Judith?
In "Will Israel Attack Iran?", the article in the New York Times Magazine to which I posted a link below, another excerpt:
As we spoke, a man approached and, having recognized me as a journalist who reports on these issues, apologized before asking: “When is the war going to break out? When will the Iranians bomb us?”....I tried to reassure the man that we wouldn’t be nuked tomorrow. Similar scenes occur almost every day —Israelis watch the news, have heard that bomb shelters are being prepared, know that Israel test-fired a missile into the sea two months ago--and a kind of panic has begun to overtake Israeli society, anxiety that missiles will start raining down soon.
"Panic?" This struck me as exaggerated--a false note in a report that otherwise seemed to ring true. On the other hand, how would I know? Then it occurred to me: Ask Judith.
Is there indeed a growing sense of anxiety in Israel, Judith? How are people responding to this article in the Times? As this issue builds, what is everyday life like?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Judith?
The problem is that if you are attempting to subvert a government in hopes of regime change, a conventional attack from across the border might have the opposite effect. An attack, especially by Israel, could very well rally the people around the current regime. I suspect that this is why, at least for the present, the war has been conducted by covert means.
Jan '11
Re: Judith?
All apparently true, but what are the consequences of inaction? Another Holocaust? Does Israeli aversion to preemptive attack and/or collective punishment trump taking positive action to survive? If so, aren't we talking about national suicide by passive response? Moreover, isn't such an attitude delusional?
Feb '11
Re: Judith?
I wish I were as confident as you, Judith, that a new regime in Iran would destroy their nuclear capability. Mothballing is not good enough.
Dec '11
Re: Judith?
I wish I were as confident as you, Judith, that a new regime in Iran would destroy their nuclear capability. Mothballing is not good enough.
Excellent point. Everything I've read indicates that even opponents of the Mullah's regime view the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national pride.
Re: Judith?
It'a dismaying on a lot of levels--this happens to me with pretty much everything I read about Turkey, from ordinary journalism to academic/think-tank studies, and I assume that if it's sometimes true about what Americans read about Israel, mostly true about Turkey, it's probably even more true about Iran, not to mention every other part of the world that doesn't easily lend itself to inspection by Western journalists--for reasons of politics, language or culture. And that worries me, because I just cannot imagine that good US foreign policy can come out of an almost institutionalized system of gross misunderstanding.
Nov '10
Re: Judith?
My concern is that the easy chances to stop the nuclear arming of Iran are being passed by and that, when push finally comes to shove, there will be no realistic choice other than a nuclear bombardment as a means of defense.
It seems to me quite likely that even a regime change is unlikely to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons, although a regime change might mean a regime less likely to employ nuclear weapons against Israel. Still, that will leave the means available to whoever takes over from the mullahs.
Revolutionary governments seem to need external enemies as a foil for their efforts to consolidate their power, and Israel appears to be the universal menace in the Near East today.
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 4:47amOct '11
Re: Judith?
I would like to concur with the general sentiments being put out here. As a resident of Bahrain, I can also say that the average Jack, Zainab, and Ahmed is not talking about Iran.
Granted, since Bahrain is strategically important as the home of the US Navy in The Gulf the thought is at least in the back of my mind that my home is a target. Iran, for all it's real danger, is perceived by many here as a revolutionary conspiracy created by the government as a justification for harsh reprisals against Shi'a protesters.
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 6:33amRe: Judith?
Nobody's Perfect: Judith, Israel wouldn't have to penetrate 200 feet of earth and concrete to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel would need only to use a limited number of tactical nuclear strikes in order to destroy Iran's energy, transportation, communications and military infrastructure.
As I noted on another thread, it's hard to process uranium and build warheads by candle light.
This is an extremely important point, and it has an instructive historical corollary: the nascent state of Israel, though outgunned, undersupported and understaffed in 1948, won the War of Independence in 1948 by employing just this kind of indirect approach. If you can't defeat your enemy with a full-on frontal assault, you cut his supply lines, cut his lines of communication, sabotage his systems, intimidate his brain trust, do everything possible to make the physical prosecution of the war difficult to impossible for the enemy. Above all, stay creative and hold onto the element of surprise; keep the enemy wrongfooted and on the defensive. If I can figure out how, I'll post some writing I did a while ago on Operation Horev (December 1948) in which the Israelis masterfully demonstrated these principles.
Re: Judith?
~Paules
The problem is that if you are attempting to subvert a government in hopes of regime change, a conventional attack from across the border might have the opposite effect. An attack, especially by Israel, could very well rally the people around the current regime.
Or give the regime a pretext to force the people to rally together, or even simply to appear to do so, which is often enough for a credulous world. As M1919A4 said above, we are an extremely useful foil for our tyrannical enemies.
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 8:41amRe: Judith?
Guy Incognito
Noesis Noeseos: I wonder whether Israelis ability to live without fear is related to their certainty that massive and unrelenting retaliation will follow any nuclear attack that may be initiated against their homeland.
More likely, it is an example of adaptation. Being in a state of constant anxiety is bad for one's physical and mental health, so our brains adjust to block it out.
Exactly right. It's not surprising that Israelis have become so expert at this. I'm generalizing here, but the national character exhibits a combination of cheerful, at times quite delusional optimism with turn-on-a-dime ruthless pragmatism that never fails to astonish me.
These are dark days, but don't count us out just yet. We don't know what's about to happen internally in Iran, and we don't know what tactics Israel has up her sleeve that she has no intention of discussing with journalists.
Mar '11
Re: Judith?
I think I find this reassuring, although I'm not entirely confident that it's not delusional. At least my living in a small, remote bubble of a settlement hasn't made me too out of touch with what other Israelis are experiencing. (Here, we're much more panicked by the thought of evacuation than nuclear holocaust.)
My father (in the US) sent me the NYTimes piece, on the heels of a reminder to renew our US passports. I put off reading it, and when I finally did, the knots formed in my stomach and I asked myself, as always, if I'm an idiot for not panicking. And raised the moral conundrum: If, G-d forbid, there was a strike, would I be morally justified in taking my kids and going back the US? And leaving all non-US citizen Israelis to face the ensuing hardships?
I'm curious what you think?
Edited on January 31, 2012 at 8:11amMar '11
Re: Judith?
I have to go with Israel P and Judith's initial responses to this question. I, too, almost laughed out loud when I read Peter's quote from the article. Not because it's funny, but because human psychology simply doesn't allow for obsessing over mortal danger when you have a day-to-day life to live.
To quote a therapist who once helped me get over my own brush with terrorism (many years ago): we compartmentalize.
Aug '11
Re: Judith?
We think about Iran a lot - our press is somewhat obsessed with Iran, and with good reason - but its not like we're building nuclear fallout shelters in our yards like you wimpy Americans were doing in the 60s (if you can't tell I'm teasing with the wimpy crack - I am).
I think there is a far greater clear and present danger in the tens of thousands of conventional rockets in Hizbollah and Hamas hands that we have aimed at our cities, just waiting for the word from the Mullahs to let loose. Thats our children in the crosshairs you know. But we've always lived with this kind of danger, and of course we've learnt to deal with it.
I just wish more Americans and Europeans appreciated this little trivial fact of life in Israel. We're in constant danger from an enemy that wouldn't hesitate to kill all of our children. We, on the other hand, spend our time trying to work out how to be the most moral army in the world and minimize collateral damage. We are truly the most pathetic colonial, occupying power in the history of the world (sarcasm...)
Aug '11
Re: Judith?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
It'a dismaying on a lot of levels--this happens to me with pretty much everything I read about Turkey, from ordinary journalism to academic/think-tank studies, and I assume that if it's sometimes true about what Americans read about Israel, mostly true about Turkey, it's probably even more true about Iran, not to mention every other part of the world that doesn't easily lend itself to inspection by Western journalists--for reasons of politics, language or culture. And that worries me, because I just cannot imagine that good US foreign policy can come out of an almost institutionalized system of gross misunderstanding. · 7 hours ago
In the case of Israel, its more than a little strange considering the number of foreign journalists wandering around. Its not like the world isn't interested in whats going on here (as is presumably the case in Turkey) or that the foreign press is shut out (as is the case in Iran).
Edited on January 30, 2012 at 11:54amJul '11
Re: Judith?
Claire - I share your concern. I am not surprised to hear that stories about foreign places and events are incorrect. In my life I have been on the inside of a dozen or so news worthy events/issues here in the US. In every case I have been surprised by how poorly these events were covered. The "facts" reported are rarely correct, the perspective of interested parties have never been reported accurately. The editing of interviews were designed to take items out of context and misrepresent the interviewee to the point of fraud. I have come to believe that the reason items in the news are called stories is because they are basically fiction and any truth in them is accidental.
Sep '10
Re: Judith?
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
What were people thinking/doing in Poland just before the Blitzkrieg?