Israel to hit back if Iraq strikes

The Washington Times (London Daily Telegraph) ^ | 8/13/2002 | Alan Philps

[B-bone]

JERUSALEM

[B-bone]

Can't say that I blame them.

[B-bone]

Sorry about the formating (or lack thereof). I hit post rather than review. Must be time to head to bed.


JERUSALEM — Israel has told the United States that it will retaliate if attacked by Iraqi missiles during an anticipated American assault to depose Saddam Hussein. The decision means that Israel is likely to be a participant in the campaign, in contrast to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when it was restrained by pressure from Washington.

Officials said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told President Bush that there was no question of Israel staying on the sidelines, as it had done earlier.

Americans are believed to be sympathetic to Israel's desire to demonstrate its deterrent capability, although some are pressing for any response to be "symbolic" if there are no casualties. But there is little likelihood of the Israelis showing such restraint.

"Israel paid a price in terms of its deterrent posture by not responding in the past to Iraqi attacks," said Dore Gold, an adviser to the prime minister. "In a region where ballistic missiles are proliferating, there is a limit to how far our country can voluntarily erode the credibility of its deterrence."

During the Gulf war, 40 Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israel but did little damage. Two persons died of shock. Despite threats from Saddam to "burn half of Israel," he did not use biological or chemical weapons and had no serviceable nuclear warheads.

In that conflict, the United States fought alongside an international coalition that included Egypt, Syria and other Arab states. The alliance would have fallen apart instantly if Israel were seen actively participating.

The Israeli air force was not granted access to codes that would enable it to be recognized as a member of the alliance. This time, however, there is no coalition to be blown apart.

The 1991 experience left a deep scar on many Israelis as they huddled together in their gas masks, fearing a chemical attack.

The conflict now would be even more frightening for the Israelis, as Saddam is not being given the chance to survive, which might spur him to use every weapon in his arsenal.

But Israelis are calm. There is a feeling that the country escaped lightly 11 years ago and has had a decade to improve its defenses. The government is preparing smallpox vaccine to inoculate the whole nation, in case of a biological attack.

But the calm is most likely because Israelis, by and large, are already saturated with worry about the Palestinian uprising and the economic slump stemming from it.

They have no energy to fear a conflict not yet on their doorstep.

[Mr. Mojo]

Can't say that I blame them.

Neither can I. It's hard to imagine Saddam not firing everything he has at Israel when he realizes his death hour is near. If Israel's ABM technology can't effectively deal with Iraqi Scuds, and they're WMD'd, hello WW3.....and Iraq will become the first of many Middle East parking lots.

[LibWhacker]

But there is little likelihood of the Israelis showing such restraint.

Good news. I hope it's not the same old tit-for-tat we've been witnessing for the past 18 months. An example has to be made.

[brat]

Israel should hit first. Why should she risk annihilation?

[Lobster 6]

Israel will not permit Islamist attacks without retribution. Retribution is a wounderful thing - call it payback. The possibity of Bagdad "glassed" in an Israeli counter attack might motivate some brave Iraqi to terminate Sadam and his crew.

[solmar_israel]

I have news for all of you.

All this talk is bulls%it.

If and when Saddam hits Israeli with WMD (barring there being 100,000's of casualties) ISRAEL WILL NOT HIT SADDAM BACK, EXCEPT SYMBOLICALLY.

Even if 500 Israelis die in the streets screaming with their skin melting off... the world media will play it down, deny Israel has a right to 'continue the cycle of violence', etc...

In this situation (the most likey), Israel will launch some conventional missiles and do a few bombing runs. Nothing will come as a result of this, it will be purely symbolic, and the world will declare that Israel has hit back. (anything beyond this will be 'disproportate').

Anyone who gets all fired up here thinking Saddam will do this and that, and Israel will nuke him or whatever... is being dellusional and doesn't understand what has happened to Israeli society since the early 1980s...

Israel in the late 70s would have nuked, Israel today has lost the ability (will) to EVER respond seriously, in ANY situation.

I honestly believe that in a general nuclear strike on Israel, Israelis would all die with all there nukes on the ground. And even then all Israel would do would be to maybe launch a couple nukes from their submarines, which the Islamic world would recover from quicky. Israel however, would be dead.

The biggest mistake Israel has made in the last two decades, and continues to make today, is to let its society head in the direction of 'Western logic' to Middle East (Arab/Islamic) confrontation.

[Lobster 6]

I hope you are wrong. We shall see - soon, I think. I understand your point. In all prior engagements, U.S. & "world" pressure enabled the Arabs to survive & claim victory. IMHO, the first rule of war is to destroy the enemy. Old Testament. The Islamists must be destroyed - they are a clear and present danger to civilization as we know it. Islamic law is the anthisis of life, culture and human progress. Death to the Islamists!