| Tweet |
イスラエルは存在の危殆に瀕する国家（ハアレツ記事）
イスラエルの有力紙ハアレツが、ヨーロッパの新聞がイスラエルの存在そのものに疑問を発している危機的な状況を報じているのである。
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/757767.html
An endangered state
By Yair Sheleg
It is hard to believe, but only 60 years after the Holocaust the Jewish people is once again in danger of being destroyed - at least in its own state, where 40 percent of the world's Jews are concentrated. Evidence of the severity of the danger can be found not only in the explicit threats by Iran's president, which are backed up by an arms program that would provide the means to carry them out. It can also be found in recent articles in the European press that discuss the possibility of Israel's 'disappearance' as a reasonable 'working assumption.' Additional evidence regarding the threat level exists in the fact that not only is Israel the only country in the world that is threatened with destruction, it is also the only state whose right to exist is the focus of international polls, with many respondents answering negatively. That is an honor that even Iran, North Korea and apartheid-era South Africa were never granted.
The high degree of danger places before Israel a challenge no less serious than that facing the Jewish people in the 1930s. To face it, we must depart from the routines of hedonistic Western society. As a layman, I will not make recommendations in the area of security, but will instead relate to the general nature of public debate: first of all, there must be a focused agenda. The public, and in particular diplomatic and military officials, must put this threat at the top of their priorities, even at the expense of issues that during normal times would be the focus of attention.
Personal interests must be put aside in favor of concentrating all the forces of good in Israel, the Jewish people and its supporters worldwide. One practical conclusion might be to create an emergency government in Israel, or at least to invite the opposition to participate in decisions on the Iranian issue. Another possible conclusion is that 'making heads roll,' for example in the wake of this summer's war, is a means and not an end, and should be considered a waste of energy and avoided unless absolutely necessary. In the event that it is necessary to restore public trust, which currently appears to be the case, then it must be done without hesitation.
The same principle holds for the structure of the various committees of inquiry into the war: The goal is not to make heads roll but rather to learn lessons for the future. Thus it is preferable to create a two-stage process. In the first stage, the committee should not punish individuals, but rather make recommendations and draft an implementation schedule. In the second stage, the committee should check whether the recommendations have been carried out and only then fire those who were negligent in their implementation.
Complete openness of thought is required, from extreme hawkishness to extreme dovishness. The threat to the very existence of Israel demands that any means to preserve it should be adopted, without giving in to ideological assumptions. If hesitating to hurt Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on us could send Iran the message that we will hesitate to hurt civilians if Iran strikes us, then we must not be deterred. If making peace with Syria, even if it entails evacuating communities, could damage the new 'eastern front,' then we should do that. Here it is worthwhile to note another step that appears even more important than peace with Syria. One of the reasons Iran can threaten to destroy Israel with impunity is Israel's image as a Jewish 'weed' combined with the tendency to ignore Israel's 1 million Arabs, who would also be affected by a nuclear attack. Israel's Jews and Arabs thus have a shared existential interest in strengthening their partnership. It is also necessary to drive home to the Arab world the fact that a leader who is neither Arab nor Sunni is willing to destroy not only millions of Jews but also hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs.
Calmness is necessary: the threat level is high enough to warrant panic, but precisely because of the seriousness of the situation, various solutions should be examined with cool objectivity. For example, is it true that peace with Syria would dissolve its alliance with Iran, or would it only reinforce its militancy?
The need to shape policy relatively quickly must not lead to hurried decisions taken without regard for consequences. The very degree and urgency of the threat reduces the room for error as well as the need for precise solutions.
----------------------------------------------------------
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。