Why Now? Blood, Sovereignty and the Unanswered Question

by Ram ben Ze’ev

Why Now? Blood, Sovereignty and the Unanswered Question

Yesterday I wrote that “Gone are the days when Jews kneel before greater powers.” I meant every word. Israel is not a vassal state. We do not require Washington, Brussels or London to decide when Jewish blood is at risk. If our leaders believe an existential threat looms, they not only have the sovereign right to act — they have the sovereign responsibility.

But sovereignty cuts both ways. It grants the power to strike. It also demands the burden of justification.

The public rationale for the recent joint action by Israel and the United States against Iran was clear: intelligence indicated an imminent attack on American installations in the region. Under international law, pre-emptive action requires imminence. Not suspicion. Not hostility. Not rhetoric. Imminence.

From Israel’s perspective, the moral argument is even sharper. The Iranian regime has declared openly and repeatedly that it seeks the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. As a Jew, I do not take such threats lightly. If I were making decisions for Israel, I would have levelled the country many years ago. That said, this is probably one of the reasons I am not entrusted with those decisions.

Yet the question remains — why now?

A dozen Jews have been killed and hundreds wounded by Iranian rockets that were fired only after this attack commenced. Six Americans are now dead. Those Americans would not have died had this action not been taken when it was. These are not abstractions. They are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers.

If an imminent strike was truly about to occur, then the pre-emptive action was justified. Painful, yes. Costly, certainly. But justified.

However, reports now suggest that there was no such imminent threat intelligence. On the contrary, only months ago the United States had already degraded Iranian missile stockpiles and production capacity. If that is accurate, and I believe that it is, then the legal and moral foundation becomes unstable.

Without imminence, this was not pre-emption. It was initiation.

And initiation without lawful grounds is aggression — even if the adversary is vile, even if its ideology is genocidal, even if we have every reason to despise its leadership.

Let me be clear. I have no sympathy for the regime in Tehran — none. With the deaths of Ali Hosseini Khamenei and many in his circle already confirmed, I shed no tears. But if the goal was to eliminate Khamenei, his daughter, her husband, and numerous Iranian officials, Israel possessed the capability — through Mossad or other means — to do so with precision, far less collateral damage, and without igniting a regional escalation costing billions in shekels and dollars and many lives.

The financial cost is secondary. The strategic cost is not.

When we act without demonstrable necessity, we weaken our moral clarity. We hand propaganda victories to our enemies. We blur the distinction between defensive necessity and strategic adventurism.

I am both Jewish and American. I believe deeply in Israel’s right to defend herself and in America’s right to protect its forces. But rights are strongest when exercised within law and restraint.

If there was imminent threat intelligence, present it. If there was clear evidence, release it. Democracies like Israel and Republics, like America, do not demand blind faith from their citizens; they earn trust through transparency.

Gone are the days when Jews kneel before greater powers. But neither should we become intoxicated by power itself.

The question is not whether Iran is dangerous. It is.

The question is whether this war, at this moment, was necessary.

Until that question is answered clearly and honestly, unease is not weakness. It is responsibility.

###

Bill White (Ram ben Ze'ev) is CEO of WireNews Limited, Mayside Partners Limited, MEADHANAN Agency, Kestrel Assets Limited, SpudsToGo Limited and Executive Director of Hebrew Synagogue