Seven years ago, Israel's defence chiefs assured their people that they saw no reason why Israel should be dragged into the conflict with Iraq, that they regarded the likelihood of being dragged into that conflict as low, but that they were carefully monitoring the situation, and were fully prepared to defend the country if necessary. As it turned out, they were wrong on every count. Seven years on, they are using almost identical language. And many Israelis no longer believe them.
In 1991, Iraq had every reason to try and bring Israel into the Gulf War - to shatter the US-Arab coalition forcing it out of Kuwait. President Saddam Hussein wound up firing 39 Scud missiles, all with conventional warheads, at Israel. Although they caused only one death directly, and perhaps another dozen indirect fatalities (mostly elderly people suffocating inside gas masks or suffering heart attacks), the Scuds provoked widespread panic.
And Israel proved unable to defend itself - because it had no anti-missile system, and because the United States insisted that it should not play into President Saddam's hands by sending its aircraft to target the Scud launchers inside Iraqi territory.
The situation is different now: there are no Arab nations partnering the United States against Iraq today, and thus no coalition for President Saddam to attempt to destroy by firing on Tel Aviv.
But as even such sober figures as Mr James Wolsey, former head of the CIA, have been quoted here as saying, that does not mean Israel can afford to shrug off the threat of Iraqi Scuds, armed this time with chemical or biological warheads, crashing into its population centres.
The UN weapons inspector, Mr Richard Butler, noted ominously just last week that President Saddam had the germ war capability to wipe out Tel Aviv.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Mr Yitzhak Mordechai, is urging his people not to panic. And they're heeding him, for now. But they're also descending in increasing numbers on the army-staffed gas-mask distribution centres. They're boning up, courtesy of the tabloid press, on the likely effect of biological warfare, the appropriate antidotes for anthrax, the pros and cons of preventative vaccinations. And a few of those with a spare couple of thousand dollars are even installing their own in-house chemical, biological and nuclear attack-proof shelters, designed to provide even better protection than the reinforced room that builders have been legally required to include in every apartment that's gone up nationwide since the Scuds came down.
Today, as seven years ago, Israel has no means of intercepting incoming Iraqi missiles. The Patriot defensive missiles deployed here by the US in 1991 were completely useless in practice, albeit quite comforting in theory. And the home-devised Arrow anti-missile system is not yet operational.
In the absence of such a protective system, and of a sensitive international coalition, Israel has every incentive to hit back against Iraq, and hard, if it does come under attack.
There have been some sensationalist press reports about Israel being prepared to use nuclear arms against Iraq. But these are being dismissed by normally loquacious ministers who are being relatively quiet about the whole issue of another confrontation with the dictator of Baghdad. The quieter they get, one senses, the more real the prospects for conflict.
David Horovitz is managing editor of the Jerusalem Report
The Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday reserved the option of retaliating for any Iraqi missile attack on Israel, despite assurances the US would step in quickly to punish Iraq. "The only ones who will make decisions, the only ones who make decisions, are us and us alone," he said. --(Reuters)