A war of narratives
Appearing on Al Jazeera surfaces how differently many people see the world.
Happy 5785 to those who mark the Jewish New Year. May it be less horrible than 5784. In honor of the occasion, I am, naturally, sharing a transcript of my panel on Al Jazeera recorded on the eve of Rosh Hashana.
I have taken some heat from certain quarters for appearing on a Qatari channel that some see as anti-Western propaganda. While that may be largely true of the Arabic-language channel, I actually think the English-language one tries reasonably hard to be fair – though undoubtedly it furthers a narrative that many in Israel and the West will not appreciate.
I think it is important to reach that audience – but I know some will accuse me of giving them legitimacy. The whole issue is awkward — for journalists, analysts, academics and the like should somehow rise above narratives that attach to one’s identity. I have always tried to do just that — and yet it cannot be denied: my mindset is that of a liberal Westerner and I will not see the world the same as guests on Al Jazeera who think Israel has no right to exist.
That seems to be the way people just are — and some journalists will say that success is manifest when one has pleased no side. Indeed, much as the audience of Israel’s I24 is often deeply offended by my sharp criticism of Israel’s lamentable Netanyahu government, so does much of the Al Jazeera audience recoil at my presentation. In the comments on the Youtube video of this show, my very presence received an enormous amount of unflattering attention. Some of the commenters were admirably free of any fear of cliche: I was accused of being “on the payroll“ and an “agent of Mossad,” and dubbed “Mr. Genocide” by one especially exuberant viewer.
I wonder what readers think.
Host Nick Clark: Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran will pay for its missile attack, while Tehran threatens a crushing response if Israel hits back. Bombs, bullets and missiles in Gaza, Lebanon and Israel. Is the Middle East inching closer to full-blown war? Let's bring in our guests. From Tel Aviv, we are joined by Dan Perry, who's a journalist and author of the book Israel and the Quest for Permanence. In London is Roxane Farmanfarmaian, who's a professor of modern Middle East politics at the University of Cambridge. And in Berlin is Julien Barnes-Dacey, who is the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council for Foreign Relations. Hello all. Dan, I'd like to start with you, if I may. There's a piece that you wrote, I'm guessing it must have been pretty soon after the Iranian attacks last night, laying out three possible courses of action. And I think it'll help our discussion if I just very quickly go through them. One, a more symbolic response against Iran, taking into account the fact that Iran did telegraph the attack and no Israeli lives were lost. Two, a tactical strike on Iran, perhaps against oil installations, forcing Iran to reconsider further retaliation. Or three, a third path, you said, an attempt to overhaul the region's balance of power, where Israel might use bunker busting bombs to cripple Iran's nuclear facilities, destroy oil facilities, blockade ports – which would, of course in my words, bring with it implicit danger of the war spreading further afield. Of those three, Dan Perry, which do you think is the most likely?
DP: A lot depends on what happens behind closed doors and talks with the Americans who, despite protestations, I think are pretty closely aligned with Israel and probably coordinating with Israel. If the Israelis extract from the Americans a credible promise of a paradigm shift vis-à-vis Iran and for support in their project to eliminate the Hezbollah threat in Lebanon, which I think, frankly, is a favor to Lebanon, then they might suffice with a symbolic response. Note that of my three, I really discount the possibility of zero response because the feeling is strong in Israel that you just can't absorb 200 ballistic missiles, one of the most concentrated missile attacks, I think, in the history of warfare, and do nothing. Not only because of the schoolyard infantile notions of petty revenge, but because doing nothing would encourage further such aggression. I understand there's a war of narratives here, but from Israel's perspective, Iran has no business surrounding it with proxy militias, fomenting so much chaos on its borders, or firing rockets at its major cities. So Israel feels aggrieved, and when a country is aggrieved, they might react badly.
NC: Roxane Farmanfarmaian, when Iran made the calculation to fire those missiles yesterday, they will have tried, you assume, to make an educated guess on Israel's likely response. How do you think they think Israel will respond?
RF: Well, I think they were very calculated in being sure to avoid civilian casualties. I think that's been one of the reasons why in this war Israel has been condemned for the way that it has conducted this war – the degree of civilian casualties. So Iran has attempted to distinguish its actions as quite different than Israel's. And I think that it has also calculated not just Israel's response, but the way that the other Arab neighborhood would respond. In other words, those that are in the Gulf, Turkey, and Egypt, for example, which are little by little what Iran hopes are coming together to create an Islamic front, if you will, against the attacks by Israel in both Lebanon and on Gaza.
DP: I certainly understand the importance that no one was killed in Israel, and it's frankly amazing. And I think it’s a testament to many things, including the American assistance, the impressive quality of Israel's air defenses, and the fact that Iran appears indeed to have tried to limit its own success by telegraphing what it was going to do to the Americans and the Russians. That said, the idea that Iran targeted military bases, with respect to my colleague in London, is pretty close to absurd. I was in the center of Tel Aviv, a conurbation of 3 million people, and there were interceptions over my head. Now, you can say it's based its military headquarters right in the center of Tel Aviv. Sure, you could say that. You could say the bomb that landed on Herzliya Beach was a half mile away from one of the Mossad headquarters, and you can pretend that's relevant. It trashed a restaurant and landed closest to a major condominium apartment building. There's no way you can say they targeted only military bases.
JB: This comes to the backdrop of Israel feeling more confident and aggressive, than at any moment in the course of this conflict, in terms of its ability to go after Iran. Obviously, we've seen them take serious measures against Hezbollah, in many ways decapitating the top leadership of the movement. There's a real sense, I think, coming out of Israel, that this is a moment to remake the region. By that, they mean really striking Iran in a more powerful way that knocks out their strategic capabilities. I think the danger is that the Americans seem to be on board with this. We saw an article in Politico yesterday, in which senior Biden administration officials were seemingly encouraging Israel along these lines. I'm very worried. I think this is a very dangerous illusion. We've seen multiple attempts over the last 25 years to remake the Middle East. On every occasion, it leads to more conflict, destruction, and state collapse. I don't think the Iranians will not respond to a more serious attack in kind.
NC: Dan, the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, he tweeted earlier that Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years to change the face of the Middle East. We must act now, he said, to destroy Iran's nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this terrorist regime. We have the justification, he said, we have the tools. That's a former Prime Minister, Dan, saying the moment is now. The appetite is pretty evident there in Israel.
DP: Yeah, look, you have to understand Israel is a deeply divided society as regards what to do with the Palestinians and should there be a state in the West Bank, you know, a few miles from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem perhaps being taken over by Hamas. These are complex issues where Israel is badly divided and Netanyahu's policies are not popular. But Iran's chaos project in the region – support for the Houthis which have brought a half million casualties to Yemen, support for Hezbollah that I believe is detested by most Lebanese, support for the Shiite militias in Iraq, and especially the nuclear program, which is not an innocent nuclear program by France, this is a nuclear program run by an aggressive theocracy that has more than hinted that it wants to destroy Israel – this stuff is basically consensual. It's consensual in Israel that this whole thing is unacceptable. Now, indeed, for a country of 10 million to take on a country of almost 100 million is generally not that great an idea. And there is respect for Iran's ability to defend itself or at least defend its right to commit this aggression. So I think Israel has been careful about taking on Iran directly, but the idea that if at all possible the non-democratic totalitarian theocracy in Iran must somehow be compelled to end what I'm calling its chaos project, that's pretty popular. And the question becomes a practical one – you know, what is the cost? Can it conceivably work? And as I suggested in my first response, I think much will depend on whether they think they can get the Americans behind them. And there is a ticking clock that is Iran's effort to achieve a nuclear weapon, at which point it will be very impossible, very difficult and perhaps impossible, to deter. Now, you can talk about escalation all you want. Would you have told Winston Churchill in 1940, 41 not to escalate?
NC: Come back to that and talk to us a little bit about what Dan was saying about this, you know, the shadow of the nuclear project.
RF: Well, I think that I certainly agree with him that this war, particularly against Hezbollah, has brought many in the from what we see on the outside, many in the Israeli community and society together. I think we're seeing polls where the support for Netanyahu has risen in the way he's conducting the war. He has succeeded in taking the international gaze off of Gaza despite rising deaths in Gaza. And I think it's extraordinary that in many ways, likewise, we're not hearing anything about the hostages. So I think he's setting out on a much larger project. And the question that I would like to raise in this is something that no doubt those in Iran are also thinking about, perhaps already having been in a situation like Israel, in that it is alienating itself from the larger region enormously. I think there is a case to be made that Israel is becoming ever less absorbable in the region. And I think that that is an outcome it's got to think about if it's going to continue this, this campaign against not only its neighbors, but against Iran.
NC: So Dan, let me just give you the chance to come back to that. And Julien, we'll come back to you. So any concern on that, that feeling of ostracization, that this ongoing violence or the ongoing route that Israel is on will continue to ostracize Israel in the eyes of many elements of the international community?
DP: Look, I think it certainly is a concern. I think Israel's government has utterly failed in public diplomacy. I don't think they've conducted themselves very cleverly in Gaza. By the way, the deaths in Gaza are not rising. In fact, they've been far, far less rate than before.
It's very low ebb. I don't think Israel is attacking its neighbors. I think Israel is attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. I think Israel feels aggrieved by what she correctly says is its abandonment in much of global public opinion. But they mostly care about what the US does. The US appears to be behind them and to underscore, whereas Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians are, in my personal opinion, misguided to the point of suicidal in the West Bank in particular, this issue with removing Hezbollah from Lebanon, I think Israel thinks that this is not going to be so unpopular in the Arab world. Note that Saudi Arabia has been holding off aid to Lebanon because of Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon.
NC: How dangerous a moment is this for the world?
JB: Obviously, it'd be hugely dangerous. I think it's also just worth pointing out that your option two is quite easily a trap towards option three. We start going back and forth in terms of attacks, and I think we quite quickly end up in something wider. Obviously, a conflict that engulfs the entire Middle East, a more direct, full encompassing conflict between Israel and Iran would be incredibly worrying and serious. We could see serious and wide-ranging attacks by Israel, but I think we're probably underplaying what Iran could still do towards Israel and also the capability of Hezbollah to launch wider attacks on Israel.
NC: Roxanne, where is the off-ramp as far as you're concerned?
RF: Well, one of the things I wanted to mention was there's also something that the foreign minister from Canada mentioned yesterday, that there are two other great powers that should possibly be more involved. And I would say Russia already is more involved.
The Russian prime minister visited Iran the morning before the launch of its missiles against Israel, saying that Israel should not get involved in Lebanon, it should withdraw. And so it's obviously beginning to use its voice in terms of discussing this region. This could really become, for the first time, I'm seeing that this could become considerably larger in scope.
NC: Dan Perry, both China and Russia have a strategic relationship, of course, with Iran, and they could easily get swept up in all of this. And that has very serious implications, doesn't it?
DP: I certainly agree that if Israel does a big action in Iran, and the result is an even bigger action, the US gets pulled in and has interests all over the Persian Gulf, China and Russia could be tempted to up the ante with Taiwan and Ukraine. And you're looking at possibly World War Three. I … am not sanguine about all this. I personally hope that Israel does my option one and responds symbolically, because it can't do nothing. But I also have written in the past that the world needs to stop tolerating the Iran chaos project. And I think Israel will be, in the background, asking the US and the EU and NATO to promise that they will, shortly after the US election, go to Iran and say, no more proxies, no more nukes, no more long-range rockets, no more insanity, else you will face consequences. Now, whether those involve blockading its ports or degrading its oil installations or bunker-busting its nuclear program, I don't know. But I think the US might actually do this, because there's a ticking clock with nuclear Iranian deterrence coming up. And the idea that Russia is a good-faith interlocutor, or that Iran is somehow a positive player in the Middle East – guys, friends on this panel, it's absurd.
JB: Gaza and the ongoing conflict there is the core of this ongoing problem. Whether we like it or not, the solution towards a regional de-escalation is a ceasefire in Gaza. We then obviously have to deal with the wider implications, the challenges and threats posed by Iran and its regional partners. But the first step, I think, is to rein in Israel's escalatory actions in Gaza. It is the one that is now taking the fight to Hezbollah in Lebanon in a more escalatory fashion. And I think until Biden is prepared to put Netanyahu under that pressure, we aren't going to see an off-ramp.
NC: Roxanne, diplomacy has abjectly failed on Gaza so far. So in your view, as you observe this situation and the danger that it presents, do you think that the United States is capable, if it has the will, of dissuading Benjamin Netanyahu from this course that he seems determined to pursue?
RF: Well, up until now, nothing that the United States has suggested or appeared to be promoting has been adopted by the Israeli government. Certainly no ceasefire plan. And although Biden has frequently noted that he's been working tirelessly to find a diplomatic solution, I think that it's clear there hasn't been one that has even been tried. So I think the result at the moment is to show that the United States either doesn't have the influence or it is lacking the will. And I think that in some sense, we can see the second part as much at play, that it's an election year. It is not, in many ways, in the interests, certainly, of the Kamala Harris and Biden administration to take strong steps at this point.
NC: Dan Perry, on the US election, certainly there's not long to go until that happens. Is this how you think it's playing out in Netanyahu's mind?
DP: Yeah, I think he certainly has time to act until then, because the US is terrified of a major escalation, so they might go along with a minor one. They don't want to be seen as fighting with Israel, that would harm them with Jews in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. They don't want to be seen as too much supporting Israel in an escalation that would harm them with Muslims in Michigan. So that's a total wedge issue in the US, and the US would like for all this to go away. But I think part of the complexity here is that even though some may be sanguine about a so-called ceasefire that leaves Hamas in power in Gaza, Israel has trouble with that scenario, and so does the US, which is why they haven't that much pressured Israel. There is this notion that Israel refuses a ceasefire – because, what, they like to fight? Let me assure you, they don't. The issue is they're in a pickle, and they're not sure what more to do to get Hamas and Hezbollah to go away. Now, both of these groups are funded and goaded by Iran, and therefore Iran is very much involved in the aggression against Israel. It's complicated, and there's not a lot of rights and wrongs here, but I urge us to not be naive about groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. These are not good guys who want peace. So we have a problem, and it requires cleverness and strategy and maybe some human decency as well.
NC: Yes, the complexity is very, very real. We're out of time. The coming hours and days will indeed be very telling.
I watch Aljazeera and I happy to see you attempt to present a more reasonable position.
Excellent job Dan Perry!