During the last weeks the possible bombing of Iran through Israel has been extensively discussed in the English-speaking Internet (i.e. mainly in the US and in Israel). In the center of this discussion is the September-issue of the magazine The Atlantic, which contains an analysis titled The Point of No Return written by Jeffrey Goldberg and an organized debate on the subject through contributions by invited writers and through a big debate with the whole Internet-readership. This, of course, has sparked more debates and articles; Whereas many of the related articles are clouded by speculations and fears and in the worst case are mere propaganda, Goldbergs article really offers original work and insights into the motivations of the Israeli leadership.
During the last weeks the possible bombing of Iran through Israel has been extensively discussed in the English-speaking Internet (i.e. mainly in the US and in Israel).
In the center of this discussion is the September-issue of the magazine The Atlantic, which contains an analysis titled The Point of No Return, written by Jeffrey Goldberg and an organized debate on the subject through contributions by invited writers and through a big debate with the whole Internet-readership. This, of course, has sparked more debates and articles. Whereas many of the related articles are clouded by speculations and fears and in the worst case are mere propaganda, Goldbergs article really offers original work and insights into the motivations of the Israeli leadership.
In his article he quotes interviews with Israeli leaders including Benjamin Nethanyahu. Following a few key paragraphs:
In our conversation before his swearing-in, Netanyahu would not frame the issue in terms of nuclear paritythe Israeli policy of amimut, or opacity, prohibits acknowledging the existence of the countrys nuclear arsenal, which consists of more than 100 weapons, mainly two-stage thermonuclear devices, capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bomber, or submarine (two of which are said by intelligence sources to be currently positioned in the Persian Gulf). Instead, he framed the Iranian program as a threat not only to Israel but to all of Western civilization.
Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and he fears that Israels status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison dêtre of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.
But one leading proponent of an Israeli attack on Irans nuclear facilities, Ephraim Sneh, a former general and former deputy defense minister, is convinced that if Iran crossed the nuclear threshold, the very idea of Israel would be endangered. The bottom line is that we would have an accelerated brain drain. And an Israel that is not based on entrepreneurship, that is not based on excellence, will not be the Israel of today.
Most critically, Sneh said, if Israel is no longer understood by its 6 million Jewish citizens, and by the roughly 7 million Jews who live outside of Israel, to be a natural safe haven, then its raison dêtre will have been subverted. .
In his new book, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israels Bargain With the Bomb, Avner Cohen, the preeminent historian of Israels nuclear program, writes that David Ben-Gurion, Israels first prime minister, was nearly obsessed with developing nuclear weapons as the only guarantor against further slaughter. What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people, Ben-Gurion declared.
So, seen from this perspective, the development of nuclear weapons was a reaction to the holocaust and seen from a scientific perspective, the actual firing of a nuclear bomb (as has been done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is a high-tech perfection of Auschwitz and other elimination facilities. Seen from a European perspective, this way of thinking (to stay on the same level as the opponent and not to advance to a more comprehensive view) has been proven to be unsuccessful. It does not protect, it accelerates the process of destruction.
So the Isreali leaders see themselves as Zionists and they talk of a 100-year Zionist experiment. Zionism is based on the idea of a Jewish state and linked to this is a strong apocalyptic and messianic component. The idea of a Jewish state was not always limited to having one in the Middle East, Theodor Herzl, for example, the founder of Zionism, had originally worked for a Jewish state in Uganda. Historically Great Britain has been working for creating a Jewish state in the Middle East since the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was part of a strategy to keep control in the area of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This is very important to keep in mind as it makes clear, that politics in this region was not done primarily with the aim to really help the Jews, but with the aim to control the Arab world. A fundamental maxim of the British Empire was divide and rule, meaning that a divided region is easier to rule than a united one. In this situation the Arabic movements and states started to oppose the creation and development of a Jewish state resulting in a series of wars and armed conflicts. Islamic fundamentalism with the goal of eliminating Israel developed. Israel on two occasions has already bombed developing nuclear facilities (in Iraq and in Syria) and is now focused on the nuclear facilities of Iran.
In the past decades human history has advanced very fast. So, we need to have a new and unbiased look at the situation around Israel. Out of the analysis of the current situation in the Middle East, four possible scenarios for the future of Israel can be seen. All of these four scenarios demand dropping the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.
As the Israeli leaders according to Goldbergs analysis are promoting a nuclear attack on Iran, a very likely scenario consists of the state of Israel in the Middle East being destroyed as a consequence of this attack. Goldberg describes the scenario he envisages for the Middle East: When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israelregardless of whether they succeed in destroying Irans centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Irans nuclear programthey stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; .
A second option would be, if Israeli leaders would start to acknowledge the situation, they are living in. Instead of sending children of immigrants back to their home countries, they would start to look into, what it means that 6 Million Jews are living in a Muslim-dominated world. If they would want to stay in the region, safe and for a long period in the future, they would have to accept, that Jews have to integrate themselves into the world, which they have chosen as their home.
As this scenario is very unlikely, there is also the option, to start new, buy land for a new Israel in a safe surrounding. A region inside one of the US-States (like Texas) would be very much suited for this. It is safe for Jews, it is big enough and there are thousands of homes for sale as a result of the housing crisis.
A fourth option would be to help Israelis to leave Israel and to settle in the country of their choice and help them to integrate in the country of their choice. This option sounds very drastic, as it requires the undoing of the Zionist experiment, but it would be the option, that is closest to human nature, as can be seen by the fear of Israeli leaders of a brain-drain.
On 23.8.2010 Prof. Wolffsohn (Bundeswehr-Universität München) was quoted in Bild-Zeitung saying: I have not the slightest doubt, that Isreael is going to strike, before Iran has the bomb. Whoever can add two to two, can see, that Isreal and probably also the US are preparing for the real thing!
 In Wikipedia. Goldberg is called “the most influential journalist/blogger on matters related to Israel”
 It is interesting to note, that such a debate is not happening in the German media. A summary of this highly political discussion can be found not in the political, but only in the cultural section of Germans leading Online Medium in Spiegel
 So, most probably, without the holocaust, there would not have been any nuclear weapons. And most probably also no Chernobyls and the immense risks, problems and costs of nuclear energy-technology, because, seen from this historic perspective, military usage is primary and peaceful usage a by-product of military usage.
 See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionismus
 See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Age. Messianic and apocalyptic ideas state, that Zion is the location, where the god lives and that the messiah will appear at Zion after the big apocalypse. Timewise it is interesting, that this should happen before the year 6000 (after creation) and that 2010 is the year 5770. Its counterpart is Christian Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism), which adds, that Jews will see Jesus as their messiah and thus convert to Chistianity.
 According to Telepolis (http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/147997) President Obama has as a result of Nethanyahus last visit to Israel send a letter to the Israeli government granting them a nuclear cooperation, like the one India has.
 Related to this issue it should be kept in mind, that founding and maintaining Israel in its geopolitical situation was and is a very costly project. It would be interesting to calculate the total amount of money, which the world community has put over the years into the project Israel and one could easily imagine, that the total sum of money could have been used to legally buy land in a safer region of the world instead of going through all the troubles, that are created through forcefully taking land from its original inhabitants
 If Israeli leaders fear a brain-drain, then they see this option already before their eyes. The conclusion of reading Goldbergs analysis is, that they fear this option so much, that they would rather start a nuclear war in the Middle East.
 Prof. Michael Wolffsohn (Bundeswehr-Universität München): Ich habe nicht den geringsten Zweifel, dass Israel zuschlägt, bevor der Iran die Bombe hat. Wer zwei und zwei zusammenzählen kann, der sieht, dass sich Israel und wohl auch die USA auf den Ernstfall vorbereiten! in BILD