Israelis Keep Policy Blurred on Retaliation

It used to be that when an Israeli official warned that a foreign adversary had crossed the Red Line, it meant that Israel was going to strike back. And strike back hard.

Red Line warnings were reserved for such things as terrorist attacks and the movement of troops or aircraft close to Israel’s borders. And, until the Persian Gulf crisis, for any air attack on civilian targets.

But with the restraint policy of Israel’s government now in place, the Red Line is blurred and Israeli officials are trying hard to focus it again. Tel Aviv has been hit by missiles and Israel has done nothing in response.

At stake, experts and military officials say, is the credibility of Israeli deterrence. If the Red Line is supposed to mark the limit of Israel’s patience, then it is important that it be firmly drawn and unwavering. Or is it?

“There was a notion nurtured over the years that Israel, under such attack, would hit back many times over, as everyone used to say,” recalled Dore Gold, a defense analyst at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv.

“Now, it’s left unclear. Ambiguity is the name of the game.”

It’s a new game for Israel, and its rawness shows in public statements.

Defense Minister Moshe Arens has said that Iraq already crossed the Red Line and can expect retaliation at a moment of Israel’s choosing. In comments published Monday, Maj. Gen. Ehud Barak, the army’s deputy chief of staff, contended that use of chemical weapons by Iraq would constitute the Red Line. Other observers and officials say it depends on whether Israeli casualties mount, no matter if the attack is from conventional or chemical warheads.

Ironically, some observers point out, the very ambiguity means that Israel is challenging Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to escalate his attacks. “If two deaths in Tel Aviv are not enough, then Hussein might think he has to double or triple the number,” remarked Gold, in reference to a pair of fatalities linked directly to the Iraqi missile attacks.

He noted that during the 1973 Middle East War, Syria fired a single missile into the Galilee region and Israel responded with a bombardment of 40 times greater force on military headquarters in Damascus. In recent years, even scattered rocket shots on Israel’s northern border routinely bring air raids and artillery fire down on guerrilla hide-outs in southern Lebanon.

Despite such precedent, Tel Aviv’s new policy of restraint seems firmly in place. “We, for our part, believe that the Israel Defense Forces, because of regional training and special operational experience, have the ability to make an important contribution toward removing (the Iraqi missile) threat, and also in inflicting a harsh blow on the aggressor,” said Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in a Monday speech to Parliament.

“But we are of the opinion, as circumstances dictate, that we must do our utmost toward coordinating and consulting with the U.S. with regards to the war.”

Washington has pressured Israel to stay out of the war in order not to broaden the conflict and risk alienating the coalition’s Arab allies. Israel’s compliance has won it wide international sympathy, but this kind of cooperation with the United States has made some Israeli officials uncomfortable. They want to lift the American yoke.

Claiming that Israel has designed “excellent” operational plans to attack Iraq, Barak declared: “It is preferable to carry out these plans with understanding and coordination with the United States, but in my opinion, any intelligent person in the world understands that in some situations, Israel, based on its right to self-defense, will want to act, not on the basis of complicated coordination, but on the basis of informing whoever needs to be informed.

“I’m sure,” he added confidently, “that Saddam prays every night that the Prophet Mohammed would appear before him in a dream and tell him what Israel is planning tomorrow to do to destroy the missiles.”

Barak went out of his way to argue that Israel’s deterrent threat has not been impaired by the reluctance to strike back. “In my opinion, that is totally clear in the mind of every Arab leader,” he asserted.

Analyst Gold suggested that Israel must make ambiguity work to its advantage by putting Hussein on notice that whatever and whenever the response, it will be devastating.

In an apparent public effort to raise the stakes for Iraq, Israeli analysts, interpreting weekend comments made by U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, argued that Washington has given Israel the green light to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a chemical assault.

In an interview, Cheney remarked that Hussein should be worried about an unconventional response by Israel. Analysts here noted that Cheney’s questioner used the word nuclear and, although Cheney did not repeat it, neither did he reject the possibility.

“The defense secretary is indirectly confirming that Israel has the ability to use unconventional weapons,” wrote columnist Zeev Schiff, who has close ties to Israeli defense officials. “The statement implies a great deal of understanding for the dangers to Israel and the fact that it is liable to end up responding very harshly in self-defense.”

Whether or not that was Cheney’s meaning, Israeli observers took it as a cue to forecast an apocalypse. “For Israel, it is a matter of life and death, no matter how great the damage (to Iraq),” insisted Alex Fishman, a columnist for the centrist Hadashot daily. “Saddam must understand right now that Iraqi deaths will be his responsibility.”

It is an open secret that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, as well as a store of chemical arms. Successive governments have said that Israel would never be the first to “introduce” atomic bombs in the Middle East.

Curiously, Israel’s tough talk coincides with a reduction in Iraqi Scud missile volleys. Last week, Iraq fired four missiles at Israel, compared with 25 during the first nine days of the war. All of last week’s Scuds landed in the Israeli-held West Bank, short of their intended target, the populous coastal region of Israel proper.

Analysts speculate that the bad aim had several causes: windy weather; panicky shooting brought on by fear that U.S. warplanes were hovering near the launch site; a few yards’ shift of the mobile launchers that, when transferred to a 400-mile trajectory, took the missiles off course.