Denial or fear to explicitly acknowledge the danger we are in?

 

Caroline Glick presenting the New Right platform

Last night I attended a pre-election meeting at BGU at which representatives of various parties explained their platforms and it was moderated by the Times of Israel's senior analyst Haviv Rettig Gur.  

The question I intended to ask was:

Professor Bernard Lewis, who by the way was here at BGU some 13 years ago,  wrote: "In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning.  At the End of Time, there will be general   destruction anyway.  What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement..."

So, according to Bernard Lewis, Iran cannot be deterred. Why is this not  being discussed in the election campaign?   Only two Israeli politicians ever quoted Bernard Lewis - Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN GA in 2012 and Michael Oren in his LA Times article in 2015. Why is this a taboo subject? 

I was told by the moderator that my question was too long so I shortened Bernard Lewis's quote to its very essence.

The answers I got were not to the question I asked. Some said that there is a consensus in Israel on the Iranian threat. True, there is a consensus that there is a threat from Iran.  But few seem to understand the implications of the MAD doctrine having no meaning when it comes to Iran. It is the character and therefore magnitude of the threat that matters. The representative from the Blue and White party quoted Gantz's statement  that he will never permit a nuclear Iran, but he never explained WHY it is imperative to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. There was also a comment that it would be a disaster not only for Israel but for the whole world. I could not agree more.

But that was not what I asked. Nobody explained why Bernard Lewis, one of the most renowned scholars of the Middle East,  is not being quoted nor why there is no discussion in the campaign about his warning. The nearest to answering my question was Caroline Glick who said that this was a strategic issue and difficult to discuss.  It still does not explain why nobody, including her, ever quotes Bernard Lewis on MAD.  

Meretz and Labor kept emphasizing the "real issues" , i.e. education, housing, corruption -- however,  all this would have no meaning after a nuclear war, so I am afraid we all live in denial. Some have probably heard of what Bernard Lewis said but think that he is wrong since no Iranian mullah would be willing to sacrifice himself, they only send their followers to do so. Others probably believe that the very possibility that Iran gets the bomb is very slim so why bother what they would do if they do get it.  

I think we are in deep shit. We are either living in denial or are just too scared to explicitly acknowledge the danger we are in.  Would quoting Bernard Lewis help? I think it would, but there is nothing we can do to change minds on this.   

*****

Bernard Lewis and Norman Podhoretz on Iran and MAD