Netanyahu: US must guarantee Israel's safety from Iraqi attack

Jerusalem Post ^ | 9/13/02 | JANINE ZACHARIA

[Ranger]

WASHINGTON The US has a responsibility to ensure Israelis are protected against weapons of mass destruction before it decides to launch a military offensive to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Thursday.

"A central component of any strike on Iraq must be to ensure that the Israeli government, if it so chooses, has the means to vaccinate every citizen of Israel before action is initiated," Netanyahu told the House Government Reform Committee.

"Ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the United States."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's inner cabinet decided last month to vaccinate 15,000 first responders for smallpox but has postponed a decision on any wider vaccination plan.

Netanyahu, who is expected to challenge Sharon for control of the Likud, said the "overwhelming majority" of Israelis support a preemptive strike against Saddam even though they will be the target of any Iraqi retaliation.

In an indictment of opponents to a US-led preemptive attack on Iraq, he said, "We support this preemptive action even though we stand on the front line, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines."

Netanyahu echoed many of the indictments of Saddam aired by President George W. Bush at the UN and stressed above all the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Saddam.

"A nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. Make no mistake about it. Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used," he said.

Netanyahu added that "even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover" Saddam's "portable manufacturing sites of mass death."

He said that while Iran is "outpacing Iraq" in its development of weapons of mass destruction, regime change in Iran may be possible without outside interference, especially once Saddam is removed from power.

He also warned, as he has repeatedly in the past, that Saddam could use "terror proxies" to spread weapons of mass destruction in the US.

[honway]

The US has a responsibility to ensure Israelis are protected against weapons of mass destruction before it decides to launch a military offensive to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Thursday.

The U.S. will not ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from Iraqi WMDs by denying visas, deporting Muslims here illegally, or rounding up the former Iraqi soldiers that were resettled in the U.S., many here as sleepers.

[MissAmericanPie]

I guess it could. I think Saddam has had time to get together with Iran, Syria, and Lybia, to lay down a few suprises for Israel and our troops.

[marron]

Syria... attack us? Where? How?

Granted, not high on our list of things to worry about. But according to the Stratfor article, the best way to enter Iraq from Turkey in force is via Syria. The alternative being to risk being bottled up along very bad mountain roads.

Syria might agree to permit such a move, or simply not resist it if we did it. Or, we might simply not need to do it, since it might be impossible for Iraq to take advantage of any temporary traffic jams coming across the frontier, since they likely have no way to project force into the area.

Syria could do it, if she were willing, but she would be at war with us and the Israelis at the same time, so it most probably would never happen.

On the other hand, according to other articles recently printed, Syria has been sending, selling, new military equipment to Iraq. This suggests they have chosen sides, although it also suggests they don't plan to be doing any fighting themselves.

[VaBthang4]

Boy this'll bring out the J-E-W Haters.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Seeing as to how Israel has real dogs in that fight, and also a goodly supply of WMDs herself, a pre-emptive strike on Israel's part makes a lot more sense than one on ours.

I would say our ally Israel is displaying much more trust in the US than many of our other so-called allies---I'm sure they feel a most urgent feeling to strike in such a manner to defend themselves; yet they are trying to work with the United States. It says quite a bit.

[He Rides A White Horse]

We asked them to show similar restraint during the Gulf War---they accomodated even as Scuds were falling on them.

[He Rides A White Horse]

"Ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the United States."

Every fiber of their being is screaming to blast Iraq into oblivion, yet they know that doing so may be problematic at this juncture; they hold back.

[He Rides A White Horse]

"A nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. Make no mistake about it. Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used," he said.

Israel knows this, because it is the truth; we know it......and one of these will most certainly be used on Tel-Aviv. They are holding back in spite of which many there may believe to be better judgement; we should not repay this by wobbling with Saddam and his friends.

[Robert_Paulson2]

saw most of it....

Bibi was amazing.
He had our very own demorats eating out of his hand, I think. Even Wexler the mustache....

Biden says we gotta go in. Lieberman too... only tiny tom is holding out for after november.
There will be no November surprise, we KNOW what is coming.

[He Rides A White Horse]

In an indictment of opponents to a US-led preemptive attack on Iraq, he said, "We support this preemptive action even though we stand on the front line, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines."

bttt

[Dec31,1999]

I would say our ally Israel is displaying much more trust in the US than many of our other so-called allies---I'm sure they feel a most urgent feeling to strike in such a manner to defend themselves; yet they are trying to work with the United States. It says quite a bit.

Yes, but that's because our other "allies" are cowering under their beds trying their damnest to stay neutral, lest they be open to attack, as well.

[Dec31,1999]

We asked them to show similar restraint during the Gulf War---they accomodated even as Scuds were falling on them.

It's true. But we didn't accomplish the regime change at the time, which was a big mistake.

A stitch in time saves nine.

[proud to be breathing]

"I support an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iraq. They can soften up the target with Neutron weapons and we can do the clean up. Everyone should keep their eye on Syria."

Neutron bombs have one objecvtive, to kill people - men . women and children - and leave their precious property behind. When we (The US Army) do the clean up, what do you have in mind? Go into Baghdad and bury the close to 3 million women and children who were living there? Should we keep all their stuff? And keep our eye on Syria? What does that mean? Have Israel "soften " them them up too? I haven't been to Damascus in about 10 years, but it is a beautiful city, with more history in it than almost any other city in the world, And a very large (about 1.2 million people) part of the population is Christian. What the hell, nuke them too.Dear God you are a cold creature.

[Monty22]

We can't guarantee our own safety, much less theirs. I'm sorry to save, I love Israel and the USA.. But we're in bad trouble here.

[Monty22]

War is War..

We blasted Nuremburg, we can do it again. To whatever 'pretty' city we choose.

[proud to be breathing]

My previous post was addressed to you, I don't know why your name didn't appear.

[proud to be breathing]

"We blasted Nuremburg, we can do it again. To whatever 'pretty' city we choose."

Well your absolutely right, except we didn't blast Nuremburg. Your probably thinking of Dresden. One thing I am sure of is that the men running this country, and this war if it comes to pass, are much wiser, and for that matter, more humane than the likes of you.

[Monty22]

Nuremburg was a wasteland, the city was destroyed during WW2.

The place had to be rebuilt from scratch.

My evidence is from the commentary track from an historian on the Triumph of the Will DVD.

[Monty22]

If we're anymore humane than Truman was in WW2, we're doomed...