Israeli Retaliation Could Light Mideast Fuse

To the editors:

In its editorial, “Israel’s Inalienable Right” (Editorial, Sept. 25), the Crimson staff is right on one count: Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the right of Israel—or any state—to retaliate against an armed attack. But just because Israel has that right, it does not follow that it must use it, especially when doing so would do itself more harm than good.

Saddam Hussein struck at Israel in 1991 precisely because he wanted to undermine the U.S.-led alliance and turn the Gulf War into a religious war. Back then, the Israeli leadership was wise enough to restrain itself, knowing full well that the U.S. would protect Israel and her interests. The same will be true this time around if (God forbid) there is another Persian Gulf War. Why should Israel risk an apocalyptic Arab-Israeli war for the sake of attacking Iraq when the U.S. is willing and better able to act on Israel’s behalf?

If Israel attacks Iraq, only two people stand to benefit—Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon. Saddam needs allies, and bringing Israel into the fight would wrest Arab states from the U.S. coalition. Meanwhile, Sharon will welcome a wider Arab-Israeli war, for it would give him an excuse to increase his stranglehold on the Palestinian territories, and quite possibly, to expel thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank. Israel must not play into the hands of these two war criminals.

Nader R. Hasan ’02

New York, N. Y.

Sept. 25, 2002