response to "Israeli Jets vs Iranian Nukes"

Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Jun 13, 2007 at 09:37

On the one hand, though hair-raising, I have no problem with the necessity of Israel considering and weighing such action against the Iranian threat to its survival. I'm not quite convinced of its necessity yet. Certainly its failure would be a psychological catastrophe, while success would make it appear to many that Iran was 'wronged' and that the Arab world is right to regard Israel as an aggressive threat.

A further problematic consideration is that, unlike the Arab countries, popular hostility to Israel seems far less among the general population of Iran, an attitude not likely to survive a military attack.

But I don't question the need to think along these lines.

And yet, on the other hand, I remain amazed at the inability to consider the non-military and non-violent policy of publicly rejecting the idea of a Palestinian State in Gaza and the West Bank, and then discussing what alternatives there would be for that population. Questioning either the viability or desirability of a Palestinian State would seem to make more sense than usual in light of the violent anarchy unfolding in Gaza and threatening to break out in the West Bank even as I write. While it may make some cold sense to sit and watch these bloody scenes unfold a few more days or weeks, anybody can foresee that if silence by Israel and its friends goes on, then Israel will be blamed for this violence and the Palestinians will, yet again, be excused or alibied.

Therefore, I have to wonder what the purpose or utility of the Middle East Forum is, if it, or some subcommittee, or even some individual member, can't bring up and discuss this option, while at the same time a possible action that might really touch off a regional or wider conflagration is being publicly circulated.

It really does seem as if some kind of a psychological challenge, or mental block, is involved. Why, I even had a Haaretz editor, in a communication, say that, although Israel is back to a two-state policy,

"In reality, however, Palestinian statehood is as far as it has ever been..."

Could it be that even Haaretz can consider the futilty and self-harm caused by refusing to call into question the dystopian chimera of a Palestinian state while an organization perceived as more robust and even bellicose about Israel's defense .... cannot?

Ron Thompson

ps I never see enough emphasis that even though Israel is a regional superpower in terms of national character, social cohesion, and military competence, it remains a severe territorial and demographic underdog.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".