So here is Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, talking to Bergman about Iran's "desire to destroy Israel." Proof? Who needs it? It's taken for granted. In fact, in accurate translations of anti-Israel diatribes from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there's no mention of destroying or even harming Jews, nor any threat of war . There's only a clear call for a one-state solution : replacing a distinctly Jewish state, which privileges its Jewish citizens and imposes military occupation on Palestinians, with a single political entity from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Guess who else called for exactly the same resolution to the conflict: the most renowned Jewish thinker of the 20th century, Martin Buber. Plenty of Jews keep Buber's vision alive today, offering cogent (though debatable) arguments that a one-state solution would be in the best interests of Jews as well as Palestinians. Yet Ronen Bergman and the editors of the New York Times Magazine see no need for their readers to encounter these facts. Nor do they see any need to mention the most important fact of all, the one most flagrantly missing from Bergman's long article: No matter what Iran's leaders might desire, it's beyond belief that they would ever launch a single nuke against Israel. They know full well that it would be national suicide . Israel has at least 100 nukes, and 200 or more by many estimates, all ready to be used in a counterattack . Which makes it hard not to laugh when Bergman reports Ehud Barak's other arguments for attacking Iran. Even if Iran doesn't intend to kill all the Jews, "the moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same." That's the foolish "stop a Middle East nuclear arms race" argument we hear so often coming out of Washington, too -- as if Israel had not already started the Middle East nuclear arms race decades ago. And how can a supposedly serious journalist like Bergman solemnly repeat the latest popular argument of the Iranophobes: A nuclear-armed Iran (in Barak's words) "offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies," Hezbollah and Hamas. That "would definitely restrict our range of operations" in any war against those so-called "proxies." As if Iran would even consider committing national suicide to serve the interests of any Lebanese or Palestinian factions. Yet the myth of "poor little Israel, surrounded by fanatic enemies bent on destroying it" is so pervasive here in the U.S., most readers might easily take this Iranophobic article at face value, forgetting the absurd premises underlying all arguments that Israel "must" attack Iran . What American readers think is key here . Most Israelis do believe that (as Bergman puts it) Israel needs "t he support of other nations to survive." It's a crucial piece of their myth of insecurity . And the only nation that really supports them any more is the U.S . So Israel won't attack Iran without a green light from Washington .
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 258 pages?
- Spring '18
- Debate Coaches