Israel's Defense Dilemma: Repeated Attacks Without Retaliation

The state of Israel has faced numerous attacks on its territory over the years, but the decision to retaliate has not always been straightforward. This article delves into the complexities of Israel's response to attacks and the reasoning behind some of its unique policies.

Attacks in the Gulf War

The 1991 Gulf War saw Israel attacked by Scud missiles from Iraq, marking the first time, to the best of our knowledge, that Israel did not retaliate.

On the second Skud attack, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) was already set to respond, but U.S. President George H.W. Bush personally intervened, asking the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to recall the IAF. The U.S. President's concern was to maintain the fragile anti-Iraq coalition. Despite this assurance, Skud attacks persisted until the end of the conflict, indicating a failure to uphold the U.S. promise of retaliation.

A Lack of Retaliation

Israel has a history of not retaliating after attacks, with rare exceptions. One notable instance was during the Gulf War where Iraq launched attacks on Israel. Under significant U.S. pressure, Israel refrained from retaliation, a decision that garnered increased goodwill and support from the U.S.

Despite being surrounded by hostile neighbors, Israel's response to attacks has been consistent with its delicate strategic position. Any failure to respond promptly and effectively could set off a chain reaction of retaliatory attacks from its enemies.

The Jordanian Counterexample

An interesting comparison can be drawn with Jordan. Historically, Jordan has been expected to ensure the peaceful use of the Al Aqsa Mosque, yet during times of tension, Jordan has sometimes been seen as providing less than peaceful support to its controlled areas of Jerusalem. This situation highlights the complexity of maintaining peace in a region with ongoing conflicts.

Recent Developments

More recently, the use of missile attacks by neighboring countries has become a regular occurrence. These attacks are clearly intended to convey Israel's displeasure to the international community. The U.S. and other international partners often provide support and gratitude for Israel's restraint but also recognize the importance of maintaining a strong defensive posture.

Conclusion

The question of whether Israel should retaliate after an attack is a complex one, often weighing the strategic, political, and diplomatic considerations. Whether it's the Gulf War, suicide bombings, or ongoing missile attacks, Israel's approach has been to maintain a policy of restraint while still conveying its displeasure through other means.

As tensions in the region continue to rise, it is critical that all parties weigh the potential consequences of their actions to ensure a peaceful resolution and prevent unnecessary escalation.