Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni have only one significant solution for the Iranian nuclear threat: They suggest that we turn to the international community for help. Time and again, Olmert explains that "we must pressure the international community." It is not clear exactly how Israel should pressure the world, but nevertheless, that is what he proposes.

Olmert's "pressure" includes development of the Arrow missile that is supposed to neutralize ballistic missiles in the final stage of their trajectory. But the Arrow missile is a terrible conceptual error. It is a weapon that essentially breaks Israel's Samson Option - its power of deterrence. The idea that the Arrow projects to the world is that it is fine to attempt to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons; Israel's response will still be conventional. If the Arrow works - that's great. If it prevents significant damage, Israel will most likely not destroy all the cities of the aggressor. In other words, by arming itself with the Arrow, Israel irresponsibly lowers the price tag that its enemies will have to pay if they attack. By doing so, the Arrow missile increases the chance that it will have to be deployed.  

If the Arrow would at least be effective, perhaps the loss of deterrence that it creates would be worth the price. But the Arrow has no chance of protecting Israel if it is attacked at once by several ballistic missiles or by one missile with multiple warheads. If Israel intends to use the Arrow to intercept all the missiles with which its enemies are armed, it will have to invest its entire defense budget exclusively on Arrow missiles. Even so, the Arrows would provide Israel with only 60% of the protection it needs. 60% is not enough to face off against doomsday weapons.

When I discussed these and other facts with one of the senior engineers developing the Arrow, he replied, "I have no answers. My assignment was to develop a missile that can destroy a missile. What will happen if twenty missiles are shot at once? That is not my department."

In other words, we are paying astronomical sums of money for a national sleeping pill that severely damages our deterrence factor.

And what solutions does the other side of the political map - Bibi - propose? Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu has been busy speaking at one conference after another on his plan to deal with the Iranian threat. Bibi has two plans of action. Like Olmert, Netanyahu puts the main emphasis on the international community. In addition, Bibi also proposes that Israel turn to the international business community and request that businesses transfer their investments out of Iran. Netanyahu explains that it was financial pressure that ultimately eliminated the Apartheid regime of South Africa.

This may be a creative idea, but it is unrealistic. When it came to fighting Apartheid, mighty international liberal forces united with the international business community to achieve their goals. Similarly, today's chemical companies have halted the production of some of their products that are detrimental to the earth's ozone layer. They do it because the ozone layer is on the international media agenda. It is simply financially sound for these companies to go along with the trend.

But that is not going to happen with Achmadinijad. On the contrary. The "bad boy" from Iran has opened all the sewers of the world. Western universities today openly debate the question of Israel's right to exist. London and Paris do not call for Israel's destruction, but are comfortable with the fact that somebody else is willing to do the dirty work for them. No significant international company will give up on its profits just to help Israel.

That leaves us with the solution common to both Olmert and Netanyahu: Turning to the international community.

If we are "lucky," the sheriff from Washington may decide to attack Iran. But it won't be because of Israel. It is entirely possible that Bush will attack and we will have to absorb the entire counterattack. Even if Iran is not yet nuclear, it does have biological and chemical doomsday weapons. But it is most likely that Bush's precarious political position will not allow him to open up a new front, and we had best not rely on him.

The last time that someone attempted to destroy the Jews - and succeeded in great measure - we turned to the international community for help. But the British and American bombers that flew over the death factories didn't have the time to bomb Auschwitz.

The State of Israel, built on the ashes of the Holocaust, was supposed to have prevented the necessity of turning to the international community for protection. But now, sixty years after the State was established, Israel once again faces the threat of destruction. Neither the Prime Minister nor the head of the Opposition can find any reasonable solution other than to turn once again to the bombers that didn't strike the first time. Is the State of Israel a mistake? Could it be that instead of creating a safe haven, we have created a death trap?

Those who refused to establish a Jewish state, insisting on a "normal" and "safe" state instead, got a state that is not Jewish, not safe and certainly not normal. A world leader who has the audacity to declare that he intends to destroy the State of Israel should automatically become a clear and legitimate target for Israel's special commando forces. His circle of aides should be targeted, as well. There is no reason to threaten. "Shoot, don't talk" is the order of the day.

If, after this move, Iran would continue with nuclear weapons production, Israel would have to destroy them at all costs -- even if that would mean employing nuclear weapons to do so. Setting the stakes high will decrease the chance that we will actually have to make good on our threat.

The international community would certainly react with horror to such steps. But ultimately, it would thank us, Israel's international standing would improve, as it did after the Six Day War, and our children would have a proud and flourishing Jewish State.

To carry out this plan, Israel needs leadership that understands what we are doing in this land in the first place. It needs leadership with a strong Jewish backbone. Israel's current leadership - on both Right and Left -sees Israel's existence through the eyes of the world - as a sort of irritating nuisance. Israel's leaders' lack of faith in its right to exist was most succinctly expressed when they gave the keys to the Temple Mount - Judaism's most holy site - to the Arab wakf.  "Take this hunch off our backs," Israel's government symbolically said to them. "We are no longer Jews. We are Israelis. We are here only temporarily. The foundations belong to you. So take the Temple Mount and give us a little bit of peace and quiet."

And that is exactly what Achmadinijad reminds us: "You decided to negate your own Jewish legitimacy? You decided to destroy your souls? No problem. I'll help you out. I will destroy your bodies, as well. After all, you are only temporary in the Middle East. It's time for you to go back to Europe!"

To solve this problem at its source, we need leadership that returns to the source. We will not be destroyed if we return to the Temple Mount. Just look at what is happening today. We are being destroyed because we betrayed the Temple Mount.

We no longer have the luxury of choosing if we want to have a Jewish State or a state of all its citizens. Our only choice is between a Jewish State -- and no state at all.