would not matter if the attacks were merely symbolic or totally destructive, the Israelis would retaliate disproportionately to articulate a position: threaten our existence and risk yours
That is where the beauty of plausible deniability comes in, jcky. Use a terrorist group as a proxy, while condemning them and play-acting suitable indignation, and killing a bunch of 'terrorists' to prove how clean your own hands are. It worked for Arafat for years, didn't it? still does, in fact.
What the dossier fails to realize is that governments can be easily targeted and held accountable for their actions but terrorist groups cannot due to their organizational structures
Precisely the appeal of using proxy terrorist groups. Israel, especially, is not allowed to react like other countries, to attack a country just because it has proof of anything -- we have seen that for years. If Israel were attacked in this way (G-d forfend) their impulse would be for retaliation, but they still could not afford to lose US support, and that would affect their decision. As tek described the US reaction to the latest Gaza strike, "only we are allowed to do stuff like that".
So Saddam is going to risk this? A far reach by the dossier, in my humble opinion
Evidence isn't in but you are discounting the temptation. Remember the brass ring of the restored caliphate. Saddam longs to be proclaimed leader of the Arabs -- defying the US and attacking Israel are the roads to achieve it.
Compound this situation with a current prime minister who was found, by his own government, to be indirectly responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent refugees in Lebanon
Total red herring. First, the Phalangists did it. Second, it was hundreds, not thousands. Third, Sharon lost his job and was disgraced, a very predictable Israeli reaction, so you don't have to believe he's a nice guy to believe that he was caught by surprise by the Phalangist moves. Fourth, Sharon's war record shows he can be ruthless against terrorists but is not bloody-minded in war; he let the Egyptian third army survive in 1973 when he might have destroyed it. Sharon's actual record as prime minister is a study in cautious incrementalism on the ground and careful maintenance of political alliances, not rash slaughters. |
