He said that in the event that the United States could not or would not, for whatever reason, attack Iran, it would be up to Israel to do so. He pointed out that Israel would get no credit or thanks for doing this – that it would suffer open condemnation from the world, just as we did in 1981 when we destroyed Osirak. But the world would thank us even in spite of the condemnations. He pointed out that Israel’s ability to attack Iran was less than that of the Americans. Israeli planes would have to refuel in the air. With respect to the nuclear submarine force, one ship is always in port for repairs; one is too far away, etc. He said that he believed it was extremely important to try to build up our navy.
His analysis was only a bit less optimistic than that of Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies who wrote on this topic on 8 February 2006 in the Wall Street Journal
Then came the painful part of his analysis – not because I didn’t know it - but because it was hard to hear from a recognized expert in the field. That kind of made it official. He said that if the United States attacked Iran, or if Israel attacked Iran, it was almost a sure thing that the Iranians would hit Israel in retaliation.
Dr. Inbar also indicated that Israel has a missile shield that could block between 80% to 90% of incoming missiles, but some would get through
But that wasn’t the shocker.
The shocker was what he said if they did.
“Lo norá.”
In Hebrew, “lo norá” means “not terrible.” Let’s say you’re late for work and you’re afraid your boss will scream at you, or worse, not scream at you and send you to personnel with the dismissal slip. He looks at his watch, shrugs his shoulders and says, “lo norá.” Already, you’re breathing with relief – no, he’s not happy that you’re late, but it’s not terrible. You’ll get by. You still have a job, and you’ve lost not too many points with the boss.
Article comments
1 - Elvira Black
Ruvy, this is terrifying news. I have long felt--as a number of other people who should know best have said-- that as far as a nuclear strike on the US, it's not a question of if but of when, unless drastic measures are taken, including heightened security for our ports.
At first glance, the fact (?) that the US is now talking about possible strikes as a last resort if Iraq does not cooperate with non-proliferation (if I am incorrect on this bit of news, let me know) seemed like a good position to take--even if only in terms of simply reminding iraq of what we are capable of. I would hope it would not be necessary to carry through, though.
But based on what you've told me, I feel even more scared than ever. I don't think people are really thinking too much about this. They're in denial, perhaps in the same way I am every time I light one more cigarette that may lead to my early demise. Maybe the thought is just too terrible to contemplate.
Thanks for the great post.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Elvira,
Ninety percent of what you have read is what Dr. Inbar said. That last paragraph is Aryeh Gallin's.
Dr. Inbar didn't deal with the threat from Syria - which got most of Saddam Hussein's WMD stock - this according to Debka and John Dolfus. He dismissed the possibility of a ship sitting off the east coast of the US launching an EMP bomb over New York as "science fiction."
He didn't talk about the 10,000 missilies that are under the control of Hizb-Allah just to our north, nor of the possibility of Qassam missiles hitting the power plant in Ashkelon. That just wasn't the topic.
If missiles struck the Galilee (there is a medresh of the Galilee being destroyed in the End of Days) the National Water Carrier would be gone.
Nu? Lo norá.
Maybe, now you see what I mean by what constitutes a serious threat.
3 - Chromatius
A few thoughts...
Israeli politics has always reminded me of those awful guy-oriented airport spy novels - they depend on providing the reader were ostensibly 'useful' information and perspective - details of weaponry etc, but mainly, a sense that you've been inducted into a deeper reality - this is how the world really is, this is how the world really works.
Pride in this is evident, for example, in most of the Debka output, and permeates Israel's relationship with the world. It also defines the deals Israel makes and who it makes them with, and why it keeps getting caught in egregious acts of espionage against 'friends'. It's not that everyone doesn't do it, but Israel seems to do it more often, more blatantly and is quite happy for everyone to see they don't really care what the rest of us think anyway (everyone but the US).
I think it often gets confused in the minds of onlookers with arrogance - often ascribed to 'chosenness', and by extension a racist sense of superiority. This of course plays to pretty traditional images of the Jews.
But it's hardly unique to Israel, you find it in all countries - especially in people (media and politicians) close to the military and intelligence services.
Among other things, it leads to gullibility and credulousness - a swiftness to accept intellgence product as more accurate, realistic than other sources of information. This is ingrained, which is why the obvious lies about Iraq capabilities after ran on rails in the UK, Europe, Australia and the States. (Well, of course individuals were still subverted, promised glorious futures, jobs, honours etc)
Of course, this dimension/perspective/characteristic (what the hell do we call it?) also has a role the militarisation of Israeli society.
So I don't accept the politicised intelligence derived position about Syrian intent or capabilties. I'd need better evidence than I've seen so far.
(Also, I don't think low level battlefield weapons, Qassams etc really belong in the same discussion. And after all, Israel been popping air-to-ground and other conventional stuff into Palestinian areas and Lebanon for ages.)
Implicit in your piece: Israel has nuclear weapons, and they are not up for discussion. How do we have a real, just longterm discussion about the region otherwise?
And without justice, where are we? We will continue to have increasing anger and frustration. And likely violence. For example: it's why we've Israeli units operating in Iraq - but not in the western media - but of course all the Arab and Muslim countries know it.
I believe this way of thinking (the insider, realpolitik thing) is fundamentally antagonistic to justice.
A different angle: we're uncomfortably close to that contempt for the dead I've talked about before. Lo norá - I assume because the 'people' or the 'nation' survive - the individuals only have meaning in terms of religion and/or destiny. (One thing I always found unsettling about the biblical David was how easy it seemed for huge numbers of people - Jews? Israelites? - to fall out of the story, even out of the people.)
For those of us with less religion, patriotism or certainty, it's hard to take that view.
I'd suggest it doesn't lead to fully rational policy making either. Democracy in theory represents the people, as in those individuals who elected it, not some abstract 'people'.
Or should.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
Your comments need to be taken in small parts. To begin.
you write (Also, I don't think low level battlefield weapons, Qassams etc really belong in the same discussion. And after all, Israel been popping air-to-ground and other conventional stuff into Palestinian areas and Lebanon for ages.)
The Qassams in and of themselves are not worth talking about. But if they can hit a plant that provides half of the country's electricity, not to mention causing a poison chemical cloud in the southern part of the country, then they deserve attention. A lot of it. And they are capable of doing just this.
Look at it this way. An oversized cigar can be aimed at an electric plant and make it impossible for me to communicate with you. No, it is not a nuclear weapon, but it can do a lot of damage nonetheless. Our vulnerability to the Qassam is what draws it into the dicussion.
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
Understand that most of this article dealt with what Dr. Inbar said about the Iranian nuclear missile threat.
And truth be told, he said very little I didn't aslready know. I've learned more here and from you than I did from him.
The part about Syrian and Lebanese missiles hitting this country does not come from the mouth of Dr. Inbar at all, and does not come from an intelligence service report. I underlined it because I think it will occur. Hizb Allah is a local lapdog of the Iranians, so for them to shoot a missile here does not require that it fly from Esfahan.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
You write, Implicit in your piece: Israel has nuclear weapons, and they are not up for discussion. How do we have a real, just longterm discussion about the region otherwise?
And without justice, where are we? We will continue to have increasing anger and frustration. And likely violence. For example: it's why we've Israeli units operating in Iraq - but not in the western media - but of course all the Arab and Muslim countries know it.
I believe this way of thinking (the insider, realpolitik thing) is fundamentally antagonistic to justice.
I fundamentally agree with most of what you say here.
But as an Israeli, or more precisely as a Jew in a zone of the world where his neighbors have said straight up that I must be eliminated, I must balance my continued survival against their all too real threats of destroying us. If I am dead, I cannot pursue justice.
For that reason alone, the nukes are not up for negotiation. If I had to posit a realpolitik strategy, my realpolitik strategy would be to make it clear to our neighbors that we would strike first if the issue came down to it, and whether the issue came down to it depended on how much hostility they fomented against us.
I don't believe that we can rely on the States for anything except a hand in shovelling the dirt over our country as we bury it.
Our government has failed us in a fundamental way, and for a security expert to say to us "it is not terrible" if we get hit with nukes or missiles is not acceptable.
If this was or is the best that government hill has to offer, then we need something better.
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
So, then what is a strategy for peace? The strategy for peace has to consist in three parts. One part is to put the nukes on the front proch, so to speak. If threatened sufficiently, we will strike first and genocidally - no, you did not misread what I wrote.
That is so that the Syrians and Egyptians and Iranians get the idea. We can destroy Egypt. We can leave Dasmascus a heap. We can leave Teheran and Riyadh burning nuclear pits. And we have to make it thoroughly clear that we are willing to if our survival is threatened. The tone MUST change in the neighborhood - or there will be no neighborhood.
The second part of peace is that we need to engage the "Jordanian" king and point out to him that in time, a "Palestinian" entity will only behead him. The true destiny of the Hashemite dynasty is to govern an Arab kingdom streching across Arabia, Syria, Jordan and parts of Mesopotamia. The big threat to Islam as a religion, and to stability in the Arab world is the Wahhabi sect that has hijacked Mecca and Medina.
So the deal is that we Jews help the Hashemite monarch restore himself to Mecca and Medina. We help rescuscitate the economy of the region. The Hashemite monarch turns his legions south and east with our help and dismantle the Saudi princes and aristocracy. This could be bloody, but it must be done to restore peace and stability to the region.
In return, he does not say boo while we dismantle the "Palestinian" Authority, gert rid of the gangs and mobs, and restore the rule of the mukhtars and peace.
The easiest thing here is ending Arab terrorism. The word goes out that any terrorist will have his family moved to a different village where a different clan rules. That will end terror - the nature of Arab clan society rejects those who are not part of the clan. So the non-clan family will be living a nightmare of abuse of all sorts - and no one will lift a finger to help.
There need not be mass bombings a la US, or carpet bombings (that would make me feel good), no even large scale patrols or incursions.
The Arabs living on the Land would be granted full citizenship in the neighboring Arab kingdom and special consuls would be appointed to deal with matters on the ground.
Finally comes ther issue of reconciliation. This third part is the most difficult because it has to be done betweeen rabbis and kadis or sheikhs. It has to be done on a religious basis, not on a political basis. This is the part that would take the longest because asw I indicated elswhere, there would be a significant cost for us as Jews and for Arabs.
8 - Chromatius
Israel's support of the Hashemite 'solution' is long-standing, but it's not clear it suits anyone else. That takes us back to our prior South Syrian Arab discussion, but I'm not currently in a position to say much on the history behind that.
I'd also suggest that regardless of the situation decades ago, the Palestinians are being forged as as 'people' or 'nation' in the confrontation with Israel. That's how it works - shared experience, shared history, shared enemies.
"we will strike first and genocidally " doesn't surprise me. Nor most Arabs, I'd imagine. It's been part of the playing board for a while (although genetic weapons are a dangerous novelty for everyone).
"If I am dead, I cannot pursue justice" - now we get to one of my main points (I have a bad habit of including too many dstracting tangential issues) - realpolitik, democracy, people v 'the people'.
After all, if you're dead your 'people/nation' may pursue justice and consider your 'sacrifice' 'worth it'. Which is how I read 'lo norá'.
You may not, but your sacrifice will likely be taken as a vote for 'worth it'...
9 - Christopher Rose
Could someone explain the scenario in which any country tries to take out Israel? For all that it is theoretically possible, it seems difficult to imagine a situation in which that would actually happen.
Oh, whilst I'm enquiring, how big is the Israeli nuclear arsenal these days?
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
Imagine a country about the size of the American states of New Jersey and Delaware combined.
That is Israel.
There are about 11 or 12 million people living here, not counting tourists on a sunny day. A lot of that number is crowded on the western coastal plain, and the vast majority of that population is Jewish.
So what is the scenario?
For whatever reason, Hizb Allah decides to launch its 10,000 missiles on our territory in an attack. According to Dr. Inbar, the Israeli missile shield could block 80 to 90% of missiles from Iran. On less than two minutes warning, that percentage nosedives. If 30% of the missiles are stopped, a very optimistic figure on a two minute warning, you have over 7,000 missiles hitting Haifa with its chemical plants, Pi Glilot, the National Water Carrier, Tel Aviv, Caesarea, Tverya, Tzfat, Afula, Raanana, Kfar Sava, the highways, homes, farms, factories, gas stations even. Lots of people die. Chaos reins. Computer systems, phone lines and cell phone networks are all down. Knesset members are fleeing to some special shelters if they have them arranged. There is no water pressure or electricity in most of the country.
But that would not "take out" Israel. For that you need a second wave of missiles attacking from Iran. Whatever remained of the missile shield would be able to stop a significant portion of the Iranian missiles according to the article above. But whatever local response had developed in terms of coping with the damage of over 7,000 missiles hitting the country would be nullified. This would take out Israel.
None of the missiles mentioned above would be nuclear missiles - they would all be conventional or perhaps chemical tipped.
But the damage would be huge. Invading Arab armies would face terrible resistance because any sense of restraint in responding would have disappeared. Thousands of Arabs would be massacred by Jews, and thousands of Jews would be massacred by Arabs.
If Israel did manage to launch its own nuclear missiles, the damage to Arab countries would be catastrophic. If it were done properly, it would be genocidal in some cases.
The reason I can imagine this is because I still remember my late cousin Hattie coming for coffee and cake to listen to John Kennedy's response to the Soviet missiles placed in Cuba. His response was measured but firm. But I remember my cousin Hattie telling my mother "I thought he was going to declare war."
It was from that time that I began to try to comprehend what war might mean.
Given that I live here, I have a responsibilty to think about the unthinkable.
11 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, your little scenario is not responsive to my first question. In what scenario would such an event happen? None that I can realistically imagine coming to pass.
And you have ignored my second question entirely...
I must say the quality of your debate has gone way down recently, what you smoking?
12 - Christopher Rose
Oh yeah, I've no idea about the sizes of New Jersey or Delaware but I do know where Israel is, just over there on the East coast of the sea I'm looking at through the window. I'm far more interested in what you, my neighbours, are doing than the Yankees...
13 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
To comment #11. The missiles are not in southern Lebanon as a defensive measure. In a tinderbox like this, there are too many scenarios to imagine why Hizb Allah would attack, which is what I gather you're actually asking. You want to hire a serious intelligence expert to give you an analysis. You're talking several thousand euros there, Chris.
I see from my own sources that there is as basic destructive hostility emanating out of the meal ticket for Hizb Allah, Iran. At some point, they will give the order to attack us. I take that as a given. It is safer than sticking my head up my butt like the idiots in Tel Aviv who think that nothing can happen to them so long as they beat up on the settlers.
You'd like these people Chris. They run away from Judaism as much as you run way from religion.
If I knew the number of missiles we're sitting, on, I wouldn't divulge it.
To comment #12. Israel is 10,000 miles². I don't know how that works out in kilometres² but it's smaller than Portugal.
14 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy mate, if there was a situation in which Israel was being seriously threatened which, given that it's the only nuclear power in the region, seems pretty unlikely anyway, you seem to think that your strange little country is in fact truly isolated, which is of course nonsense - which you full well know in your less "inspired" moments.
Israel has won every single military engagement in the area so far, right?
Perhaps you can also explaijn how Israel's (or susbstitute India or Pakistan) illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons was okay, but Iran's legitimate and pragmatic pursuit of nuclear energy (and yes, I'm fully aware of the potential for abuse) is not?
As for your cheap and lazy shot about religion: I'm not running away from it at all. I just remain completely unconvinced by your suggested storyline, which is that despite the fact that modern humans have been around for at least 10,000 years your god character didn't turn up until much later, what is it, 5766 years ago?
I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there may well be some superbeing that created the whole universe who demands and possibly even deserves a bit of worship. I'm not prepared to accept it on the basis of some dodgy, poorly written books and a bit of cheap psychological and emotional manipulation, which is all the three interlinked strands of this god complex have to offer.
Mind you, I am also prepared to accept that the entire universe as we perceive it may actually be the inside of a stable, 5-dimensional black hole, which is the latest theory to emerge from the enquiring minds of scientists; you know, those people whose ingenuity makes your whole life possible...
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris, let's take your questions one by one, bit by bit, line upon line, etc.
Israel has won every single military engagement in the area so far, right?
It is one thing to win a military engagement; it is quite another to consolidate the victory. So, if you do not drive the enemy from your territory, or hand him an effective victory in the face of his own defeat, it is not magnanimity, it is suicide.
This country has staved off it military destruction, but except for 1949, when the Arabs were driven out and the remaining Arabs placed under military administration, this nation had not consolidated its victories on the battle field.
This is an important concept to get your brain around. Even Israelis do not like to acknowledge what I've just written. It hurts too much.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
You write, perhaps you can also explain how Israel's (or susbstitute India or Pakistan) illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons was okay, but Iran's legitimate and pragmatic pursuit of nuclear energy (and yes, I'm fully aware of the potential for abuse) is not?
The "legitimacy" of the acquisition of the nuclear weapons, by Israel, by India, by Pakistan, by Britain, by France, by China, or by the Soviet Union is of no interest to me. The baby may be a bastard, but there he is nevertheless. Get out some Marmalite biscuits - he's crying.
The big difference between our nuclear capabilities and Iran's desire for them lies in responsibility. The Iranians don't say "don't foment anti-Iranian sentiment or we'll blow you to bits." That I could comprehend. They say that Israel must be erased from the map. Give a fellow like that a nuclear smoke, and you might as well dig your own grave.
Israel's present strategy is to keep mum about its nukes. Even my first strike strategy (based on lack of stategic depth) wouldn't be housed in such extreme public statements.
Finally there is a skein of thread that you may miss when looking at the entire rug. Persians are very nationalistic. That talk about Alexander of Macedon as if he breezed through last Monday. And they hate his guts. So the acquisition of that "nuclear cigar" is not all a function of mad mullahs wanting a nuclear button on the flying carpet. Get rid of ther mullahs and you will still see the Iranians pursuing a bomb - it's just tht it won't necessarily be aimed in my direction.
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
As for your cheap and lazy shot about religion:
Chris,
I basically understand you and I think you understand me - so let's just call a truce. Neither of us will convince each other. There is no need to beat a dead horse to further oblivion.
18 - Christopher Rose
I really wish you'd stop patronising me, Ruvy; I'm well aware of the difference between winning a war and consolidating a victory, as I believe is almost everybody in the world after what's happened in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 5 years.
As to your #16, given that you are always going on about events 6,000 years ago and the Iranians at least mostly confine themselves to the current era, I know which brand of extremist worries me the most frankly.
It seems way more likely that if people who think like you were running Israel, the likelihood for a nuclear war in the region would increase. I'm not seeing much responsibility when you go round hurtling serious allegations like treason at your own government, you just sound like another type of extremist to me.
The current reality is that it seems like the Palestinians, the Israelis and even the Iranians aren't going anywhere, so sooner or later you're all going to have to find some way to live together, just as the people in Ireland are gradually learning to do.
That or the Israelis (or more correctly, Jews, right?) could pop back to their original Iraqi homeland! How about it, they need some effective adminstrators there?
19 - Christopher Rose
and your #17; well, given that I have an open mind on the subject whereas you've already made yours up (or closed it, from my pov), I guess we have no choice but to shelve the conversation.
Frankly, I'm disappointed. I was really quite interested when some weeks ago you were talking about the origins of the god phenomenon all those years ago, I really thought we might get some interesting thoughts going back and forth.
It seems a lot of people all over the world are becoming more dogmatic, shrill and extreme at the moment. This can not be a good thing for those of us who fear where this may all be leading nor for increasing understanding of our shared humanity and common destiny.
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
REALITY IS THAT THE THOUSANDS OF DEATHS IN THE LAST 6 YEARS OR SO NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL HAD THE GOVERNMENT TAKEN A FIRM STAND ON ARAB TERROR IMMEDIATELY.
REALITY IS THAT THE LIVELIHOODS OF THOUSANDS OF ARABS HAVE BEEN RUINED BY A CRIMINAL REGIME IMPOSED ON THEM BY ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES. THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS HAVE FLED THEIR HOMES TO ESCAPE MOSLEM PERSECUTION.
REALITY IS THAT ISRAELI GOVERNMENT LEADERS COLLUDED WITH ARAB TERRORISTS TO SET UP A GAMBLING CASINO NEAR JERICHO, TO KILL DOZENS OF JEWS IN SAMARIA AND JUDEA, TO STEAL MILLIONS FROM THE TREASURIES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY.
REALITY IS THAT DOV VEISGLASS WAS AT THE SAME TIME LAWYER FOR PRIME MINISTER ARIEL SHARON AND FOR YASIR ARAFAT.
REALITY IS THAT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF JEWISH GAZA FROM MISSILE ATTACKS FOR 5 YEARS - REALITY IS THAT THE SELF SAME GOVERNMENT IS BARELY PROTECTING US FROM MISSILE ATTACKS NOW.
I CAN PROVE EVERY WORD I SAY.
THAT IS REALITY: A RECORD OF COWARDICE, TREASON, CORRUPTION AND MURDER. IF THAT IS TOO HARD FOR YOU TO SWALLOW TURN AWAY AND ADMIT YOU CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH. MOST ISRAELIS STILL CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH, AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MEDIA DOES ALL IT CAN TO HIDE THE FACTS.
THAT IS ALSO REALITY.
21 - Christopher Rose
There you go with that shrill thing again. I'm going for a coffee, hope you're calmer when I get back.
22 - troll
Ruvy - what is the point of confronting the realities of #20 or even getting hot and bothered in bold font when the ultimate path open to you (as your numerous posts and comments indicate) is to pray to G-d - follow the rules governing the covenant in your relationships...lock and load...and wait
no disrespect intended...IMO the 'wait' and 'pray to G-d' parts are what makes you a Jew - long suffering by tradition
the 'lock and load' part is a 20th century modification that I could do without - (and I understand that it has strong historical precedent)
does your attitude differ from the followers of the Prophet(s) who believe that 'so it is written...so it shall be done' - ?
troll
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll,
The best answer that I can give you - if I indeed understand your question properly - is that one prays. This is first and foremost. But you also prepare to protect yourself and your family. In the 21st (Christian) Century that also can mean lock and load. But it also means taking actions before it is necessary to pray that G-d will come to your rescue, and before the only option available is lock and load.
In Arabic, "intifada," means cleansing of vermin. By crushing such acts designed to cleanse vermin (like me and other Jews in Israel) immediately, you save many many lives. This is a bsasic fact that people stuck in the "Palestine" box of thought - including many Jews - cannot acknowledge.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll,
One last point. The only reason I get hot and bothered at all is when someone who has no clue of what is going on on the ground here calls me an extremist for telling the straight, unvarnished truth.
Such people ru(i)n this nation and are the curse of this country - and are the reason so many young lives have been cut off in the last few years. Too many children have died and those with the blood on their hands ride in comfortable limousines and lie incessantly to a bunch of liars in the bought off media here.