Israel has no option but to destroy Iran's capability to attack it again.
The first missile attack, in April (which I was in Israel to experience), crossed a new threshold. Israel's defenses, miraculously, held up, but the Biden administration restrained Israel from a full-scale response. Also, Israel may have worried about potential retaliation from Hezbollah, which could have launched tend of thousands of rockets and missiles at Israeli cities, overwhelming the Iron Dome.
Israel did respond, but in a limited way that simply demonstrated the limits of the Iranian air defense system. Evidently, that was not enough to deter Iran from firing again -- probably because Iran believes Biden will rein Israel in again.
But the rules of the game have changed. Israel has acted independently of the U.S. -- in Rafah, and in Lebanon -- and it has taken out Hezbollah's ability to fire in coordinated fashion. There is no Iranian deterrent anymore.
Iran has provided Israel with the perfect provocation to act. But also, it has provided Israel with a threat that it cannot allow again. This second attack was more frightening than the first, because Israel is already at war on 4 fronts.
Israel cannot take the risk that an Iranian missile might be tipped with a chemical or even nuclear warhead. Plus, the war is damaging the Israeli economy, which suffered a major investment downgrade a few days ago.
Therefore I believe today's missile attack will be the last. Israel will attack: Iran's missile launchers; its oil and gas industry; its ports; its nuclear sites; its government; or all of the above. Israel could use airstrikes, or internal sabotage.
There is a reason Netanyahu delivered a speech this week -- not to the Lebanese people, whom he addressed last week, but to the Iranian people. He intends to create the conditions for the regime to be overthrown. Watch.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
