It’s not every day you read an article like this (Hebrew) in the Israeli press. Leading settler Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, one of the most senior of the religious Zionist rabbis, attacks the idea of an Israeli assault on Iran and rejects the notion that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. In fact, he says, it is only one of many threats Israel faces and not necessarily the most dangerous. Because of that, the rabbi rejects the notion that a military attack on that nation is warranted.
He calls Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu leaders with “inflated egos” and says ego and other personal motivations are propelling an attack. Melamed recommends that all other ministers voting on this issue should act in a calm, deliberate manner and not get carried away by the defense and prime minister’s fervor for war. He argues that Netanyahu suffers from a “trust gap,” and that the latter believes a successful attack against Iran will transform him into one of the great leaders of Israel on a par with Ben Gurion or Begin. For that reason, Bibi’s desire for personal glory and his motives must be distrusted.
Barak’s career, Melamed argues, is in free fall in contrast to his dreams of being a great leader, security expert, and figure capable of resolving international crises. The defense minister’s only opportunity to return to political leadership and become a winner in the eyes of the populace is through a successful assault on Iran.
Rabbi Melamed argues that while the impulse by nations to gain nuclear capability is undesirable, it appears impossible to prevent. He writes that even if Israel succeeded in destroying Iran’s nuclear program it would only delay that country gaining a weapon. In the rabbi’s view, Israel’s efforts should be directed not at attacking Iran, but at creating anti-missile defenses that could stop any Iranian attack on Israel. He favors deterrence over attack.
What’s especially important here is that Melamed is a settler rabbi, beloved of the nationalist camp. He favors all the things that my readers and I oppose in the Territories. But he carries great sway with those MKs and ministers who share his views. Therefore, he may carry weight in the debate over attacking Iran. As I’ve written before, I don’t care about the motivation for opposing an Iran strike. Taking the right position is more important than ideological purity. We can always oppose Rabbi Melamed on those issues that divide us at a later time.
” Taking the right position is more important than ideological purity. We can always oppose Rabbi Melamed on those issues that divide us at a later time.”
I guess this is correct, but right now my head is exploding.
The Rabbi is apparently wrong about a lot of different things. But, on the issue of war with Iran, he is right. Endorsing his message does not give him carte blanc to do as he wants but it does spread the word that the idea of war is altogether wrong.
Seems you missed the good Rabi method of confronting the situation with Iran:
According to Rabi Melamed dealing with Iran should include not the denial of nuclear abilities from Iran but establishing deterrence by striking Israel’s enemies, expending the Israeli law onto the west bank, and expending the settlements as well as acquiring better defense systems such as the arrow missile interception system etc.
What can i say… if you are willing to accept this idiot’s notion than Mashiach must be close.
Those who will cooperate with him today, will regret it twice as much tomorrow.
Now that you mention it, Oded, when I was in Israel in 2010, I saw many pictures of Rabi Schnierson, the Lubavicher messiah.
In fact, when I walked to the Wall to leave a prayer for peace, I was stopped by a polite young man who asked, “Are you Jewish?”
I puzzled over the question, thinking, maybe this is a religious pop-quiz, like the test El Al had given my daughter: “What holidays do you celebrate?”
When I gave him my simplified explanation of Martin Buber and MK Gandhi and Martin Luther King on “The Beloved Community”, the young man talked happily about his rabbi, the messiah, who would bring universal peace.
Yes, I had flown ten hours in the sardine-can section just to meet another guy from New York, and a member of the sect that I see every year at the Times Square subway station.
No, you’ve twisted the rabbi’s words & deliberately & in bad faith. Melamed said nothing about attacking Hezbollah or Hamas in order to deal with Iran. In fact, he said Israel should DEFEND itself against Iran but NOT attack. He said Israel should worry about matters closer to home like Hamas & the settlements. That was all meant completely independently of Iran.
You made that part up. And I made clear I disagree with Melamed regarding these issues, but not regarding Iran.
this is the Hebrew part from the article you linked to:
לשיטת הרב מלמד, ההתמודדות עם מצב זה צריכה להיות לא בניסיונות למנוע אותו, אלא בהגנה (פיתוח אמצעים ליירוט טילים), הרתעה (נכונות מופגנת להכות את האויבים הקמים עלינו), הרחבת הריבונות הישראלית על שטחי ארץ ישראל, וחיזוק הבנייה ביהודה ובשומרון.
I didn’t twits anything, in good or bad faith.
Who do you think the good Rabi means when he speaks about Israel enemy’s ? The Palestinians according to the good Rabi, would be the one’s on who’s back deterrence would be established. That’s part of the reasons for expending the Israeli law into the west bank Israel) Ask any other Hebrew speaker.
As I said, there are many things with which I disagree with Melamed. I disagree that Israel should annex the Territories or expand settlements as he does. And if he believes that such things will defend or protect Israel from Iran he’s wrong. But the key point for me is he rejects war against Iran.
There is an old Hebrew saying
he who goes to sleep with dogs, shouldn’t wonder when he finds out he had waken up with flees.
meaning, you can’t distinguish one from another and when you support the good Rabi for whatever reason, he will use that support for his own good or in this case to expend his own preposterous extreme agenda and you as someone who supported him (though on a different matter) would have a part in it.
Personally i think you shouldn’t support anything he says even if for a short period it serves your agenda, i think it is morally wrong.
You defend a child murderer & you have the unmitigated gall to talk to me about morality. You’re vile.
Oded Rozen — I’ll risk the fleas.
Your frame is flawed. No one has to adopt all the other beliefs but can bolster support for each other on this issue. Politicians do it ALL the time.
Progressives, conservatives, Libertarians, Ron Paul, and Grover Norquist came together to pass an audit the fed bill last year. It was unprecedented. In fact if it hadn’t been for Bernie Sanders watering the bill down in exchange for money for health care clinics it would have been better.
Everyone benefitted. The only fallout was the democrat purists with viewed progressives as somehow tainted.
This is the essence of politics.
RE: “He [Melamed] calls Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu leaders with ‘inflated egos’* and says ego and other personal motivations are propelling an attack.”
MY COMMENT: I concur. Well stated!
* P.S. Barak and Netanyahu need ‘his and his’ swan boats à la Wagner’s Lohengrin!
On the rabbi’s call for anti-missile defenses: I do not believe Israel needs a “shield” to protect itself from Iranian missiles. As we learned during the SDI debate in this country thirty years ago, a shield can make the sword more effective–a shield is not just a deterrent. Nuclear weapons are useful for only one thing: deterrence. Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons/deterrence, and the more it unnecessarily threatens Iran, the more likely Iran is to institute an out-and-out nuclear program for its own deterrent purposes.