Israel elections and media responsibility

 Note: you may want to return to this essay later in the week; I may revise it--as  I revised last week's essay.

Second Note: Revised November 1, 2012

 

 

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has scheduled national elections for January, 2013. In case you have forgotten, Israel’s national elections bring a season of competition—to see who can create the ‘Biggest Whopper’.

Apparently, Israelis love ‘whoppers’.

Almost the instant we saw Netanyahu’s announcement, whopper competition began: Netanyahu, it was reported, promised to surrender to Syrian President Assad all of the Golan, down to the Kinneret;  Defense Minister Ehud Barak was reported to have betrayed Netanyahu; and former Prime Minister--and scandal defendant--Ehud Olmert  gave us one of the biggest ‘whoppers’ of the new season:  it was not Abbas who killed the 2009 Olmert give-away peace plan, but the demonized political Right.

After just two days of news, Israel was abuzz.  

No doubt about it: big whoppers sell.

The beginning of this election season brought us something new—a big whopper from an outsider.  Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas (who appears to be in his seventh year of a four-year term) gave us this:  former PM Olmert was sooooo close to peace; but the ‘bad’ Israelis scuttled it.  For perhaps the first time ever, Mr Abbas seemed to be taking a serious interest in Israel. His whopper even appeared to suggest that if we elected Olmert to another term as Prime Minister, peace would be ours.

Israel’s media reported all of this, mostly without comment. Why? Is the media telling us that we should choose our national leadership based on who creates or supports the biggest whopper;  or, does media competition require that news professionals ply their trade with a ready-fire-aim philosophy? Or do we get such reporting simply because the media has decided that Israelis prefer excitement over truth?

It certainly looks that way.

But if excitement attracts our attention, there is a suggestion in the air that political titillation has lost its lustre.  Israelis may want something better. 

We see a hint of this desire for something better from the media--from the media itself. Even as the news industry here showcases its big whoppers, it appears to do so without conviction. As we see misrepresentation and political outrage tumble across our line of vision, such stories don’t last. They have no shelf-life. The news cycle for outrage and other forms of the ‘Big Whopper’  simply isn’t what it used to be. Remember ‘women on buses’ or Haredi ‘discrimination’ against women in the army? What happened to those stories?

They disappeared.

In Israel, media whoppers flop. Whatever the motivation for their publication, the impact of such quick news cycles for misrepresentations is to create an indifference to misrepresentation. Haven’t you noticed? When an outrageous headline grabs our attention, an odd thing happens: our excitement doesn’t last. We have become so well trained by past experience to expect such stories to flame out, our immediate reaction is like a campfire spark—it jumps and then evaporates. In fact, the faster a story evaporates, the more convinced we are that it wasn’t true in the first place: if it were true, it wouldn’t die so abruptly.

The loser in all of this could be the media. Yes, Big Whoppers excite, no question; but the more often political titillation flashes and disappears, the more convinced we become that the excitement was faked. The actual result (reader distrust) destroys the story’s original intent (read our news! We tell the truth!).

Israelis may never grow tired of looking at lies. But they may grow very tired of the media that promotes those lies. The media might bring to this new national election season a sense of glee at the titillation it can create. But the reading public seems increasingly jaded—not just at politicians, but the media as well.

That’s a shame. Our democracy needs an honest media. A dishonest media can destroy our democracy; and there’s no doubt about Israel’s media: it is not honest.

Want proof? Watch the news. Then ask the public how they see that news being presented.

Does Mahmoud Abbas really speak honestly about Israel? Should Olmert’s public declarations really be printed without an immediate ‘fact-check’?

For the media, reader perception becomes public reality. The messenger (media) becomes the message (another lie). The media might enjoy showcasing a national event as a dirty fight. But the public sees not only the dirty fight, but prejudiced news professionals joining that fight--instead of reporting objectively about it.

The media could pay a price for such behaviour. For example, the newspaper, Haaretz,  suffers. Could its troubles be related—partly or wholly-- to this issue?

National elections are important. The media has a responsibility to inform—and, when it comes to Big Whoppers, to tell us the truth. The meal our media so joyously prepares with its current editorial behaviour may not be a gourmet feast; it could be poisonous stew.

Ask Haaretz.

 

 

Iran: Are you paying attention?

This essay was originally posted on Sunday, October 21, 2012. This is a re-write.


There is an evil axis operating in the Middle East. It kills at will. Thousands die. Thousands more become homeless. Hundreds of thousands fear for their lives. Entire cities become rubble.

It is a vision of the future for the West, written in Syrian blood by an evil axis—and no one cares.

Of course that’s not true. Many care. Many follow Middle East news. They see injustice. They see brutality. They are not insensitive.  They understand lawlessness when they see it.

That’s why they identify Israel as lawless: she builds apartments in her capital city.

Lawless Jews build in Israel. An evil axis kills in Syria.

The West declares that Israel’s building is the major obstacle to Regional peace. Jews who build are challenged. An evil axis that kills is not.  An evil  plunges Syria into fiery hell; and to confront this, the West steps up to its moral high ground and accuses Israel of disturbing the peace.

Thank G-d for the West: how could there be peace without its voice?

There is no peace. There will be no peace—not when evil kills at will.

If you are not paying attention, the news stories you read next year could be about war, not peace. If the West continues to focus on Israel-as-evil, the real evil will continue to kill in Syria. It will not stop there.

There can be no peace when evil kills at will.

How many have been murdered and tortured in Syria during the last 19 months—tens of thousands. How many children have been tortured and killed? Does anyone know?

Does anyone care?

Israel-as-evil must be stopped. Have you heard? She builds apartments in her capital city!

Most agree that a nuclear Iran is a threat. But they seem also to agree that Israel is the greater threat. She seems a greater threat because the West believes that Iran only threatens Israel; but Israel threatens the world. How? The world—through the United Nations--dedicates itself to humanitarianism and world peace. They want a new world order.  So does the Catholic Church. So do Muslims

Are you paying attention?

Catholics, Muslims and the UN may not fully agree on how that new world order should look, but they all agree on this: Israel is their greatest threat. Haven’t you heard? Israel does not want peace. She is also the opposite of the humanitarian nation; indeed, she is apartheid itself. She is repulsive. She is, in other words, the embodiment of evil.  She has been condemned at the UN more often than all others nation in the world, combined. Such is the fate of an evil nation.

The world wants its peace. It obsesses over Israel. But Israel is irrelevant:  there will never be peace when evil kills at will.

Are you paying attention? Iran has been supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon and Bashar Assad in Syria. There are reports that elite Iranian troops protect Syrian President Assad—and participate in fighting against Syrian anti-government rebels. Syria under Assad is important to Iran because Iran needs Syria in order to transfer weapons westward to Hizbullah. Look at a map. If Hizbullah in Lebanon is an Iranian surrogate, you’ll see how a complaint Syria helps Iran.

Syrian opposition forces have complained that Hizbullah fires rockets at them from Lebanon. They have been quoted as complaining that these rockets are supposed to be used against Israel. But they are now been used against them. 

The rockets came from Iran.

Iran creates an evil axis with Hizbullah in Lebanon and Assad in Syria. Right now, the integrity of that evil axis is threatened by rebel forces fighting to overthrow Assad. That fighting is not just local politics; it is the bloody hand of  evil trying to survive a serious challenge from rebellious (Syrian) opposition against the pro-Iranian Assad. If Iran is to fulfil its dream of Regional domination, it needs partners. It needs a compliant Syria, a committed Hizbullah—and a willing Iraq. Iran meddles in all three. Look again at a map. View Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq as a single entity under singular –Iranian-- influence.  Should Iran build such an axis, It could become a nuclear power with  fearsome influence and a vast geography, potentially as powerful in its Region as Russia once was in the North with its Iron Curtain ‘allies’.

There will be no peace with such an axis. It kills, unchallenged.

Events in Syria suggest that Iran will do anything to preserve its influence. Preserving that influence might be as important to Iran as its drive for nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons and a powerful axis, Iran could threaten more than just Israel. If you’re not Muslim, she could threaten you.

There will be no peace. This evil kills at will.

Forget Israel. Your focus should be Iran.

Why aren’t you paying attention?

 

 

Deny Zion, deny G-d?

From the moment the Jewish people entered the land of Israel as a unified nation some 3,300 years ago, our success on this land has depended upon our loyalty to G-d. That loyalty expresses itself through our commitment to our Torah, a precious gift of life-instruction given by G-d to His Chosen people. Our Torah is the holy glue, if you will, that keeps the nation of Israel connected to the land of Israel.

There’s more to this, of course. But the basic concept begins with a simple premise: Torah without land is a wife forced to separate from her beloved; land without Torah is a ruined marriage; Torah in the Land is the greatest Power marriage in History.

Today, our loyalty to G-d is not what it should be. Some deny Torah. Some deny land. Some deny both. Our loyalty seems flawed. Many believe that G-d will indeed return the Jewish people to Israel--but only when all accept Torah; and right now, we aren’t close to accomplishing that. But if that’s true, why do so many return now to the land without Torah—and why has G-d so persistently protected us from our modern enemies if our loyalty is so flawed?

Look at history. If you talk to Israelis who have fought in our War of Independence or our Six-Day war, many will tell you that there is no logical reason we should have won those wars.  We were outnumbered. We were outgunned. We were surrounded. Talk to those veterans. Some will tell you, ‘G-d was there with us. We felt Him. We won because of Him.’

Could our passion for the Land be the catalyst for such miracles? Could Land be the key to our Redemption?

There is a story that, during one harsh tank battle in one of our wars, the enemy clearly had the upper hand. Every Jewish soldier on that battlefield knew that the battle was lost and that, within perhaps an hour, Arab tanks would break through the Jewish line and have an unobstructed run to Tel Aviv. Then, inexplicably, the Arab tanks pulled back, retreating. That retreat saved Israel. After the war, the Arab tank commander was reportedly interviewed. When asked why he had retreated when, in fact, he was so obviously close to victory, he is said to have replied, ‘We saw Angels on the Israeli side. My men became frightened. I do not fight Angels.’

This is just one of several stories of Angels protecting Jews in Israel’s modern wars. Jews in our modern battles have—on an individual basis-- always spoken of inexplicable occurrences.  They have spoken of miracles.

Who would reject these miracles? Who would deny G-d on those battlefields?

Why would G-d protect us?

More than 3,300 years ago, we crossed the Jordan River because of G-d’s miracles. More than 64 years ago, we gained our independence because of G-d’s miracles. More than 45 years ago we regained our holy city Jerusalem—because of G-d.

Ask the soldiers who fought. They’ll tell you. There were miracles.

Who would deny this?

Who would deny G-d?

Why would G-d protect us?

When Joshua led Israel into our Israel, he brought more than Torah into the land. He brought G-d’s Light with him. That Light activates through Torah and Land. Look it up: it’s in the Fifth Book of Moses and in the Book of Yeshaiyahu.

Torah alone and land alone do not count. One without the other has always left us unfulfilled. The Jewish people may have been sustained because of Jewish dedication to Torah; but now, with a reborn Israel, something is different: G-d’s presence is felt on the Land. Why?

Today, the darkness of a nuclear holocaust threatens the Jewish state. Israel seems powerless to stop Iran and Iran practically celebrates its destruction of the Jews. How can Israel survive?  

 Through Torah, G-d hears us. Through Land, G-d sees us. Through Torah and Land, G-d saves us. Those who deny Torah, like those who deny Land, obstruct G-d’s Hand. Does their denial deny our safety?  Can their denial deny our Future?  G-d has worked miracles in Israel; do those who deny that negate the power of those miracles?

Zion is the spiritual Center of the world.  G-d rests in Zion. This may be why Muslims and Christians turn to Jerusalem: they understand the Presence of G-d; they yearn to control it.

Through Zion, we will see G-d’s Glory. Torah and Land activate and focus that Glory. Without Zion, Torah is a torch without a switch. Without Torah, Zion is dark.

But these two, Torah and Zion, are not equal; for if Torah is G-d’s gift, His Land is His treasure.

Torah becomes real only in Zion.

Torah activates only because of Zion.

Would you deny Zion?

Would you deny G-d?

 

 

The Jewish Redemption: a religious disconnect?

What’s the first thing the G-d of Israel (HaShem) said when He spoke to our forefather Abraham for the very first time?

He said, ‘Make aliyah!’

Those weren’t His exact words. But when you look at the text of the Torah, you see that HaShem tells ‘Avram’ to leave his land, the place of his birth, and travel to a place which HaShem says He will identify. That place is Israel. HaShem says, in essence, ‘Go to Israel!’

That’s aliyah.

Then, later, when HaShem first spoke to Isaac, our second forefather, what did He say (after introducing Himself)? He spoke of Israel. He taught Isaac that the land of Israel was special. 

Then, later, when HaShem spoke for the first time to Jacob, His first words (after introducing Himself) were, ‘this land’, meaning Israel.

This land—Israel—must be important to the G-d of Israel. Why else would it be the first thing He spoke about when He interacted with each of our Jewish forefathers?

When HaShem first spoke to Moses (after introducing Himself), He declared that He would rescue His people from their Egyptian slavery. He then added what He would do after that rescue.

Did He say he would rescue and then give the Torah? No.

Would He rescue and teach what Faith means? No.

Would He rescue and show how to live a G-dly life carefully and precisely defined by halacha? No.

The G-d of Israel said nothing about faith, Torah or religious deed. He had something else in mind: He would rescue the Jewish people from slavery and then take them to a land flowing with milk and honey. He would take the Jews to Israel.

HaShem’s first focus was Israel, not faith or deed.

From that point, the story of our history unfolds. From His very first words to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, HaShem connected what was most fundamental—the land and the Jewish people.

By contrast, many religious Jews today appear to have drawn a line in the proverbial sand to protect a fundamental separation. They separate what G-d suggests is inseparable--Jews and the land. They embrace faith with fervour. They reject Israel with fervour. They appear to replace land with faith.

It is said that, when the second Temple was destroyed—and Jews exiled-- we recognized that our world had been destroyed. The only thing we had left was the four cubits of halacha (Jewish law) that defined our personal space. Our national identification was gone. Our land was gone. Only personal faith remained.

This is how it was for almost 2,000 years. After the Roman Emperor Hadrian ploughed under the Temple, Israel was neither home nor land. It was desolation itself, just as our Tanach (our Jewish Bible) had predicted.

Surviving Jews had nothing except faith and religious performance—their halacha. For almost 2,000 years, Judaism survived because of that faith and halacha.

Then, modern Israel appeared. This fact was a game-changer. It was also a test: do Jews accept this new reality as a step toward an ultimate Redemption, or do Jews reject it as a red-herring, a kind of religious misdirection play that has nothing to do with Redemption?

Some religious Jews seem to have declared that modern Israel has nothing to do with our Redemption. Why? Because, they say, our Tanach says clearly that the Jewish people will repent and then G-d will return them to their land. The Redemption chronology, in other words, is repent, return to land, Redemption.

Anyone with a nose on his face knows that the Jewish people have not repented. Read Haaretz: it’s all there in black and white.

Without repentance, there is no Return to land.

If you are raised in or near a religious environment, this is what you learn. You even see it every year in the weekly Torah portion called Ki Tavo: repent first, then G-d will return you to the land. If our lack of repentance is a black and white reality in Hareetz, the requirement to repent before our return to Israel is also a black-and-white reality in our Torah.

It couldn’t be any simpler, right?

Wrong.

If you are raised in or near a religious environment, one thing you learn about the texts of your religion is this: things are not always what they appear to be. Take this question of repent first-then-return to land. If you argue that this is indeed the paradigm for Redemption, then you may have a problem. It isn’t the only Redemption paradigm. There is a second paradigm in Tanach, in the Book of Yechezkheil. In this alternate Redemption model, the starting point for Redemption is reversed: return to land first, then repentance, then Redemption.

How curious. The religious, who well know all about different opinions on a single subject, see both Redemption models. But some reject one and embrace the other.

Why?

 

Ehud Barak and Yom Kippur

Before Yom Kippur, 5773 (which this year fell on September 26, 2012), Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak restated his proposal for a unilateral withdrawal of Jews from Judea-Samaria. As reported this time, his proposal would give tens of thousands of Jews who live in Judea-Samaria a choice: return to pre-1967 borders or remain as you are and live under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA); Jews who live in the communities of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion would remain outside the newly-formed PA-controlled area.  Barak made these statements just before Yom Kippur, he said, because Yom Kippur is a good time to look at the facts; the time has come, he suggested, to make decisions that recognize reality. He suggested that his proposal was based partly on a ‘concern’ for the PA, the EU and the US.

No doubt, many Religious Nationalists would reject such a proposal out of hand. They would reject Mr Barak’s reality. The lands of Judea and Samaria, they might claim, are ancestral Jewish homeland. They are not negotiable; and, they might argue, our reality certainly does not recognize any Arab claim that is based on what Nationalists say are lies about the Jewish people.

Nevertheless, Minister Barak is not just another Leftist looking to surrender with a Utopian’s optimism that this is the surrender that creates peace. He is a member of Israel’s government. He has power. He has the ear of the Prime Minister. We should listen to him.

On one level, Mr Barak is correct. Yom Kippur is indeed a time to reflect. It is a time to be concerned. It is the perfect day to look at reality and fact. But the reality of the Jewish Yom Kippur has nothing to do with the Arab, the EU or the US. The reality of Yom Kippur is not about appeasing those who would destroy us. True, if we were pagans, we would make sacrifices to appease the powerful because otherwise, unappeased, those powers would destroy us (sound familiar?): pagan gods are not forgiving.  But, Mr Barak, we are not pagan. Our Yom Kippur is not about gods who require sacrifices to mollify their anger. Our Yom Kippur is about the very personal relationship we have with a loving G-d who gives us a special day to activate our spiritual ‘refresh’ button. It is a day to reflect on how we relate to our Creator—not the Arab or the EU.

How do we know this is the reality of our Yom Kippur?  Read the Yom Kippur prayer-book: it’s all there—and it’s very clear (if you want to read more about this, see The Koren Yom Kippur Mahzor, translation and commentary by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Jerusalem, 2012).

We do not become reflective on Yom Kippur, as Mr Barak suggests, because our destiny is tied to our relationship with the Arab. We do not have a special day of prayer to mollify the power of the US or UN. We may indeed bow on Yom Kippur. But we do not bow to brutal gods or foreign powers.

Our Yom Kippur is not about surrendering to those who hate us. The power we turn to on Yom Kippur is not one who lies about us and desires to butcher us. The Power we face loves and pardons us. The Power we face is One who gives us in love a day of atonement, a day of pardoning and forgiveness so that we can renew ourselves and start a new year with hope and pride. The Power we bow to gives us life and sustenance. He has the ability to remove evil from the world—and we pray to Him on this day to do that. The power that Mr Barak bows to would impose evil onto the world, not remove it. The others he would bow to appear to have no love whatsoever for us. They offer nothing. They are indifferent—or worse.

I don’t know about Mr Barak, but if I had to choose between a G-d who loves me and a god who hates me, I prefer the former, not the latter; and in case there’s any doubt about the gods that Mr Barak would serve, you should note that they rejected outright his surrender proposal even before the ink was dry on his full interview. Then, over the next thirty-six hours, the leaders of Egypt and Iran spoke before the United Nations. They restated how they feel about the Jewish people: they have no leniency, love or hope to offer us.

Meanwhile, as they spoke, our Yom Kippur prayers told us repeatedly that this was a day of pardon, love, hope and forgiveness—a day to renew.

I don’t know about you, Mr Barak. But I know which Yom Kippur I prefer. I know before whom I choose to bow. I know the difference between love and hate.

This is our Yom Kippur, Mr Barak, not theirs.

Days of Awe, 5773: Sing, Zion, for those who choose the wrong path

Zion is a woman who appears to lean upon her two strongest children. One of these children curses her with a contorted anti-religious fervour. The other turns away from her to serve G-d religiously with ultra-fervent denial. While this woman cares for all her children, not all her children care for her. For example, her strongest ignore her. They fight so bitterly they have no time for her. One hates the other and the other rejects the one; so disposed, they seem to have nothing but scorn for their mother.  Zion might feel completely abandoned but for her younger children. These youngsters reach out to her.  But as they reach they cannot touch because they are pushed away by their anti- and ultra- siblings. Zion is trapped between the hate of the anti- and the denial of the ultra-. She wanders, aimless, her heart torn by those closest to her.

Her misfortunes come in pairs. Two Temples destroyed. Two exiles.Two irreconcilable sons. But her comfort also comes in pairs: teshuva as spiritual return to faith and teshuva as physical return to Zion; two self-defensive wars that have miraculously brought freedom and emancipation--the War of Independence and the Six-Day War; and two all-powerful parents, the source of who she is--Heritage and Land.

Zion weeps because she can see her Future but is powerless to move forward: her two strongest children restrain her and her younger children are not yet strong enough to help her.

If her eldest struggle against each other, they still agree on one thing: Zion will always be their focus, as one rejects with cursing, the other with denial.

Zion tries to escape her imprisonment. Her youngsters watch, appalled.

Her eldest force themselves on her. One child, the most powerful—the anti-- has controlled her before. He wills to control her now; meanwhile, the other son—the ultra—refuses to speak;  because his belief contains denial, he will offer no comfort; because that faith is both strong and stubborn, he refuses to let her move.

Her younger children become restless. Awake, Zion! Do not weep! Awake for your children’s sake!

Her parents, Heritage and Land, watch their family in sorrow. Their daughter is abused by her strongest children, the anti- and the ultra-, while the youngsters are treated by their elder siblings as unwanted orphans. The strongest grandchild, the one with the most responsibility, rebels by rejecting his entire past, both Heritage and Land, while the other strong grandchild rebels by denying Land, claiming that he descends only from Heritage.  Torah, he cries, is everything. It is the only thing.  Land today is at best neutral; at worst, it is the embodiment of wickedness: Land means nothing to us.

Together, Heritage and Land mourn.  They have created Zion together and their Zion is enthralled: the anti-child hates, the ultra-child denies, and the younger children are spurned.

Still, Heritage and Land are wise. They can see what the grandchildren cannot. They see the Future; and they see that only the youngsters, the most scorned, will inherit that Future with the fullest inheritance. It is they who cling to family. It is they who are loyal.

Zion does not have her Parents’ vision.  She cannot see her Future as clearly as they. She cannot move forward. She cannot defend herself. And yet, despite the pain caused by her older children, she hears her youngsters.

She is indeed restrained. But through those younger voices--so persistent, so filled with hope and joy-- she stirs, reminded of Family, her Lineage. Through those joyous voices, she understands that her Future does not belong to those who refuse or deny.  Her future belongs to those who want to embrace the Land-- and Sing.

Zion, Zion, awake, awake! If your anti-child would destroy and your ultra- would deny, they cannot help you. It is they who are helpless, not you!  Forgive them! Sing to them! Comfort them! If they cannot see how events lead to your Fulfilment, you must turn to them. Draw them near. They are your children. Do not let their refusal tarnish your hope.

Help them heal; show them the way. Do not be silent!

Zion, you have the power to awaken closed hearts with Song: sing with your young children. It is they who will lead. Sing with them. They are your Future.

Let your Future become your song.

Zion, your Legacy is Heritage and Land. Your strength is Heritage and Land.  Your past was Heritage and Land. Your Future will be Heritage and Land. Sing, Zion. Remember the Songs of old. Sing to teach your stronger children while you Sing for joy with your younger children.

 Sing, Zion. Sing now of Heritage and Land so that those who choose the wrong path can return.

Sing before they turn against you forever.

 

 

America turns on Israel before the Jewish New Year begins

 

Do not envy Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has to decide what to do about Iran. If he does nothing, Israel could get nuked. If he attacks, all Hell breaks out: Iran will fire missiles at Israel; Hizbullah and Hamas would declare Holy War; and Syria (or Hizbullah) could attack with chemical weapons. A war could cost Israel more than 167 billion shekel in direct cost and damages over five years, according to one estimate. Israel’s economy will suffer. The center of Israel, where 70 per cent of the population resides, could turn into a war zone.

Those who attack Israel, meanwhile, could suffer an apocalypse.  One report recently described Israel as capable of pounding Syria and Lebanon back to pre-history. Iran has already put the West on notice that, if Israel attacks, Iran will take its revenge against the West. In a war against Israel, Syria and Lebanon might not be the only nations to return to the Stone Age.

How do Western powers handle this potential destruction? By pressuring Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not amused.

He has good reason to be miffed. After Netanyahu made it clear to US Secretary of Defense John Panetta that Israel has the right to protect itself, Britain and Germany made it equally clear that if Israel attacked Iran, they would not support Israel. Then, perhaps to make sure that Netanyahu got the West’s message, the highest ranking military officer in the US, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, echoed the British-German threat when he said that if Israel attacked, the US would also not assist Israel. According to a recent news analysis, Mr Netanyahu was so ‘impressed’ by the British and German ‘warnings’ that he changed his strategy. Instead of continuing an aggressive stance towards Iran, he backed off; he demanded only that the West set deadlines and ‘redlines’ for Iran, to pressure Iran.

But his effort to lower the heat had no effect. If anything, it might have suggested that Israel’s leadership would fold under pressure. Less than two weeks after reportedly making his change, Netanyahu supposedly ‘blew up’ in a meeting with the US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro (Mr Shapiro denies this). Mr Netanyahu was angered by what he termed, ‘US stalling’ over Iran, and by continuing American pressure on Israel, not Iran.

He had asked for deadlines. He’s gotten nothing but threats--against Israel.

Now, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has formalized the US position on Israel’s call for deadlines. She announced (September 11, 2012), ‘we’re not setting deadlines,’ thereby capping a fortnight of messages that told Israel that the West was interested in supporting neither a military option or deadlines, Israel’s two most important strategic choices in its battle to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Likud MK Danny Danon called Mrs Clinton’s remarks, ‘a slap in Israel’s face.’

The day Clinton’s remarks were published, former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Zalman Shoval, offered the observation, ‘We need to get used to the fact that, as usual, we are alone.’

But we are not just alone.  What has happened is not simply, ‘usual’. The remarks by Mrs Clinton and US General Dempsey have changed Israel’s relationship with its most important ally: if Mr. Netanyahu wanted the West to draw a line in the sand, that’s exactly what he’s gotten—a line in the sand over which Israel  cannot step. President Obama, supposedly so careful to avoid disturbing American Jewish support for his re-election, has apparently pushed aside that concern to clarify his attitude towards Israel, and that clarification is decidedly unfriendly: Israel cannot attack; the West will neither attack Iran nor install deadlines to help Israel; Iran can continue to enrich uranium because only ‘negotiations’  are required and Israel has been put on notice that it must do nothing or suffer the consequences.

These are not gestures of an ally. They are the hallmarks of arrogant disregard for an ally. Clearly, Israel can attack. But the West’s hostility creates for Israel a nightmare scenario:  if she attacks she could be destroyed—because allies may refuse to assist her--and if she waits she could also be destroyed.  

Fortunately, this movie has not yet ended. Yes, as the Jewish New Year approaches, the heroine is being tied to the proverbial railroad track. The villain is Iran. But America ties the ropes, with the British and Germans standing nearby cheering the Americans on while hissing at the heroine. To those who know their Tanach (our Jewish Bible) and its commentaries, this sounds a lot like the descendants of Edom preparing the dogs of war while Persia and Yishmael strain to strike the first blow against Zion.

This is going to be some movie: the enemies of Zion turn against Zion just as the G-d of Israel prepares to judge the world.

Happy New Year.