Posted on 12/02/2002 8:40:52 PM PST by Dallas
HERZLIYA, Israel, Dec. 2 (UPI) -- The head of Israel's National Security Council said Monday that a "mega-terror attack" threatening Israel's existence would open options for retaliation that hitherto "were unacceptable to public opinion."
Ephraim Halevy, who recently stepped down as head of the Mossad spy service, warned that Israel has "a broad and varied range of capabilities (to cope with a threat to its existence) that better not be exposed prematurely."
In an address to the Third Herzliya Conference on the Balance of Israel's Security, Halevy said Israel must examine the new reality created by last week's attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner taking off from Mombassa, Kenya.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz Sunday told the Cabinet there were increasing signs that al Qaida was behind Thursday's attacks in Mombassa. Three suicide bombers attacked a hotel frequented by Israelis killing themselves, 10 Kenyans and three Israelis. At the same time two shoulder-launched missiles were fired at an Israeli Boeing 757-300 taking off from Mombassa International Airport with 272 passengers and crew. The missiles barely missed the plane.
Military chief of General Staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, said Monday the Israel Defense Forces have already foiled many al Qaida attacks in Israel. Al Qaida has Palestinian operatives in the occupied territories and "has declared war on ... infidels, making Israel one of its main targets," he said.
At the Herzliya conference Halevy said, "The emergence of a mega-terror attack by the world Jihad or by another terror organization changes rules of the game, changes the national mood and creates an international dynamic that opens options that so far have been unacceptable to public opinion."
One must assume that a successful mega-terror incident would "at once changes rules of conduct and behavior. The emerging threat (to Israel) is a threat of genocide -- destroying a state and its institutions," he added.
The new National Security Council chief said the campaign the world Jihad is waging has no boundary lines, regular forces and the attackers violate "all rules of war."
No one can remain neutral, he continued. "Whoever gives the terrorists any aide whatsoever -- identifies with terror. It is possible that due to temporary conditions ... not all those aiding terror will be taken care of simultaneously ... But it is clear that at the end of the day whoever fails to clarify his positions here and now and back them with deeds, will be marked as an accessory to terror and will pay the full price for it."
Haalevy declined comment on a report that al Qaida had claimed responsibility for Thursday's attacks in Mombassa. He told United Press International he was not aware of any such claim.
Haifa University's Professor Gabriel Ben-Dor reported on a changing public attitude towards terror attacks. Basing his findings on the results of five public opinion surveys conducted at six months intervals among 2,000 people Ben Dor said that more than 80 percent of the Israelis polled expressed fear of terror attacks.
That translated also into increased Israeli militancy with as many as 70 percent ready to back any military action.
However in the last survey, in October, he found a decline in fear, patriotism and militancy. "It seems as though the Israeli public is getting accustomed to living with the phenomena of terror," he concluded.
The Israelis already have all the reason they need to do just about anything concerning these Islamopsychos.
Absolutely correct. After all, how might Cairo, Damascus, Teheran and Riyadh react to such brazen favoritism? The only way to avoid such a contretemps is to nuke all of these Islamofascist swine. Quiet them down for fifty years or so.
See above quote: "were unacceptable to public opinion."
Political Correctness, or, What would the New York Times say?
It's all part of the same package deal. If things ever got to the point where a nuclear reprisal was appropriate, you can count on the IDF driving the Jordanian and Egyptian refugees (otherwise known as "Palestinians") back across their respective borders before the mushroom cloud dissipated. Israel knows that it can't afford to leave a job half done—a nuclear launch would likely mean the end of Israel's export-based economy as the Euro-weenies slam up trade barriers in protest, so all long-term threats to the country would have to be resolved at once.
Up until that point, though, population transfer, while the most humane solution possible—and a solution that suited world opinion just fine in India and Pakistan, strangely enough—is just not an option. The world reaction it would provoke would devastate Israel economically, which would soon mean military devastation as well. It cannot be undertaken except in the context of terminating the military threat posed by the Arab League first.
Apparently you don't follow US state dept/Bush policy too closely. Following each new terrorist outrage in Israel, the US government...knowing that it holds the "purse strings"...leads the "chorus" of "world community" voices in demanding that Israel exercise restraint. Same thing with Russia in Chechnya. They tie the hands of our natural allies in the war on international terror. I believe this policy of demanding restraint on the part of our allies originates from the state dept and Colin Powell. It then gets pushed in front of GWB who seems to blindly and without much thought buy in.
I don't know if this is some sort of ego trip on the part of US officials...i.e. we're not going to let you win today...or they see it as some sort of glorified cock fight between jews and arabs which they wish to orchestrate and prolong as long as possible, but the conclusion is almost inescapeable...and has been for years: the US state dept does not want peace in the mid-east.
They cannot possibly be as stupid as their track record indicates...even coming from Ivy League schools. Some have suggested it is a policy of perpetual commerce through perpetual war.
To paraphrase a famous bard of last century, Barry Goldwater: Timidity in the persuit of demonic terrorist cults is no virtue. Extremism in defense of Western civilization is no vice.
If you look at a map you can see why in most cases nukes would not be an option - the countries are too close to each other.
The statements could be taken to mean that Israel will retaliate against Iraq if they pull a Gulf War II-style bombing of Israel when the US planes come.
Ha ha ha...
Transfer will be the bloodiest thing Israel ever has to do. The sooner it gets it over with, the better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.