Why Is It That We 'Must' Respond to the Iranian Attack? - Opinion - Haaretz.com
There are a few axioms in Israel that cannot be challenged. One of the worst has now come to the fore: We must respond to the Iranian missile attack. Why "must" we?
Because we must, that's all. Because they started it. Because now it's our turn. Because if we don't respond, they'll attack again. Because deterrence. Because national honor. Because security. Because any country would retaliate. Because what do you want us to do? Should we do nothing? All of this is true, but how about a slightly more rational consideration, such as cost versus benefit?
It's irrelevant. They hit us, and we must – we absolutely must – hit them back. And what if this could drag us into a war more terrible than its predecessors? It doesn't matter, we must respond. These are the playground rules that govern the state and jeopardize its future.
- An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites would push Tehran to assemble a bomb
- Israel will always have the last word, even if it's Kaddish
- Now or never? Why Israel's strike on Iran may include nuclear and oil targets
As with the other childish eternal question, "who started it?" which, contrary to the opinion of most Israelis, almost never has just one answer, and that's true for October 7 as well as the chain of events that followed, there needs to be more than one option. With us, the boundaries of this discussion are so narrow as to be nonexistent: The only questions are when, where and how much.
Amos Harel wrote Wednesday that the debate in Israel is between "a response that will end the issue or one that will escalate the conflict." In fact, the former is also liable to escalate the conflict, albeit less. But why must we respond? What will we get from it? These questions are off-limits. Iran attacked, Israel must respond. Why? Because. Playground rules.
Once, and only once, Israel violated this axiom, against its will. And it benefited as a result. It was orchestrated by the toughest prime minister it has ever known, Yitzhak Shamir, who acceded to the American request not to respond to the Scud missile attacks from Iraq that inflicted destruction, terror and death on Israel. The rest is history. That was the last time Israel restrained itself in this manner. It lost nothing and saved many lives, first and foremost in Iraq but also among its own soldiers and civilians.
An Iranian missile next to a banner with a picture of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a street in Tehran, Iran, last week.Credit: Majid Asgaripour/ REUTERS
Shamir was the last prime minister who dared to adopt such a courageous policy. In Israel today there is not a single courageous Jewish politician, much less a general or a commentator, who calls for restraint. The very idea that there could be an alternative to attacking is frightening. Such lockstep thinking is a recipe for disaster.
This isn't about morality or justice, only about reason. Iran was wrong to attack. Contrary to many of its actions, in this case Israel has the full legal and moral right to respond. So what? If Israel responds in full force, the gates of hell may open against it, if the reports about Iran's capabilities are correct and if the United States carries out its stated policy urging Israel to avoid a harsh response. The cost is liable to be heavy, the benefit zero. The gain? At best, another false sense of victory, as in Gaza and in Lebanon, and a pound of flesh for the masses. Public opinion will love a harsh response against Iran, and public opinion will pay.
If Israel chooses a measured response, the risk will be smaller but the benefit will be zero. Apart from the "we must respond" nonsense, nothing will come of it. Iran will not be deterred, just as Hamas and Hezbollah are not deterred. Iran might respond to even a measured attack, and then we'd definitely have to respond. Then what?
We'd be one step from a regional war. In the spirit of Israel's real and imaginary military accomplishments, we might even win it. Then what? How would this improve Israel's situation? Would Iran join Serbia in its support for Israel? Would it be destroyed, like Gaza and Lebanon? Will the regime be replaced? Will the shah return? Will Iran disarm? Or will it, like Israel, fall into the trap of needing to avenge the revenge, setting off another eight-year war, like the one between Iran and Iraq?
Who would have imagined that one day we would end up missing Yitzhak Shamir.