By Yoram Ettinger, ISRAEL HAYOM
Maintaining Israel’s independence of action — in face of Iran’s nuclear threat — is consistent with Israeli-Jewish history, with common sense, with regional stability and with the enhancement of vital U.S. national security interests. On the other hand, surrendering Israel’s inalienable right of self-defense would undermine Israel’s sovereignty, erode its posture of deterrence, jeopardize its existence, fuel regional chaos and undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East.
On June 3, 1967, U.S. President Johnson pressured Prime Minister Eshkol against pre-empting the pro-Soviet Egypt-Syria-Jordan military axis, which threatened the survival of moderate Arab regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and Israel’s existence. Johnson advised that “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone. We cannot imagine that [Israel] will make this decision.”
Johnson warned that a unilateral Israeli military pre-emptive strike could trigger severe regional turmoil, transform Israel into a belligerent state, and preclude assistance by the U.S. Johnson refrained from implementing the 1957 unilateral and multilateral guarantees issued to Israel by Eisenhower. He insisted that Israel should rely on the diplomatic-multilateral option.
Eshkol defied Johnson. He pre-empted the anti-U.S., Arab axis; devastated a clear and present danger to vital Western interests; rescued the House of Saud from the wrath of Nasser; expedited the end of the pro-Soviet Nasser regime and the rise of the pro-U.S. Sadat regime in Egypt; dealt a major setback to Soviet interests; and demonstrated Israel’s capability to snatch the hottest chestnuts out of the fire, without a single U.S. boot on the ground. He transformed the image of Israel from a national security consumer (a client state) to a national security producer (a strategic ally).
Eshkol realized that a defiant national security policy — in defense of the Jewish state — yielded a short-term political and diplomatic spat with the U.S., but resulted in a long-term national security upgrade and dramatically enhanced strategic respect.
From time immemorial, the Jewish People has faced powerful adversities in asserting its sovereignty over the Land of Israel, and by undertaking unilateral national security action. Conviction-driven defiance of adversity has earned the Jewish People deep respect.
Israel’s contemporary history demonstrates that dramatic national security enhancement requires unilateral action, in defiance of regional and global powers.
For example, in 1948/9, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared independence, annexed west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, initiated widespread construction in Jerusalem and refused to end the “occupation” of the Negev and absorb Arab refugees, in defiance of a U.S. military embargo, the threat of U.S. economic sanctions and significant domestic dovish opposition. Ben-Gurion’s steadfastness led Gen. Omar Bradley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs-of-Staff in 1952, to recommend reconsideration of Israel as a major ally in the Middle East.
In 1967, Eshkol reunited Jerusalem and launched construction projects in east Jerusalem, in the face of U.S., global and domestic opposition.
In 1977, Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s initiative to negotiate directly with Egypt, circumvented President Jimmy Carter’s initiative to convene an international conference, which intended to focus on the Palestinian issue and Jerusalem.
In 1981, Begin concluded that the cost of a nuclear Iraq would dwarf the cost of pre-empting Iraq. He realized that diplomacy would not stop Iraq’s nuclearization, and that most Arab/Muslim countries considered a nuclear Iraq to be a lethal threat. Therefore, he pre-empted, destroying Iraq’s nuclear reactor, in spite of the U.S. threat of a military embargo and a nasty diplomatic U.S. reproach, worldwide condemnation and vocal domestic opposition, especially in national security circles.
Begin’s daring unilateral initiative in 1981 averted regional chaos, sparing the U.S. a nuclear confrontation in 1991, which would have devastated vital U.S. human, economic and military concerns.
In 2012, Prime Minister Netanyahu is aware that sanctions against Iran are inherently ineffective due to noncompliance by Russia, China, India, Japan and some European countries. He recognizes that sanctions provide Iran with extra-time to develop/acquire nuclear capabilities. He knows that sanctions did not prevent Pakistan’s and North Korea’s nuclearization. He has concluded that Iran’s time-to-develop/acquire is unpredictable and uncontrollable. He realizes that a nuclear Iran would doom the pro-U.S. Gulf regimes; would traumatize the supply and price of oil; would accelerate nuclear proliferation; would provide a tailwind to Islamic terrorism and scores of sleeper cells in the U.S.; and would entrench Iran’s military foothold in America’s backyard — Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico. He understands that a military pre-emption — with no boots on the ground — is a prerequisite for regime change in Iran. Just like Begin, Netanyahu is convinced that the cost of a nuclear Iran would dwarf the personal, diplomatic, political, economic and military cost of pre-empting Iran.
Just like the aforementioned prime ministers, Netanyahu is cognizant of the cardinal Jewish proverb: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If not now, when? (Ethics of the Fathers 1:14).”
I like what Bert has to say. It has never been different. Nations, including Israel, have interests. Should Israel go it alone against Iran? Yes, if it is necessary, because it is in her best interests to prevent nuclear weapons in the hands of people who are likely to use them on Israel. Should the attack fail she will be no worse off than she would be in due time if nuclear weapons are in the arms of the ayatollahs and used as they have promised to use them. The US should, in her best interests, back Israel, but given the posture of the present administration, I believe that it is unlikely, although here it is argued that if the attack occurred during the Presidential campaign, it would force President Obama to come to Israel’s aid. I believe this argument is without merit. President Obama would merely say that we were backing Israel, and his supporters would believe him; but, as usual in his administration, there would be no meat on the bone.
The US far left (anti Semites and anti Zionists) controls the democrats who have no say in foreign policy. The far left and the State Dept at the present time are allied against Israel(Opportunistic Alliance). It seems to me that the far left/Pr. O want to reduce as much as possible the power of the US militarily and politically.
Considering these premises how can Israel count on the US?
If “In 2012, Prime Minister Netanyahu is aware that sanctions against Iran are inherently ineffective due to noncompliance by Russia, China, India, Japan and some European ….. military cost of pre-empting Iran.” is correct history needs to repeat itself!!!!!! and every body will blame Il and the Jews. So be IT.
An excellent article by Ambassador Ettinger. We must learn from history. The U.S. and the nations have always acted to sacrifice the Jews to advance their won interests. This is even more true today.
Whenever Israel bowed to outside pressure it always cost more Jewish blood.
The Muslims have influence because they are willing to sacrifice many of their own people to destroy their victims. Israel is weak when it allows others to pressure them. Israel has the capability to destroy the Middle East with all its oil and collapse western economies. Israel will do better if the wold fears what Israel can do if pushed too far.
@ yamit82:
Israel’s debate over Iran
To strike or not to strike
@ James B – Montreal:
It’s business as usual, Israelis say, as they get in line for gas masks
Why Israel shrugs at retaliation after attack on Iran
The threat of a simultaneous war with Iran’s proxies – Hezbollah, Syria, and Gaza militants – is a key consideration for Israel as it weighs an attack on Iran. But Iran’s allies may not be as keen about going to war for the ayatollahs as Tehran would like, and the Israelis know it.
Germanicus, who had torn off his helmet, ordered his men to kill and kill. No prisoners were wanted. Only the total destruction of the tribe would end the war. Finally, late in the day, he withdrew one brigade from the battle to make camp. Apart from the cavalry, whose battle was indecisive, the rest sated themselves with enemy blood until nightfall.”
– Tacitus, Annals
This will be repeated. Not a question of if but a question of when. The IDF has been very well restrained in the past 20 years.
Simply put, the USA and the West are duplicit. To Israel and their own people and to the few in the arab and muslim world wanting change.
The article passingly mentioned Eisenhower’s promise to the Israelis in 1957. I would love to get my hands on that speech of holy crap.
They need to make nice nice with the arab muslims for oil and financing. They will look the other way and not lift a finger re: medieval justice, bagging of women, decapitation of women, a women only city, treatment of Christians, sleeper cells in the west, hanging of homosexuals,,,,
The West is on the way to a financial holocaust, our currencies are worthless, there is no value behind them but a promise by the leader of the moment and there is little most of us can do to prepare for it.
Israel, replacing the POTUS of the moment with God, has not worked.
Israel has had 20 years to prepare for this eventuality and walking into Oslo, knowing that the West nor the arab muslims will NEVER approach reciprocity and the danger of appearing as the puppy of the USA is an admission of weakness to the arab muslims, their approach to Oslo was unwise.
Is it true or propaganda that Israel can only provide gas masks of half of its citizens?
Three times a Clinton has blamed Jews for the lack of peace and yet the typical American court Jew gives them dollars and votes. A Clinton has never discussed arab mulsim Jew hate or the juvenile muslim way of avoiding writing Israel in textbooks so you know who is buttering the Clinton Global initiative. Why any Jew would give to this is beyond sanity.
Easy for me to say, but if I were Bibi I would demand that the Generals unleash terror. And I would have done this years ago.