The Prime Minister declared a few days ago that the prevention of nuclear weapons from Iran, despite the risks entailed therein for Israel, is preferable to a nuclear Iran. I beg to differ And I am of course not the only one.

As to the Iranian side, I have already stated a few years ago, and I am not the only one holding such opinion, that a nuclear Iran does not constitute an existential risk to the State of Israel. It is more threatening directly a to the non-radical Arab block and indirectly to the world, no less than to Israel. Furthermore, if Iran should decide that it wants a bomb, then it shall have such. If not immediately, it will stop on the verge thereof, and will be able to complete the work within a short time.

Another opinion which is very common in the west and in Israel is that the bombing of the

Iranian reactors will delay the process but will not terminate it. In my opinion, the Ayatollah regime needs a bomb not in order to attack, but in order to protect itself in view of its failure to spread its theories outside. Moreover, the Iranian public, at least in the large part, sees that as an expression to Iran being a power that ought to be taken into consideration. The strong opposition is actually in the unstable economic-social field, which will become even more unstable if the sanctions noose would tighten .

As to what we call “home front”, this has long ago been a wrong term, since home front is currently the entire state of Israel, from the front to the last of the towns. From that aspect ,Iran has proven itself for its bloodletting ability, in its extended war against Iraq. Ironically, the same Iraq for which so much blood of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been shed (due to the deceit of the Bush administration regarding its nuclear power – see the movie Green Zone), is currently the Shiite ally of Iran.Israel does not have the capacity for prolonged bloodletting. It never had.

There is no doubt that when Iran does have nuclear weapons, the whole equation of the Middle East will change, and more states will join the club, such asTurkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and will together constitute a deterring force. Israel, whether willingly or due to coercion, will be part of the deterring balance. As to the concern of leakage of weapons to terrorist entities, in my opinion, in this matter the Iranian regime is more responsible than the government in Pakistan, wherefrom nuclear knowledge leaked.

 I would like to add another assumption thereto, which is that Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel, despite its threat of destroying Israel. If it would do so, Iran would be completely destroyed.  America then will not hesitate. And if it will not do so, the reason, inter alia, is that in the same part of the world named Eretz Israel, Jews and Arabs are crowded together. For this reason, the “narrow waistline” of the Israel is a blessing.

If there was ever a defensive war, such was the War of Independence

 There was one war which was existential for Israel – the War of Independence. All other wars, including the Yom Kippur War, were not existential wars. When David Ben Gurion .decided on the founding of the State, he did so with a very extensive national consensus Years before that, hundreds of thousands demonstrated and chanted “Jewish State, Free Aliya” – and that was the natural referendum. All of the resistance movements, from right and left, fought for the establishment of the State. All the Zionist parties, as well as the Jewish- Arab Communist Party of Israel, were in favor of establishing the State. The written media at the time, which included newspapers from all sides of the political spectrum except for Agudat Israel, sided with the War of Independence. The entire population was bleeding, and  terror ran wild in the towns and villages. But the public, which was then the “home front”, was willing to pay the price. If there was ever a defensive war, such was the War of Independence. From then onwards, all of the wars that we had initiated were wars of choice .

 This is not the reality when the fatal decision of bombing the Iranian nuclear reactors is being contemplated. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense do not have the consensus behind them that existed in the population then. The people, the leaders thereof, political and defense commentators, are in disagreement both in respect of the actual bombing and the effectiveness thereof, and in respect to the timing and the necessity for Israel to do the job, rather than leaving it for others, who are also threatened by a direct or indirect risk. Moreover, what is referred to as the “home front”, in this case means the entire state of Israel, which is not prepared for such an operation.

Also, the reasoning for silencing the criticism because it plays into the enemy’s hands is groundless: the government in Teheran is not influenced in its decision by the criticism or lack thereof in Israel. In this point I disagree with Oded Granot, Channel 1's commentator for Arab Affairs, whose opinion is that despite this stated position of Teheran, it is afraid of an Israeli attack. The government is much more influenced by criticism, or more accurately – steps towards economic suffocation by the free world. This is strongly echoed in the USA, whether through an article in the New York Times as well as at the White House.

Therefore, the government must not scare the public. Anyone who talkes about calamity  – shoah – should be very careful with their deeds. The public up to now has proven higher responsibility and maturity than the government, by not going onto the streets and demonstrating for or against the war. However, the public debate on this issue, which is fatal for the state of Israel, is expressed in the media, and there is extreme importance for it gathering a stronger momentum .

  Zvi Gill's Blog  | Zvi Gill On Facebook