Logical outcomes?
In the past few days I have heard opposing views on the situation that Israel faces regarding the Palestinians and Iran.
One friend suprising me by arguing that we should do nothing to provoke the anger of Iran, and we certainly should not attack it. He likened Israel attacking Iran to knock out their nuclear capability to the catastrophic uprising of the Jews of Judea against Rome. He thought that if we attacked Iran alone we would become world outcasts and that Iran with its far greater population and Islamic zeal would find a way to strike back at us and destroy us.
Another friend wrote to me that he feels that PM Netanyahu is not standing strongly enough against the Palestinians, that ultimately there are only two choices, either we agree to a Palestinian State that they will militarize and strike at us from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) or we take over those areas that we deem are ours by right and give any Palestinains living there a choice between Israeli or Palestinian citizenship.
This tends to show the range of opinion within Israel on these crucial issues, and belies any belief in a monolithic Israeli viewpoint. Of course, my views on these issues are different again. Trying not to use these friend's opinions as straw men, I would argue that Israel must wait and see what happens with the West and particularly the US approach to serious sanctions against Iran over the nuclear issue. Finally, if after sanctions are applied and Iran does not desist from developing nuclear weapons and no other Western nations are prepared to act, since all of them say that we cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability, then if it comes down to it, in order to avoid possible annihilation, we would be forced to act alone, but only as a last resport!
It was pointed out that Iran already has inter-continental missiles that can deliver conventional explosives. But, my reading indicates that Iran does not have many of these missiles, that they are not so accurate, and that any way, conventional warheads while terrible are not the extreme game-changer that nuclear warheads would constitute.
One factor is that Iran this week is holding war games to show how it can defend against any Israeli airstrike. Some think this means that Israel will not be able to attack Iran, but in fact these Iranian war games give Israel a very detailed insight into Iran's defensive capability, and further the IAF has total air control over the Middle East (excepting the USAF) and this is a main advantage that Israel holds.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the situation is so complex, what with the schism between Hamas/Gaza and Fatah/West Bank, and given that Pres. Abbas is hardly the President of anything, and that Israel may be about to exchange some 450 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Schalit, which will greatly strengthen Hamas in Palestinian eyes, no one can predict what will happen. The future in politics is always unpredictable, but in the Middle East especially so, so deciding what to do on the basis of ultimate logical outcomes seems illusory.
An interesting article in the Jerusalem Post on Monday by Noah Pollak is entitled "Aim for the bull's eye, or at least the center." He maintains that fighting Hamas and Hizbollah is just what Iran and Syria want Israel to do, it wears down Israel's capability and destroys both Israel's PR image and morale, while they sit back and sow the seeds of Israel's destruction. The implication is that Israel would do well not to be provoked into counter-attacking Hamas and Hizbollah, but instead with any such provocations should strike at Iran and Syria directly. This is consistent with my view that to "resolve" the Middle East situation, i.e. the Israel-Palestine dispute, Iran has to be dealt with first. The "Iran first" strategy is the opposite to Pres. Obama 's policy and that of most liberals. Unfortunately, military necessity and expediency may give us little choice. But, in the meantime we must sit back and await the outcome of several processes, the internecine conflict within the Palestinian body politic and the development of international opposition to Iran's nuclear program and any possible internal Iranian upheavals.
One friend suprising me by arguing that we should do nothing to provoke the anger of Iran, and we certainly should not attack it. He likened Israel attacking Iran to knock out their nuclear capability to the catastrophic uprising of the Jews of Judea against Rome. He thought that if we attacked Iran alone we would become world outcasts and that Iran with its far greater population and Islamic zeal would find a way to strike back at us and destroy us.
Another friend wrote to me that he feels that PM Netanyahu is not standing strongly enough against the Palestinians, that ultimately there are only two choices, either we agree to a Palestinian State that they will militarize and strike at us from the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) or we take over those areas that we deem are ours by right and give any Palestinains living there a choice between Israeli or Palestinian citizenship.
This tends to show the range of opinion within Israel on these crucial issues, and belies any belief in a monolithic Israeli viewpoint. Of course, my views on these issues are different again. Trying not to use these friend's opinions as straw men, I would argue that Israel must wait and see what happens with the West and particularly the US approach to serious sanctions against Iran over the nuclear issue. Finally, if after sanctions are applied and Iran does not desist from developing nuclear weapons and no other Western nations are prepared to act, since all of them say that we cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability, then if it comes down to it, in order to avoid possible annihilation, we would be forced to act alone, but only as a last resport!
It was pointed out that Iran already has inter-continental missiles that can deliver conventional explosives. But, my reading indicates that Iran does not have many of these missiles, that they are not so accurate, and that any way, conventional warheads while terrible are not the extreme game-changer that nuclear warheads would constitute.
One factor is that Iran this week is holding war games to show how it can defend against any Israeli airstrike. Some think this means that Israel will not be able to attack Iran, but in fact these Iranian war games give Israel a very detailed insight into Iran's defensive capability, and further the IAF has total air control over the Middle East (excepting the USAF) and this is a main advantage that Israel holds.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the situation is so complex, what with the schism between Hamas/Gaza and Fatah/West Bank, and given that Pres. Abbas is hardly the President of anything, and that Israel may be about to exchange some 450 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Schalit, which will greatly strengthen Hamas in Palestinian eyes, no one can predict what will happen. The future in politics is always unpredictable, but in the Middle East especially so, so deciding what to do on the basis of ultimate logical outcomes seems illusory.
An interesting article in the Jerusalem Post on Monday by Noah Pollak is entitled "Aim for the bull's eye, or at least the center." He maintains that fighting Hamas and Hizbollah is just what Iran and Syria want Israel to do, it wears down Israel's capability and destroys both Israel's PR image and morale, while they sit back and sow the seeds of Israel's destruction. The implication is that Israel would do well not to be provoked into counter-attacking Hamas and Hizbollah, but instead with any such provocations should strike at Iran and Syria directly. This is consistent with my view that to "resolve" the Middle East situation, i.e. the Israel-Palestine dispute, Iran has to be dealt with first. The "Iran first" strategy is the opposite to Pres. Obama 's policy and that of most liberals. Unfortunately, military necessity and expediency may give us little choice. But, in the meantime we must sit back and await the outcome of several processes, the internecine conflict within the Palestinian body politic and the development of international opposition to Iran's nuclear program and any possible internal Iranian upheavals.
posted by Jack Cohen at 3:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home