something else might be at least as important, you don’t fit into his program.
I think many non-Zionist Jews feel the same way as Witty, which is why I don’t believe that Zionism/Israel is necessarily the issue. Could it be that there would be issues between Jews and Christians in the West even if Israel and Zionism never existed?
Witty will take whatever position makes him feel like he’s at the top of the herd. If the Israel herd dwindles, he will merely find some other ideology to latch onto and build a pretense of mastery around.
Gee, does he have a cult-bent personality. I agree it would be nice to believe
that I was one of the select few (of whatever stripe).