Epicenter 2.0

by Joel C. Rosenberg

It may not, so the U.S. action—U.S.-led action—should take into account the fact that the U.S. will not have Russian support, will not have Chinese support. And then there are things that could be done to put pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime today that [don’t] require anything [from] governments. [Things like] pension funds [withdrawing] their funds from companies that invest in this genocide regime of Iran, just the way they stopped investing in the apartheid regime of South Africa. That would create a snowball effect that would seriously pressure the regime. So these things, non-governmental, and governmental sanctions, and governmental action, whether you have a common front with Russia and China, or without them. That is what leadership is about today; you have to act in time, before the radical Muslims arm themselves with atomic bombs.

  ROSENBERG: One more question on radical Islam and then just a couple on relationships between evangelicals and Israel. But on this, to finish up on the radical Islam side, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and their relationship to Iran—are you looking at a war here, ’07, ’08? I mean, this is looking like what happened [in 2006], maybe just the prelude. Whether it’s the apocalyptic version that Iran is preparing for, or something intermediate?

  NETANYAHU: No, I don’t think [so]. I think a repeat of the Second Lebanon War would only happen if it’s in Iran’s interest. That is, I think their interest right now is just to proceed to complete their nuclear program, and they don’t want anything to interfere with it. So I’m not sure that they would use their proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza—to activate another war. That may not be in their interest if they think that such a war could escalate to an armed activity against Iran. So I don’t necessarily think that they will pull this lever. On the other hand, they might want to, if pressures accumulate on the Iranian nuclear program [and] they want to deflect pressure.

  But on balance, my guess is they’ll be very careful right now. They want to concentrate on completing their nuclear program, because once they have that, then they could threaten the West in ways that are unimaginable today. They could take over the Persian Gulf on all its sides and take control of the oil reserves of the world, most of them. They could topple Saudi Arabia and Jordan in short order. And of course, Iraq. All your internal debates in America on Iraq would be irrelevant because [a] nuclear-armed Iran would subordinate Iraq in two seconds. And of course, they threaten to create a second Holocaust in Israel and proceed on their idea of a global empire, producing 25 atomic bombs a year, 250 bombs in a decade, with missiles that they are already working on and they want to develop to reach the eastern seaboard of the United Sates. This is something that just—Everything else pales in comparison to this development. This has to be stopped. For the sake of the world, not only for the sake of Israel.

  ROSENBERG: So is it your assessment that it’s very possible that the next war, if it’s not launched by the West to stop Iran, will be Iran trying to eradicate Israel?

  NETANYAHU: I don’t think necessarily that Iran will go through another exercise with Hezbollah or Hamas. It may ignite itself, but I don’t think they’ll necessarily ignite it unless they think it helps deflect attention [from] their nuclear program. If, in fact, it draws attention to their nuclear program, that’s the last thing they have in mind. In other words, what will happen—because Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, and [Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan] Nasrallah doesn’t decide on anything, it’s decided in Tehran—whether or not they’ll enflame the area is really dependant on Iran’s goals. Right now its goal is to turn Lebanon into a second Iran. That’s what they’re concentrating on. I’m not sure they’d want another exchange with Israel necessarily. They will if they think it helps the Iranian nuclear program. They won’t if they don’t think that.

  ROSENBERG: We took a survey; we used [McLaughlin & Associates] as our pollster [to survey] American attitudes toward Israel, toward Bible prophecy, [and] 52% of American [Christians] say that they believe the rebirth of Israel in the modern era is a result of Bible prophecy. . . . [In] your own assessment—I mean you, the prime minister of Israel—is Israel simply a political re-creation of Political Zionism [or] do you see it also in biblical or prophetic—

  NETANYAHU: Well, I’m not an Orthodox Jew—although I have respect for our traditions. But those traditions have had a tremendous thrust in our history. Because you have to ask yourself, “How is it that the Jews are able to, really, to resist the iron laws of history?” You know, you had a lot of people who were exiled. In fact most peoples of the world were either exiled or conquered. All the ancient nations, most of them, something happened to them that they were dispersed, or they were conquered, or they were decimated. So the Jews were not any different in that sense.

  But what is different about the Jews is that they refuse to conform to the patterns of destruction and disappearance that afflicted other nations that were overtaken. And in our dispersal we said year after year, “Next year in Jerusalem.” We wanted to come back to this land you see around you. And it’s defying of these laws of history with the faith and purpose that we had that enabled us to get back here. So obviously you can’t just discount it and say, “Well, it’s just a blanket political process.” It has enormous reservoirs of faith and hope [without which the rebirth of Israel] would not have [been] possible.

  The rebirth of Israel is deeply embedded in our traditions. It’s said that the Jewish people, the Jewish exiles, will come back and rebuild their land, their ancestral homeland, here in Israel and create an independent life. And that weaves together both religious and secular traditions in ways that probably are not found anywhere else in the world or in any other people.

  That’s why it’s such a powerful story; it’s like a parable. You know, this is why the establishment of America was premised on the story of the people of Israel. This is why the view of the United States, this new America, was called the City on the Hill. Well, the [original] City on the Hill is—If you look outside the window, you’ll see those hills. That city is Jerusalem. And this is the fundamental belief, that they can create a new life, really, for an old people in the “old new land,” as [Austrian writer Theodor] Herzl called it. This is a very powerful theme that obviously resonated from the Jewish people to many, many others. There is hope; there is redemption for mankind. And if the Jews can make it, then anybody else can.

  ROSENBERG: So along those lines then—this is the last two questions—Shiites have this end times theology; it’s radical. Obviously evangelicals have an end times theology, but Jews as well, from the prophet Ezekiel. Right after he says Israel will be reborn in the future, he also talks about Russia and Iran forming an alliance. That probably can’t—those type of prophecies probably don’t guide Israeli foreign policy but—

  NETANYAHU: Well, there’s a huge difference, and I would be careful to make the analogy between the Judeo-Christian traditions and prophecies and the radical Islamic traditions, for two reasons. One, the radical Islamists have a very violent tradition. In other words, it’s not something that will happen, but it will happen by destruction that we effect. We effect. That is, we—the radical Muslims—should unsheathe our swords and embark on a great jihad of fire and blood, first against nonbelieving Arabs and then against the Muslims, and then against everyone else. That is not present in the evolution of Judeo-Christian theological thinking. Secondly, it’s the immediacy of the idea of, you know, of an “End of Days,” so to speak. At least in the Jewish tradition, this is something that you strive for; it may not necessarily happen in our time, but it is a day in which people will do—what? What will they do? They won’t take their swords and cut off other people’s heads. In fact, they’ll take their swords and turn them into plows. So it’s the exact opposite. It’s [not] immediate; it is something to strive [for], and it’s a vision of peace, not a vision of apocalyptic war.

  These are two traditions which are very different, and I would be very, very, careful in equating the two because they’re not the same. In any case, the impact of
the Jewish messianic thinking was benign. That is, it was merely an idea that the dispersed Jews would come back and purchase empty lots in a wasteland that was here—what you see around you is basically sand, and bog, and desert. There’s nothing. And we basically built it up and never sought to make war with anyone. Including the many Arabs that [came] into this country as a result of the Jewish rebirth. We accepted them too. It’s they who didn’t accept us. Having immigrated, many of them, into this country as a result of the Jewish restoration. So, it’s basically a benign conception of rebirth and redemption, as opposed to a very warlike cult of blood that seeks to destroy. It’s construction versus destruction. It’s peace versus war. It’s beating your swords into plowshares as opposed to beating your plowshares into swords. And it’s a very, very different conception.

  ROSENBERG: You are sitting under a picture of Menachem Begin, [who] probably took the lead in building alliances and friendships with evangelicals, but you have really continued that legacy—

  NETANYAHU: Yeah, I did.

  ROSENBERG: Why, and where do we go from here? Where would you like us to go from here?

  NETANYAHU: It’s important to understand that the partnership between Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists is actually over a century and a half old. I don’t think it’s possible to understand the rebirth and growth of Jewish Zionism without [recognizing] the tremendous backing we had in the Christian world, in Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. Societies were established to help the Jews come back here. [The writer] Mark Twain visited the Holy Land and wrote rather realistically of the forlorn state of the country, saying that it’ll only come back to life when the Jews come back here. Queen Victoria, in England, set up the Palestine Exploration Fund, which was intended to do scientific archeological expeditions to find out the locations of the biblical cities and towns, which, by the way, they did. And they too came to the conclusion that the country will only come back to life when the Jews come back here in great numbers.

  And so this was the background of Christian Zionism that presaged Jewish political Zionism by a full half century. And so this is a very deep partnership which I understand, I respect. And today, I see it not merely as a partnership for Israel, that’s very clear, but as a partnership for the defense of our common values against those who would obliterate our lives. Initially, the danger came from Soviet totalitarianism. But increasingly, especially after the demise of Communism as a creed, the danger is from militant Islam that seeks to obliterate those values that our traditions hold dear: individual freedom, democratic life, the respect for an individual. These things are anathema to the militant Muslims. It’s not so much that they hate the West because of Israel; it’s that they hate Israel because of the West. Because we represent to them this hated culture and civilization that they want to annihilate. And of course they hated the West for centuries before the State of Israel was reborn. So I think there is a natural partnership out there with the citizens of all the democracies. Many of them, especially in Europe, they don’t get it. Some of them do, especially in Eastern Europe, increasingly they get it. In Western Europe, increasingly they get it. But in the United States, they get it. The secular and religious citizens of America, they pretty much get it, and they get it right.

  ROSENBERG: So one follow-up, and I have to ask you. There were tensions for a long time between the followers of Jesus and Jews, though in many ways that’s evaporating. But how can we continue to help in the last days? Are there specific ways you’d love to see evangelicals do more?

  NETANYAHU: The transformation that has taken place in the evangelical community is quite impressive. The first transformation is that it doesn’t seek to proselytize among the Jews; it seeks to support the state of the Jews. And that is a growing tendency which I think has made a big difference. And secondly, political leaders like myself have said that the greatest partners, the greatest supporters we have are those who view Israel as an asset in itself, who have a deep attachment to it. And unquestionably those include first and foremost the evangelical community which is in the United States, and Northern Europe, and Scandinavia, and probably in seventeen, eighteen countries and growing. And I think that setting aside the theological hairsplitting about what’ll happen in the end of days, and focusing on what we have to do in these present days, has been the source of great support.

  And I think that this should radiate beyond the evangelical community to [the] non-evangelical community. Because, you know, it’s the same thing, when these terrorist bombs of militant Islam hit Israel, they don’t distinguish between religious and secular, between left and right. To them, we’re all marked for death. And the same thing is true in America. When they slammed into the World Trade Center, they didn’t really care who was there. For them, we are all marked for death. So for me, it would be important that this basic partnership today that you see between the evangelical community in the United States and Israel would turn into a broad partnership, which I think it is turning into. Between Americans, period, and Israel because we’re in the same boat; we have the same goals and the same values and we’re threatened by the same enemies.

  NATAN SHARANSKY

  Former Deputy Prime Minister of Israel

  JOEL ROSENBERG: How serious is the Iranian nuclear threat, in your assessment?

  NATAN SHARANSKY: I think what makes it so serious is it’s nonconventional weapons in the hands of nonconventional government. [Iran’s] leaders [view] life in this world only as the introduction to the next world. And their success in the next world depends on how many unfaithful people they will kill in this world and how successful they will be with Small Satan and Big Satan. This is very dangerous. We have to understand that nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime changes not only the chances of Israel for survival, it changes the chances of the Free World. Free World will never be free again. It will never be led by the spiritual freedom of the United States of America or other free nations. It is all about appeasement and how to save your life [by] sacrificing your freedom. That’s in fact the challenges of nuclear weapons in the hands of this regime in Iran. And that’s why it is the highest moral obligation—moral interest and practical interest of the Free World—to mobilize for two aims: to prevent this regime from having nuclear weapons and to encourage the democratic opposition to replace this regime.

  ROSENBERG: How much time do we have?

  SHARANSKY: I believe that 2007 is the last year to do something.

  ROSENBERG: And if 2008 begins and we haven’t done anything?

  SHARANSKY: Then our situation and our opportunities to deal with the problem will be much more limited. You have to understand, I don’t want to say that in 2007 Iran can try to use nuclear weapons against Israel, America, or whatever. But I am saying that if this problem will not be solved in 2007, the chances for success later will be far less, and the scope or efforts which have to be undertaken will be simply incomparable.

  ROSENBERG: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is denying the Holocaust, yet he seems to be preparing for another one. Do you see a scenario in which Iran could get to the point where they’re capable of doing in six minutes what it took Hitler six years to do—to kill six million Jews?

  SHARANSKY: I think that for leaders of Iran, there is no problem to launch a new holocaust as long as the holocaust is connected with the right idea. Maybe where they can have disagreement with the Nazi regime [is] that [the Nazis] don’t show that it was done for the right idea, to [gain entrance] in the right way to paradise. . . . Another problem [is that a] holocaust can happen only when there are enough people who are ready to think about it, who are not afraid of it, and for whom it is legitimate to kill the others [whom they consider] less than human beings. And it took quite an effort for [the] Nazi regime to create [a] nation where so many people believed that Jews [were] less than human beings; [that it was] okay to view them in [a] different way. In fact there was a whole history of [a] double standard [regarding] Jews which helped. For these lead
ers of Iran, you don’t need [to make] any [such] efforts, [a holocaust is] already justified. For them there is no doubt they have the right and that they are obliged to do it, to do everything in their power to finish with the Satans of this world and to pave the way for the new world of faithful people. In fact, their children study in their schools that all the unfaithful will turn to be Muslims or will disappear from this world.

  ROSENBERG: Why is Russia selling weapons, selling nuclear technology, and building nuclear facilities inside Iran?

  SHARANSKY: All the history of leakage of Russian technologies toward Iran is a very sad story showing how short-range interests can prevail over the strategic thinking; showing how dangerous it is when the regimes are not building the real cooperation built on mutual desire to live in freedom and democracy.

  I was sent by Israel in the name of Netanyahu to warn [the] Russians about the dangers of leakage of that technology in January ’97. In fact, I was the first minister to start this, and then I happened to be the first former prisoner of conscience in the Soviet Union ever who came back to visit his own prison and then to meet the head of new KGB, [Vladimir] Putin.

  For Russia in the beginning, it was all about the markets. They felt that America and the West [were] trying to put them out of the markets, and here where [Russia] can have [an] important market, we have not room to give up. For them it was also belief—once Putin told me, “You’ll see even if you don’t trust us that we are doing our best to prevent this leakage of technologies. You will see one day that the best technology [is] coming from Europe.” And unfortunately to great extent, they happened to be right, that it’s not only Russian technologies but very sophisticated German, French, English, Dutch technologies which came through Pakistan to Iran.

  But also for Russia today, when they believe that America is not willing to become a very strategic partner, what is important for them today is whether America is really serious about fighting Iran. I remember in the past, when [it] became clear that America [was] striking Iraq, [the Russians] were very critical about this. When they understood that it [was] inevitable, they started seriously discussing with America, thinking, what will be their role? What will be their possible cooperation the day after? But they are thinking that America is not suitable, it’s too big. Then all their interest is how to prevent [America’s] role in this: how to make clear to Arabs, and to Iran, and to the others, that if America is not strong enough against them it’s only because of Russia. So Russia has here economical interests which are shortsighted; they are not taking into account [the] strategic danger of Muslim fundamentalists for Russia itself, but they also—they attempt to play their usual game, how to make best of their relations with America and with Arab countries at the same time. So I think it is very important for America to have clear, big stick and big carrot at the same time. And unfortunately, very often, America doesn’t have either of these.