NYT Hypes Israeli Attack on Iran
It's an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week's New York Times Magazine. "ISRAEL VS.
It's an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week's New York Times Magazine. "ISRAEL VS. IRAN," spelled out in charred black lettering, with flame and smoke still rising from "IRAN," as if the great war were already over. Below those large lurid letters is the little subtitle: "When Will It Erupt?" -- not "if," but "when," as if it were inevitable. Though the article itself is titled "Will Israel Attack Iran?", author Ronen Bergman, military analyst for Israel's largest newspaper, leaves no doubt of his answer: "Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."
Bergman does cite some compelling arguments against an Israeli strike from former heads of Mossad (Israel's CIA). And he makes it clear that no attack can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if it wants them. Everyone agrees on that. The argument is only about whether an attack would delay the Iranian program by a few years or just a few months.
Nevertheless, his article stacks the deck in favor of supposedly persuasive reasons for Israel to act. It's almost a hymn of praise to what one Jewish Israeli scholar has called Iranophobia, an irrational fear promoted by the Jewish state because "Israel needs an existential threat." Why? To sustain the myth that shapes its national identity: the myth of Israel's insecurity.
That myth comes out clearly in Bergman's conclusion: Israel will attack Iran because of a "peculiar Israeli mixture of fear -- rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive -- and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves."
Fear of what? Defend against whom? It doesn't really matter. Israeli political life has always been built on the premise that Israel's very existence is threatened by some new Hitler bent on destroying the Jewish people. How can Israel prove that Jews can defend themselves if there's no anti-semitic "evildoer" to fight against?
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 Israeli 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 "the 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.
Bergman glibly asserts that there's some "unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions." For years, though, a torrent of reports from Washington have all agreed that both the White House and the Pentagon, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, would refuse to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The consequences for the U.S. are too drastic to even consider it. Why should that change now?
Bergman's article ignores the obvious answer, the most crucial missing piece in his picture: Barack Obama wants to get re-elected nine months from now. Despite what the headlines tell us, he doesn't really have to worry about pleasing hawkish Jewish opinion. Most American Jews want him to work harder for peaceful settlements in the Middle East.
What Obama does have to worry about is Republicans using words like these (which Bergman tucks into his article as if he were paid by the GOP): "The Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them." Only a dyed-in-the-wool Iranophobe would believe the charge that Obama is an "appeaser," but we are already hearing it from his would-be opponents.
Obama also has to worry about fantasies like the one Bergman offers (apparently in all seriousness) of Iranian operatives smuggling nukes into Texas. Republicans will happily spread that story, too.
All of this could be laughed off as absurdity if the American conversation about Israel were based on reality. Israel, the Middle East's only nuclear power now and for the foreseeable future, is perfectly safe from Iranian attack. Indeed, Israel is safe from any attack, as the strength of its (largely U.S.-funded) military and the history of its war success proves.
But as long as the myth of Israel's insecurity pervades American political life, an incumbent desperate to get re-elected just might feel forced to let the Israelis attack Iran. The only thing that would stand in the way is a better informed American electorate. Apparently that's not what the New York Times Magazine sees as its mission.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
It's an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week's New York Times Magazine. "ISRAEL VS. IRAN," spelled out in charred black lettering, with flame and smoke still rising from "IRAN," as if the great war were already over. Below those large lurid letters is the little subtitle: "When Will It Erupt?" -- not "if," but "when," as if it were inevitable. Though the article itself is titled "Will Israel Attack Iran?", author Ronen Bergman, military analyst for Israel's largest newspaper, leaves no doubt of his answer: "Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."
Bergman does cite some compelling arguments against an Israeli strike from former heads of Mossad (Israel's CIA). And he makes it clear that no attack can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if it wants them. Everyone agrees on that. The argument is only about whether an attack would delay the Iranian program by a few years or just a few months.
Nevertheless, his article stacks the deck in favor of supposedly persuasive reasons for Israel to act. It's almost a hymn of praise to what one Jewish Israeli scholar has called Iranophobia, an irrational fear promoted by the Jewish state because "Israel needs an existential threat." Why? To sustain the myth that shapes its national identity: the myth of Israel's insecurity.
That myth comes out clearly in Bergman's conclusion: Israel will attack Iran because of a "peculiar Israeli mixture of fear -- rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive -- and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves."
Fear of what? Defend against whom? It doesn't really matter. Israeli political life has always been built on the premise that Israel's very existence is threatened by some new Hitler bent on destroying the Jewish people. How can Israel prove that Jews can defend themselves if there's no anti-semitic "evildoer" to fight against?
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 Israeli 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 "the 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.
Bergman glibly asserts that there's some "unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions." For years, though, a torrent of reports from Washington have all agreed that both the White House and the Pentagon, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, would refuse to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The consequences for the U.S. are too drastic to even consider it. Why should that change now?
Bergman's article ignores the obvious answer, the most crucial missing piece in his picture: Barack Obama wants to get re-elected nine months from now. Despite what the headlines tell us, he doesn't really have to worry about pleasing hawkish Jewish opinion. Most American Jews want him to work harder for peaceful settlements in the Middle East.
What Obama does have to worry about is Republicans using words like these (which Bergman tucks into his article as if he were paid by the GOP): "The Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them." Only a dyed-in-the-wool Iranophobe would believe the charge that Obama is an "appeaser," but we are already hearing it from his would-be opponents.
Obama also has to worry about fantasies like the one Bergman offers (apparently in all seriousness) of Iranian operatives smuggling nukes into Texas. Republicans will happily spread that story, too.
All of this could be laughed off as absurdity if the American conversation about Israel were based on reality. Israel, the Middle East's only nuclear power now and for the foreseeable future, is perfectly safe from Iranian attack. Indeed, Israel is safe from any attack, as the strength of its (largely U.S.-funded) military and the history of its war success proves.
But as long as the myth of Israel's insecurity pervades American political life, an incumbent desperate to get re-elected just might feel forced to let the Israelis attack Iran. The only thing that would stand in the way is a better informed American electorate. Apparently that's not what the New York Times Magazine sees as its mission.
It's an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week's New York Times Magazine. "ISRAEL VS. IRAN," spelled out in charred black lettering, with flame and smoke still rising from "IRAN," as if the great war were already over. Below those large lurid letters is the little subtitle: "When Will It Erupt?" -- not "if," but "when," as if it were inevitable. Though the article itself is titled "Will Israel Attack Iran?", author Ronen Bergman, military analyst for Israel's largest newspaper, leaves no doubt of his answer: "Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."
Bergman does cite some compelling arguments against an Israeli strike from former heads of Mossad (Israel's CIA). And he makes it clear that no attack can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if it wants them. Everyone agrees on that. The argument is only about whether an attack would delay the Iranian program by a few years or just a few months.
Nevertheless, his article stacks the deck in favor of supposedly persuasive reasons for Israel to act. It's almost a hymn of praise to what one Jewish Israeli scholar has called Iranophobia, an irrational fear promoted by the Jewish state because "Israel needs an existential threat." Why? To sustain the myth that shapes its national identity: the myth of Israel's insecurity.
That myth comes out clearly in Bergman's conclusion: Israel will attack Iran because of a "peculiar Israeli mixture of fear -- rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive -- and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves."
Fear of what? Defend against whom? It doesn't really matter. Israeli political life has always been built on the premise that Israel's very existence is threatened by some new Hitler bent on destroying the Jewish people. How can Israel prove that Jews can defend themselves if there's no anti-semitic "evildoer" to fight against?
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 Israeli 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 "the 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.
Bergman glibly asserts that there's some "unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions." For years, though, a torrent of reports from Washington have all agreed that both the White House and the Pentagon, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, would refuse to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The consequences for the U.S. are too drastic to even consider it. Why should that change now?
Bergman's article ignores the obvious answer, the most crucial missing piece in his picture: Barack Obama wants to get re-elected nine months from now. Despite what the headlines tell us, he doesn't really have to worry about pleasing hawkish Jewish opinion. Most American Jews want him to work harder for peaceful settlements in the Middle East.
What Obama does have to worry about is Republicans using words like these (which Bergman tucks into his article as if he were paid by the GOP): "The Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them." Only a dyed-in-the-wool Iranophobe would believe the charge that Obama is an "appeaser," but we are already hearing it from his would-be opponents.
Obama also has to worry about fantasies like the one Bergman offers (apparently in all seriousness) of Iranian operatives smuggling nukes into Texas. Republicans will happily spread that story, too.
All of this could be laughed off as absurdity if the American conversation about Israel were based on reality. Israel, the Middle East's only nuclear power now and for the foreseeable future, is perfectly safe from Iranian attack. Indeed, Israel is safe from any attack, as the strength of its (largely U.S.-funded) military and the history of its war success proves.
But as long as the myth of Israel's insecurity pervades American political life, an incumbent desperate to get re-elected just might feel forced to let the Israelis attack Iran. The only thing that would stand in the way is a better informed American electorate. Apparently that's not what the New York Times Magazine sees as its mission.