War With Iraq, Peace With Israel

The scene is being set for U.S. action in the Middle East. What action is expected to take place? Who will be the main players? What would their objectives be? These are some of the questions surrounding United States’ ongoing attempts to stage one of its spectaculars in a region that has not been fully stable since the establishment of the Zionist state on Arab land in 1948.

Peace and war are two sides of the U.S. foreign policy coin; war against Iraq, and peace with Israel. The actors are the same, but the context differs. On one hand, Saddam Hussein is the “bad man,” not because of his authoritarianism or the abuse of human rights that takes place in Iraq, but because he possesses weapons of mass destruction. Israel, on the other hand, is “not so bad,” even though it possesses a large arsenal of these internationally prohibited weapons of mass destruction. The Zionist state has no less than 200 nuclear warheads, in addition to its biological and chemical warfare. For more than two decades, Arab countries have been calling for an end to amassing such lethal weapons and making the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone. Their call has been heeded neither by Israel nor the United States. Iraq is now being penalized for having acquired what Baghdad calls “defensive weapons,” and the “saber rattling” goes on as the United States prepares the way for an eventual show-down with Iraq.

Parallel to this, Washington’s efforts have been directed towards sheltering Israel politically, militarily and economically. No serious effort has been paid so far to bring Israel to account for its mass murders of innocent Palestinians. The United States rarely asks the Israeli government to bring its continuous offensive against civilian targets (with U.S.-made missiles and military aircraft) to a halt. Families have been dispossessed and slaughtered in the streets of Palestinian towns and villages in revenge for the humiliation of the once unbeatable occupying army. Israel’s atrocities have been so appalling that George W. Bush asked the Israeli government once to “limit” its atrocities. Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, said: “The President does believe that Ariel Sharon must take steps to ease the plight of the Palestinian people.” Yet the blame is always laid against the victims.

The apparent change of the U.S. tone has several dimensions. First, it is an attempt to appease the Arab side to gain support for its policies in the Middle East. Second, it is intended to create a favorable atmosphere for the Saudi initiative, which clearly spells the endorsement of the Israeli occupation by recognizing Israel. Third, it is intended to soften Arab reaction to a possible attack on Iraq. It is ironic to see the intermingling of Middle East politics in a way that appears sometimes too complicated, either to undo or even comprehend. The American administration is keen on exploiting the divided Arab position on major issues, such as Palestine and Iraq, to push its agenda through. This comes in a time of heightened tension in Washington, following the recent American debacle in Afghanistan that led to the killing of ten American soldiers and the shooting down of at least one Chinook helicopter by Al-Qa’eda rebels.

The American administration is planning the second phase of its war against terrorism. Britain has already decided to join the war against Iraq, and may have been instrumental in influencing the American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of the UN arms inspection teams in Iraq has suddenly become a hot issue three years after they left Baghdad. There is a stiff resistance to a British involvement in any future operations against Iraq. More than fifty members of Parliament have asked the government not to be drawn into conflict with Baghdad. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched a high-profile initiative to try to sell the idea of taking part in the attack on Iraq to the nation. The British foreign minister, Jack Straw, warning Baghdad of hard times to come, wrote in The Times (5 March 2002):

We cannot allow Saddam to hold a gun to the heads of his own people, his neighbours and the world forever. Intense diplomatic efforts will continue, and I hope they will achieve our aim of removing the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to humanity. But if he refuses to open his weapons programmes to proper international inspection, he will have to live with the consequences.

This saber rattling is serious. What is more annoying is the fact that both the United States and Britain have chosen to ignore the increasingly deteriorating situation in the Occupied Territories: the plight of the Palestinians who are being slaughtered by U.S.-made weapons everyday. There is a divergence of aims between them and the Arab countries, which consider the Israeli threat more serious and dangerous than that of Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein has not helped his cause by indicating the willingness to recognize Israel in return for being spared U.S. attacks. Recognition, or lack of it, is a mask hiding many realities that, in addition to Israeli presence in the region, spans the whole spectrum of the political arena. The double-standard approach of the U.S. to the Middle East makes life easier for it. The real possibility is that it may be dragged into an open-ended conflict – which they certainly could do without. Once again, U.S. interests are being sacrificed for the Zionist lobby operating in Washington.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses