Pete M, here's my perspective. Israel has, from its inception, had a policy of retaliating to attacks on it not just in kind, but in greater measure. Various Arab entities, being slow learners or gluttons for punishment, have initiated countless offensives aimed at Israel, and generally lost more than they bargained for as a result. I'm not aware of Israel taking military action other than in response to actual attacks or clear threats of attack. Given the amount of hostility and military aggression directed toward them, I think they've shown remarkable restraint.

Iraq, on the other hand, has shown an utter disregard for any semblance of moderation. I find it notable that their attack on Kuwait drew condemnation even from most of their fellow Arab states. They went out of their way to wreak as much havoc as possible, including firing missiles at Israel for no better reason than the international equivalent of "I don't like your face." Even after being soundly whipped back by U.N. approved forces, they have consistently flouted measures intended to stem their aggression, including, but not limited to, their egregious lack of cooperation with U.N. inspection teams and their penchant for provoking skirmishes with the enforcers of the no-fly zone.

In sum, Israel, in the midst of ever-present attack or threat of attack, limits its actions to measured responses even though it is clearly capable of doing more. Iraq, who would be left alone in peace if they stopped lashing out every chance they got, keeps stirring things up, just champing at the bit to cause trouble. I think Israel has demonstrated that they would not be at all likely to employ nuclear weapons, while Iraq has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to show any restraint other than that which is forced upon them.