Sunday, September 23, 2018 -
Print Edition

Three strikes, but who’s out?

These past weeks — not that it’s atypical — Israel is dominating the headlines. If it’s not about the soldier swap, it’s about Obama’s visit. If it’s not about the bitter, grueling funerals that followed the swap it’s about the attempts to free the kidnapped Shalit. And still yet, simmering behind these more current stories, is the New York Times break revealing Israel’s alleged preparations for a strike against Iran.

The story and brouhaha that followed were sensational. From one side memories were invoked of Israel’s strike against the Osiraq reactor in 1981. From the other side came condemnations of Israel’s military capabilities, and consequently, US funding of Israel’s armory. Then of course, how would Iran’s respond?

Our own columnist, Dennis Prager, addresses the issue this week, arguing that a swift and total elimination of Iran’s nuclear facility is imperative.

Has anyone else noticed the gigantic elephant in the room? Just last week, in his View from Denver, Hillel Goldberg recounted the poignant story of an ethereal rabbi and unit of soldiers during the Second Lebanon War. Mixed into this inspirational story was another story, yet sadly this one is not inspirational. In fact, it’s downright frightening.

The soldiers, waiting to deploy: “There are no showers. Not even enough food.”

The rabbi, asking, “Which equipment are you missing?”

The response: “Bulletproof vests,” among a long list of items.

This was Israel during the debacle of the Second Lebanon War. And, even if Israel is indeed able to strike an Iranian nuclear station, what follows?

In her column this week, looking at the Goldwasser and Regev funerals, Tehilla Goldberg explores the Sophie’s Choice that faced Israel in negotiating the swap with Hezbollah. And her conclusion, difficult as it is for her to draw, is that Israel is currently operating from a weakened position.

At this point in time, the nuclear capabilities of Iran are unknown to anyone outside of those Iranians directly involved with enriching the uranium. Considering Israel’s lack of preparedness for the Second Lebanon War, is she willing to take a chance with a country like Iran — the de facto leader of rogue states throughout the Middle East and Central Asia?

In the post-Iraq world we’re living in, we are all keenly aware of the consequences of short-term strategy.

Yes, perhaps Israel could succeed in wiping out a nuclear station…but what happens after? Would Israel be equally victorious over the fallout?




2 thoughts on “Three strikes, but who’s out?

  1. ma nishtana

    Very stimulating. Important questions we must be thinking about. We must, however, believe in Israel’s army. The more we endow ourselves and our army wtih empowerment and strength–the healthier it will be for he morale, and as a consequence, the strength of our soldiers. Israel must get back to the mantality of 1981–of doing what we must in order to take care of ourselves instead of making decisions based on what the world will think and how they will react. This is the source of the weakness–the psychological dimension, not the tactical dimensions.

    Reply
  2. Absolut

    Great style of incorporating the IJN’s own writers and thinker’s. I understood columnist Tehilla Goldberg’s bottom line to be that, ultimately, even if it weakened Israel, reaching out and rescuing our fellow Jew is emotionally–operating from a vantage point of caring about the Jewish people–is the right thing to do–even if it does not actually make sense.

    Nonethless, interesting questions to ponder. These are challenging times for the Jewish state. Let us pray for her safety, wisdom and well being.
    Thank you Rocky mountain Jew!

    Reply

Leave a Reply