#1. PM Netanyahu Statement on Bernard Lewis
(Communicated by the Prime Minister)
21 May 2018

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued the following statement on the
passing of Bernard Lewis:

"Bernard Lewis was one of the great scholars of Islam and the Middle East in
our time. We will be forever grateful for his robust defense of Israel. I
will always feel privileged to have witnessed firsthand his extraordinary
erudition and I gleaned invaluable insights from our many meetings over the
years. I was also deeply moved by his wide ranging conversations with my
late father, Professor Ben Zion Netanyahu. Professor Lewis's wisdom will
continue to guide us for years to come."
=================
#2 Bernard Lewis explains why MAD doesn't work with Iranian Leadership
August 22
By Bernard Lewis
Updated Aug. 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. ET The Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115500154638829470

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but
neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured
destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the
confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such
confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its
favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan
and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S.
the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of
bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to
attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will
have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches
(which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to
the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian
President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the
imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction,
restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or
against Israel?

* * *

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other
governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can
only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers.
This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and
even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of
Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of
Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A
notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa
in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of
uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other
Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such
apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim,
victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent
straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing
their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its
delights -- the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks
tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil
enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of
martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the
immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad
has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer
would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an
attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the
Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a
devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume
that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike
even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the
Palestinians -- but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the
Iranian government. The second deterrent -- the threat of direct retaliation
on Iran -- is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom
complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in
other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has
become even more important at the present day, because of this new
apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs
concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog,
anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of
the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over
evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers
clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has
already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date,
indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final
answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first
reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more
precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the
Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427.
This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night
flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the
farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and
back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for
the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far
from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events
precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian
schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world
that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against
our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease
until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go
to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's
hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to
eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so
well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there
will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final
destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the
believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an
inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death?
Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long
term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to
those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic
perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more
threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority
in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries,
their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of
"From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University
Press, 2004).