Israel’s Restraint Would Be Seen as Weakness

To the editors:

I must admit that I am both confused and saddened by the view expressed by Nader R. Hasan in his letter (“Israeli Retaliation Could Light Mideast Fuse,” Sept. 25). He claims to recognize the right of Israel to defend itself, but goes on to unilaterally characterize this reaction as a bad one. Hasan seems to think that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has nothing better to do with his time than persecute Palestinians, and that he focuses every bit of policy upon this goal.

If Tel Aviv were attacked with biological weapons, as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has promised to do, would Hasan urge restraint upon Israel? Israel truly has a sovereign right to defend itself against foreign attack. Its restraint in 1991 was only possible do to the fact that, miraculously, the 39 scud missiles launched at it did little damage. Furthermore, Israel’s restraint was seen by the Arab states, not as a sign of wisdom and restraint, but as a sign of weakness. This is a show that Israel cannot afford to repeat while engaged in its present struggle for its very existence.

A state cannot determine its foreign policy upon the conjectures what its allies’ allies will do in consequence, especially when that policy affects the lives and welfare of its people. Sharon is correct in his assertion that he must defend Israel from attack by Hussein. Hussein, an true war criminal, has proven his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction through his treatment of his own Kurdish population, and in his war with Iran. Israel cannot risk an attack of this kind upon its own soil with promises of restraint in the face of war. Hussein understands strength, and he must be shown that Israel cannot be attacked with impunity.

Aaron K. Harris ’06

Sept. 27, 2002