Never again

The term "existential threat" is not a common component in the concept of security among most countries. That is not the case in Israel, however, where the scars of the Holocaust deeply cut into our being.

The historical imperative usually describing what the Holocaust has inculcated in us is "never again." But against what is this imperative directed? Seemingly, against everything that was lacking then: that never again will they be able to cause so many of our people to fall; never again will we stand helpless; never again will Jewish blood be spilled without revenge and retribution.

There are two tracks on Israel′s political-security agenda, and the combination of the two more forcefully raises the question of existential threats. On the one hand, Iran perseveres in its march toward attaining nuclear weaponry, defying Europe, the U.S., and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. Iran does not hide the fact that the launch system it has deployed is intended to reach Israel and threaten its citizens.

On the other hand, Israel - pressured by the killing of its citizens - is in the midst of a process through which it has withdrawn behind a wall toward the 1967 lines, which Abba Eban called the "Auschwitz borders." Thus the Iranian threat, which can become existential, is getting closer to Israel even while it is retreating behind a fence.

Thanks to others, Israel has extricated itself from the dangers of the existential threat it might have faced from a nuclear Iraq in the previous decade, and a nuclear Libya in this one. Clearly, if Iran had nuclear weapons, with all the ramifications of such a situation including the nuclear threat to the entire region, "never again" - that there would not be another devastation - would not have been possible to determine with certainty. And just as clearly, the deterrent effort to prevent this might be the hardest of Israel′s future security tasks.

And what of the second historical imperative that the Holocaust has left us: if a hand is raised against us again, will there be retribution and revenge? The answer to this question, like the question of the existential danger, was in fact already given by the architect of Israel′s defense, David Ben-Gurion. The nuclear option he initiated was intended not only to prevent a situation whereby Israel would be helpless on what scientist Shalheveth Freier called "dark stormy days," but also to give it deterrent strength of such magnitude as to dissuade any enemy from ever again trying to destroy us.

It is interesting to look at some of the operative expressions of the security concept Israel has developed. With regard to the nuclear option, the expressions are vague, controlled and low-key, reflecting a consistent and reasoned balance between a need for credible deterrence and a degree of restraint and forbearance.

Israel as a country whose people have known the Holocaust does not threaten to devastate other countries. This forbearance expresses itself toward an enemy which has already struck Israel′s citizens, with an attitude of extracting a price from those responsible. In Israel′s policy of targeted killings, both offense and defense can be discerned, as well as the policy of "beheading" - extracting a price from the senior figures and commanders, which is also a clear deterrent. Not only is this policy not invalid, as many in Europe claim, it is also moral, and to a great extent the most useful means of action. It is good this precedent has been set.

On the eve of Israel′s 57th Independence Day, not only is the struggle against terror on the country′s agenda, but also deployment against existential enemies that Israel might face. It is obvious that the attempt to negate the possibility of Israel′s enemies possessing nuclear nuclear weapons is at the heart of its efforts, efforts that do not devolve only on Israel. It is therefore a pity that the disengagement plan is siphoning all of Israel′s strength. It is to be hoped that it will not bring endless trouble.

If the effort fails to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, we must make sure that Israel′s enemies clearly know that the historical imperative "never again" will guide it, and that its strength is and will be such that never again will it be possible to harm it without it extracting a full measure of retribution.

The ability to convince our enemies of this is not only the true historical imperative, it is also that which assures, indeed, "never again."

The writer is head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.