Britannia Radio

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Tess Shaflan / JINI)

Last update - 07:52 01/05/2009 Is Netanyahu bringing Israel closer to a 'second Holocaust'? By Aluf Benn Tags: Iran, Israel News  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's actions are shaped by a profound conviction that Israel will be in danger of extermination if Iran has nuclear weapons at its disposal. Removing the Iranian threat to Israel has been Netanyahu's main goal for years, and the Iranians' progress in this realm has only reinforced his awareness that the fateful hour of decision is fast approaching.  Ariel Sharon called Iran a global rather than an Israeli problem. Ehud Olmert used to say no issue preoccupied him more than the nuclear threat posed by Iran. But Netanyahu's predecessors didn't describe this danger with the same gravity as he does. "We will not allow the Holocaust-deniers to perpetrate another Holocaust against the Jewish people," the prime minister warned at the state ceremony on Holocaust and Martyrs' Remembrance Day last week. Senior political figures say Netanyahu has spoken to them about the danger of another Holocaust in private conversations as well. They are convinced that he truly believes it is his historic mission to rescue the Jewish people from a catastrophe.  As far as Netanyahu is concerned, a decisive turning point in world history will occur when Iran completes its nuclear bomb. This will mean that significant control over the world's energy resources will be in the hands of a fanatical sect of ayatollahs, and will turn the Arab countries, against their will, into Tehran's satellites. Netanyahu views Israel's strategic problems as part and parcel of the ongoing struggle with Iran, a country that has built "launching bases" on the other side of the borders, in Lebanon and in Gaza, by supplying rockets to both Hezbollah and Hamas. The prime minister believes that once Iran goes nuclear, thereby turning Syria into its protege, any withdrawal from the Golan Heights will turn that territory into an Iranian front.  In his speeches in recent years, Netanyahu has compared Iran to Nazi Germany and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler, and has spoken of the international community's silence in the face of both threats - in 1938 and at present.  "The second Holocaust" of which Netanyahu warns will not feature ghettos, trains or gas chambers, but will be characterized by an attempt to eradicate the State of Israel. In his opinion, the Jewish people's continued existence depends on the State of Israel's continued existence. Today, a great proportion of the world's Jews live in Israel, the only place where they can truly enjoy the revitalization of Jewish life, while their coreligionists are gradually being lost to assimilation elsewhere. Netanyahu sees Iran as the latest enemy that has surfaced and threatens the survival of the Jewish collective, an enemy that must be repelled, with the help of others or on our own.  A country's leaders are obligated by commitments they make in public, which often compel them to keep their promises. Here are a few examples: The Arab countries invaded Palestine in 1948 after promising to prevent the Jewish state's establishment and to help the Palestinians, but their armies were ill prepared for the mission and lost the war. In 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, swept up by his own rhetoric, pushed Israel into declaring its own "red lines," thereby dragging both sides into a war that probably neither of them wanted.  In 1991 Iraqi president Saddam Hussein promised missiles against Israel, and delivered. In 2006 Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah kept his promise to his supporters to kidnap Israeli soldiers, and then-prime minister Ehud Olmert was pushed into keeping his counter-promise not to give in to terror, and embarked on a war without checking whether the Israel Defense Forces were capable of defeating Hezbollah. In 2008 Israel's leaders once again warned of an imminent operation in Gaza, and eventually embarked on it.  Illusion of choice  In his impressive book "Fateful Choices," British historian Ian Kershaw describes the 10 most critical decisions about World War II, made in 1940-41 by the leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the U.S. These include Britain's decision to continue fighting Hitler after the fall of France, Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union, Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor, president Roosevelt's decision to join the war and Hitler's decision to destroy the Jews.  In all these cases, which constituted turning points in the war, the leaders ostensibly acted out of their own volition and could have chosen another path, which would have changed the course of history. But Kershaw demonstrates that freedom of choice is an illusion. When leaders reach the moment of truth, they are bound by their character, by ideology and beliefs that prompted them to run for office, by their countries' military and economic capabilities, and - above all - by their commitment to their previous decisions. Any deviations will probably be more closely linked to the type of regime and its decision-making mechanisms than to content.  Netanyahu's policy also has to be assessed by these parameters. His role model is Winston Churchill, the man who warned about Germany's strengthening in the 1930s and was considered an eccentric right-wing militarist until he was called upon to save Britain in World War II, after his doomsday prophecies came true. Like him, Netanyahu also sees himself as a prophet at the gate, who saw the dangers of terror and extremist Islam before others did, and has now received a second chance to prove the justice of his claims and remove the threats to Israel and the Jewish people. A person with such historical awareness does not just spew out empty words about existential dangers, Holocaust and destruction. These words obligate him to take action. And his declarations to date have been so extreme that he will have difficulty retreating from them.  The first test for Netanyahu's approach will come during his upcoming meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. Netanyahu sees Obama, more than anyone else in the world, as the one person who can halt Iranian armament. During their meeting in Jerusalem last July, when they were both still running for office, Netanyahu told Obama that his presidency would be judged by his handling of Iran. He expressed support for Obama's proposal for rapprochement with the Iranians, and told him that in that case, the end far outweighs the means. In Netanyahu's opinion Obama has tremendous political clout - something his predecessor George W. Bush lacked - to launch an operation against Iran. He has at his disposal all the diplomatic, economic and military capabilities of the American superpower.  Furthermore, Netanyahu apparently understands that, in return for American actions to remove the specter of the Iranian threat from the region, Israel will be required to embark on a diplomatic process with the Palestinians, and perhaps with the Syrians, too. In case he didn't understand this, during her appearance in Congress last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it her business to explain to him that the Arab countries will not stand with Israel against Iran if Israel does not advance the peace process with the Palestinians.  Since Netanyahu's return to the Prime Minister's Office, and ahead of his trip to Washington, Israel has upped its verbal tirade against Iran, and there is evidence of a media campaign with one, simple message: If the world doesn't halt Iran's nuclearization, Israel will act alone, and it is already preparing for such an eventuality.  It began with an interview Netanyahu gave to Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter for The Atlantic, while the government was still being formed. Goldberg wrote: "The American president, he [Netanyahu] said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons - and quickly - or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities itself." The citation appeared without quotation marks, and Goldberg explained in his blog that this was his take on Netanyahu's statements rather than a direct quote. The PMO did not issue a specific denial, and the headline in The Atlantic - "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran - Or I Will" - became the basis for a worldwide media discussion and for a debate among columnists as to whether or not Israel should attack Iran.  Netanyahu's controversial quote was only the opening act, preceding the item that appeared recently in the daily Maariv, to the effect that the prime minister is satisfied with the military preparations for attacking Iran; the report in The Times of Britain, which cited Israeli security sources on IDF plans for an operation and asserted that an upcoming Home Front exercise will be part of the preparations for a war with Iran; the Israel Air Force briefing for military correspondents, during which pilots spoke about their high motivation for an operation against Iranian nuclearization; and the interview in the daily Yedioth Ahronoth with the outgoing CEO of the Nuclear Research Institute in Dimona, Yitzhak Gurevich, who compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler and his speeches against Israel to "Mein Kampf." Gurevich, who headed the country's most sensitive facility for seven years, cannot speak to the media without first receiving the prime minister's permission.  In this week's cabinet meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak reiterated his call on Obama to determine a deadline for talks with Iran and to prepare a threatening package of sanctions in case the negotiations fail. "At the same time, we are not removing any option from the table, we recommend that others do the same, and we mean what we say," he said. A few weeks ago Barak warned that the time for dealing with Iran is running out.  Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who visited the U.S. a few weeks ago, tried to illustrate to his American interlocutors the challenge Iran poses for Israel. "Let's say that the rocket fire resumes, and we have to embark on another operation in Gaza. Intelligence informs us that the Iranians have armed their nuclear bombs. What will we do then? How can we operate against Hamas?" When we say all options are on the table, explained Ashkenazi, it is my job to make sure that they will be ready.  What will a Netanyahu-led Israel do if Obama succeeds and reaches an agreement that will leave Iran with the status of a "threshold nation" - with nuclear capability, but without a bomb? And what will Israel demand in return for such an arrangement, in the form of American security guarantees in case it is violated?  Israel will find it difficult to attack Iran alone without a "green light" from America, even if it is only implied and if America ostensibly turns a blind eye. But once the moment of truth arrives, it is doubtful Obama would give the order to take down the Israeli planes heading to Iran - or for that matter to declare an end of aid to Israel or to sever relations. Obviously, the U.S. will want to remain somewhat distanced from any operation that is launched, so as not to be vulnerable to the anticipated Iranian response. But its strong commitment to Israeli security will not allow America to forcibly prevent a military operation designed to prevent a second Holocaust. That is the message Netanyahu will try to implant in the minds of the members of Congress.  As long as the diplomatic process continues, and Obama is asking Israel to hold off on any action, it is too early to declare that a war against Iran is inevitable. But Netanyahu's rise to power is clearly bringing Israel closer to such a conflagration, because of the gravity he attributes to the Iranian threat and his belief that he is tasked with saving Israel and the Jewish people from destruction. Anyone who thinks of himself in such terms and is also talking about history books will not want to be remembered as the prime minister who served when the Islamic Republic, whose leader considers Israel a "filthy germ," became a nuclear power.