Failure to respond was a BIG strategic error on Israel's part - basically demonstrating a supposed method to attack Israel with impunity. But I also think that you underrate the enormous pressure by the US - if not threats - on Israel to stay uninvolved. Keep in mind also that Saddam WANTED Israel to retaliate - and doing so would have played into his game to rally the Arab world, etc. Nonetheless... despite all of the above I agree with you: big mistake for Israel not to retaliate decisively. Israel should have launched its own heavy missile strikes against Takrit and other Saddam-related targets to get his attention... and something that would have sent a clear message not only to Saddam but to the Arab world in general.

The Timing was bad as Saddam Hussein was a hero for invading oil rich Kuwait amongst Arab Militants. Only the iranians hated him .It took six months and immense provocation to attack. The fear that an oil rich iraq could develop nuclear weapon was paramount .Shamir organized the realapolitic situation well.

there was no point in sending some special forces troops to do the job that was done well by the allies . the favor that the alliance did israel is immeasurable : the destruction of the strongest arab country , destruction of a 66 division force with a potential to possess unconventional weapons . lastly , israel did respond . shamir sent saddam a warning through the french that any attack on israel with non conventional weapond would be met with a similar response from israel . in the outcome saddam sent only small conventional war-headed missiles .

...because Israeli military involvement in US wars in the region would break the US coalitions with Israel's traditional enemies, Arab and Muslims countries

A man like Shamir never shied away from a fight. If he withheld, likely there was far more behind the scenes than you or I could understand. I highly doubt any other explanation could make sense. Why would Shamir not respond? There had to have something very very powerful to make his decision. While your opinion may be accurate, and perhaps Israel should have responded, I for one am not convinced Shamir had much choice in the matter. When have you ever seen America and Israel ever do a joint military operation? I do not speak of training, I refer strictly to war operations. There was far more to Shamir's decision than met the eye, is my guess. I do agree that smacking the daylights out of Saddam via Israel personally would have been something. Either way, Saddam won't be firing any scuds on Israel anytime soon.

mass-killings of Israeli citizens in the so called "intifadas" was a sign of strenght?? The impotence in the face of Hizbollah, Hamas is something to celebrate?? Let's face it, we're too smart& sophisticated for our own good to be able to survive in this snake pit, that's called Middle East.

he was the first to negotiate land for peace, a concept for which we are still suffering now.

with the last few Prime Ministers. Tens of thousands of DEADLY ROCKETS have been fired into Israel on almost a daily basis and what is Israel's reponse to these attacks? Bombing empty fields and tunnels. LOL!

This article is totally right, correct and proper, albeit in hind-sight, which is also the premise of all 'armchair" philosophers - how sad indeed.

The late Yitzhak Shamir made a grave mistake because he capitualted to the evil antisemite George Bush senior .

Otherwise little boys may get their nose bloodied.

Shamir should have ignored the idiot oilman Bush senior ,who hated Israel ,and Shamir should have protected Israel .Shamir failed miserably because he folded and turned to jelly at a critical moment.

It was a hard call. The attack on Iraq was an American/Arab war against Saddam. The only reason Israel was involved was due to Saddam's belief that the decades-long Leftist incitement against Israel would mean that an attack on Israel would allow him to overthrow the corrupt Arab dictatorships, the same strategy Iran is following today. Sending in IDF troops and aircraft during an American attack would have been very dangerous, and could have led to many IDF deaths due to American or their Arab allies fire. But you comment is wrong. The SAS, excellent at penetrating enemy lines and killing poorly trained soldiers or lightly armed insurgents, failed miserably at finding Saddam's launchers. It was lucky that Saddam had already moved his WMD to Syria, so when the fighting started he only had conventional warheads. No less lucky was that Saddam's rockets missed Israeli targets. Remember how Saddam vaporised 28 Americans in Dharan with a Scud.

It's always easy to sit on the sidelines and give comments without having to take responsibility. Looking with hindside, without responsibility is even easier.

I'm somewhat surprised by Plocker's usually reasoned essays. All 'alternate history" post hoc analysis are simply conjecture, since there is nothing to compare it to. Furthermore, the Lebanon and Gaza wars showed that even the IDF on the ground (and certainly from the air) cannot eliminate the threat of missiles. As far as deterrence is concerned, suppose that Israel had added to the bombing (or ground attack) that Iraq was already being subject to by the US. Proportionally it would have been insignificant, and given that that the Iraqi government was not even being deterred by the US, its hard to imagine that Iraq or other Arabs would have been impressed by Israel. Even if Israel was willing to use massive and disproportionate countermeasures (such as unconventional attack on civilian targets), which would be in violation of war laws, an Israeli response would have done more harm than good.

my friend saddam moved weapons to syria in 2003 war not the 1991 war .

P.M. Shamir and the State of Israel HAD no other option than to sit out the 1991 Gulf War. That was because Israel's "great friend" President Mr. Bush (the dad) refused to give the Israeli AirForce the "Friend or Foe" codes and effectively grounded the IAF.

It is impossible to know the responses of the various Arab nations taking part in the attack on Iraq if Israel would have chosen to retaliate. The coalition could have fallen apart and much more harm than good could have occurred. It's also silly (and presumptious) to think the IDF could have done a better job than the British in finding scud launchers. The article is pure conjecture based mostly on arrogance and it is somewhat surprising given the author is one of the more sane commentators on Ynet.

Saddam's calculation was to provoke an Israeli attack to break apart the American coalition with the Arab's!!! This is a total revision of history!!!! Now I am convinced that Sever Plocker is a liar and not the guy from Israel Hayom.

He did not surrender a single millimeter of land and refused the land for peace concept.

Shamir's motto as the PM was : Sit, do nothing (Shev, al-taase). He sticked to the motto when the economy was crambling, when the intifada erupted, when Iraqi missiles hitted Tel-Aviv and Haifa, when US pushed for peace process in Madrid. I also see it was even his way of conduct during his last years in a Herzlia geriatric center...

The author is correct. Doing nothing is never an acceptable response to attacks against Israel. As former U.S. President Truman said, "Bring the war to the enemy. Don't let them bring it to you".

today with the latte sucking attitude of the talking classes in Israel today. Israel has become a nation of whiners, schnorrers shirkers and layabouts. You are in deep trouble. The Arabs are building bombs while you guys are looking for viagra.