Pundits and other political commentators around the world have remarked on what appears to be an essential link between the current effort against Iraq and the now endemic Middle East conflict.
Having been obliged to wage a war for its survival for most of its existence, Israel is four-square behind George W. Bush and the hawks who advocate striking Saddam Hussein hard. Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon said recently that while Israel has no part in the fighting, they hold the United States and its president, George Bush, in high regard for waging the battle against world terror.
We believe that there is a strong case to be made for the argument that while Israel is not directly involved in the war against Iraq, there is no doubting their direct interest in its outcome.
Convinced that the Palestinian intifada is being fuelled by Iraqi logistical support and finances, Israelis welcome any and all efforts to destroy the Iraqi regime. Today, while there is no doubt that the United States will prevail over the Saddam Hussein regime, there is a collateral concern that success here will not translate into a more tranquil Middle East.
Our initial research suggests that there is a high likelihood that the battle over Iraq will make the political terrain more fertile for the production of even more ‘terrorists’.
What the Bush administration seems to ignore is the conclusion reached by a broad cross section of people around the world that the root problem facing Israel in its dealings with the Palestinians is the question of land. Believing fervently and falsely that they should hold on to Palestinian land for an indefinite period, the Israelis have created enemies of people who might have been friends had it not been for the brutality of the occupation.
By this logic, the Israelis have so succeeded in their efforts that they are themselves to blame for pushing their opposition towards actions which are becoming more and more ‘terroristic’. The harder Israel strikes, the more lethal the ‘blowback’ in response. Now that they are locked into a spiral of violence, revenge and vendetta, Palestinians and Israelis now wander in a wasteland of destruction. Any number of observers are troubled by the scary parallels between what the United States is about to do in Iraq and the brutal policies pursued by Ariel Sharon and his Likud party in Israel.
Believing in the unerring efficacy of force and so called ‘smart’ weapons, the Israelis have so raised the level of lethality that whenever there is an engagement between themselves and Palestinians, civilian casualties on both sides escalate.
As more and more people become inured to violence and brutality, the hard men who give the orders sanction even more gruesome ways of destroying enemies. In every instance, one side accuses the other of unprovoked aggression, while the other defines the identical facts as being ‘terroristic’.
This way of looking at the world is itself a major part of the explanation for the massive destruction which is currently taking place in the Middle East and which has so contaminated discussions about war and peace. In the specific case of Iraq, there is no end of irony in some of the facts the world now knows about that wretched place. Among the nuggets of information reaching us is the word that the weapons of mass destruction which are so troubling to George W. Bush initially came from the United States and its allies. Another interesting fact is that successive American regimes were not averse at all to doing business with Iraq in times past.
But more telling than these facts is the powerful point made by a number of observers that 14 of the 18 men who led the suicide attacks on Tuesday September 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, others were from Egypt. None was from Iraq. The question then is why was Iraq chosen as the place where the Bush administration would test its policy calling for pre-emptive are and justifying the same? Many political pundits and military analysts point to the fact that Iraq was a perfect place precisely because of its weaknesses and thuggish leadership. But beyond these is its direct support for the suicide bombers who have terrified Israel. This is one of the keys to unlocking the mystery concerning the struggle against Iraq.
Having successfully persuaded the Israeli electorate that perpetual war was a necessity, Ariel Sharon has apparently been successful in persuading George W. Bush that the same kind of implacable struggle against an ‘axis of evil’ was necessary for the United States of America. The rhetorical question, then, is after Iraq what? And, after that who? Ultimately, the question is raised as to whether the United States can wage perpetual war in order to create perpetual peace.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
