TEL AVIV: Israel has very real reasons to be afraid. But the Netanyahu-Lieberman politics of fear that is supposed to justify occupation of the West Bank has catastrophic consequences, and the world no longer wants to listen to the cries, "The wolf, the wolf. Here is how the dynamics works: Israel's critics often say that it is making manipulative use of exaggerated fears. They argue that, after all Israel has one of the world's strongest armies, that it is generally known to be a nuclear power. Hence its constant harping on being under existential threat is just a way of coaxing the United States not to apply too much pressure against settlement activities, and to keep the world on its toes with the Iranian threat. Israel's defenders argue that the dangers are all too real. Hasn't the constant barrage of Qassams on Sderot proven that if Israel leaves the West Bank it will just be a matter of time until some terrorist shoots down a plane headed for Israel's only major airport, Ben-Gurion? What if Hamas takes over the West Bank and takes the approach of Hezbollah? All of Israel would be within reach of rockets. In addition, Israel would become the target of vicious criticism if it would defend against such attacks, because, of course, there would be casualties. And then there is the threat of a nuclear Iran. Why should we not take it seriously if Iran's president keeps saying that Israel should be erased, particularly now, when it is clear he has the clerical rulers' full support? The critics who simply disqualify Israel's fears are making a big mistake, assuming that they want to be politically constructive and not just ventilate anger at Israel. There is no clear-cut argument that invalidates the claim that Israel would indeed be within the range of rockets if a Palestinian state were founded. Nor can anybody feel very comfortable with a nuclear Iran that continues the rhetoric of Holocaust denial and threats to wipe out Israel. The dreams of Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) unfortunately belong to the past; peace offers will not be met by all our neighbors with roses. The level of hatred in our area is such that saying that Israel is under no security risk requires a fair amount of bad faith. Moving ahead towards peace indeed requires taking risks. The point is that none of these risks entails the continuation of the occupation of most of the West Bank and the Israeli right's use of fear is indeed manipulative. There are several questions on which you can never get an answer from the Israeli right wing: How on earth are settlements scattered in the West Bank supposed to increase Israel's security? And how exactly is holding on to the West Bank supposed to protect Israel from a nuclear Iran? And most of all, how exactly do they envisage a future in which Israel continues to occupy the West Bank without establishing an apartheid regime de facto? Nobody has ever received coherent answers to these questions. The right's latest rhetorical ploy is that since the conflict cannot be solved, it needs to be "managed until further notice, presumably sometime in the 22nd century. The Israeli right's unforgivable sin is a ploy the George W. Bush administration made use of for years. By fanning fears, it made use of its citizens' ignorance of the Middle East to create imaginary connections like those between Iraq and Al Qaeda; by fabricating evidence for weapons of mass destruction where none existed, as Ron Suskind has shown in detail, it galvanized public opinion to support its policies. The result was catastrophic: according to most estimates, the United States is less safe now than it was eight years ago, and its standing in the world has been greatly harmed. The Israeli right's policies are leading to the same result. The refusal to engage Fateh led to the rise of Hamas, and the refusal to engage with Hamas will open the door to Al Qaeda, and Israel's security will decrease in the long run. Furthermore, Israel's standing is plummeting. As Netanyahu has found out during his visit in the United States, his fiery speeches on the possibility that 4000 years of Jewish history will come to an end because of Iran do not impress anybody anymore. Netanyahu's and Lieberman's rhetoric will lead to the point where the world will no longer want to listen to Israel's justified fears, because they make unjustifiable use of them. Both keep harping on the theme that Israel is the West's outpost in a Middle East threatened by radical Islam. I am not optimistic about their changing their rhetoric, because their political identity is built upon it. But if they were to realize how counterproductive their line is, they might generate more understanding rather than distrust for Israel's legitimate fears. Prof. Carlo Strenger, a philosopher and psychoanalyst, teaches at the psychology department of Tel Aviv University and is a member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) in conjunction with The Jerusalem Post.
