HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
|
Israel and Palestine: Pawns on the U.S. Chessboard? |
|
By Marc Erikson BANGKOK, Apr 11, 2002 -- In an April 8 editorial titled "What a 'friend' owes", the Jerusalem Post complains: "Since [US President George W] Bush's surprise call on Israel to withdraw [from the Palestinian West Bank territories] three days ago, the White House has taken a position that simply does not add up: 1) [Palestinian Authority president Yasser] Arafat has failed to combat terrorism and to lead his own people; 2) Israel is exercising its legitimate right of self-defense; 3) Israel must withdraw." The editorial goes on to say, "Israel now has terrorism by the throat. The government knows that it cannot stay in the territories forever ... On the other hand, it would be immoral, not to mention unfriendly, for the United States to ask Israel to loosen its grip based simply on another worthless and yet-to-be-given pledge by Arafat to end terrorism." All true - and all part of US policy. What the Post's editorial writer fails to grasp (and perhaps shouldn't be blamed for failing to grasp) is that the White House position may not be intended to add up and that the apparent contradiction in the US policy stance may only be resolved over time and if put into a larger context. The Bush administration's overriding strategic concern since September 11 is the war on terrorism, winning it, and winning it for good. All else - Middle East peace included - is a subordinate matter. But victory in the war on terrorism, Washington is now convinced, cannot be achieved without the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad - and that's where the seeming inconsistencies in US pronouncements arise. US officials across the board, from the White House to State, Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), know perfectly well that Yasser Arafat will not denounce Palestinians he considers freedom fighters and martyrs as terrorists or take steps - even if now he could - to stop them. These officials are also persuaded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's military action to dismantle the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)-affiliated terrorist infrastructure is clearly in the US strategic interest in preparation for any US action against Saddam Hussein. So, why call on Arafat to do what he cannot and on Sharon to do what he will not? Well, why not? would probably be the most cogent, though, of course, unspoken US response. When US Vice President Dick Cheney visited the Middle East last month, he did so to test the waters for US action against the Iraqi regime and concluded that no Arab support would be forthcoming and that the United States (and United Kingdom) would have to go it alone. Under such circumstances, not some at best tenuous new Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, but elimination or substantial reduction of Palestinian war-making capability on a crucial flank in any move against Iraq has the highest priority. Thus note that US Secretary of State Colin Powell took a very long and circuitous road to Jerusalem. At every stop he called for Israel's immediate withdrawal, but every stopover bought more time for the Israeli Defense Forces to do their job. Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, the self-styled "Awesome Commander Who Will Liberate Jerusalem", have long been the closest of allies. In August 1990 when he invaded Kuwait, Saddam proclaimed that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Kuwait", and prior to the invasion Kuwait-based PLO operatives had provided vital intelligence to the Iraqi military. Arafat and Libya's Muammar Gadaffi were the only Arab League leaders to support Saddam at the time. Since then, even a cash-strapped Baghdad has lent large-scale financial support to the Palestinian Authority and - since the beginning of the new intifada 18 months ago - has paid cash awards totaling more than US$10 million to the families of Palestinian intifada "martyrs". Baghdad streets have been named after Palestinian suicide bombers. A volunteer "Jerusalem Liberation Army" has been formed and is being trained and in part staffed by the Iraqi military. Brigadier-General Tawfiq Tirawi, Palestinian West Bank intelligence chief and head of the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Marwan Barghouthi, head of PLO-affiliated terrorist outfit Tanzim, enjoy the best of relations with Iraqi Ba'ath party intelligence operatives. In light of this background and US anti-Saddam plans, isolation of Arafat and uprooting of the Palestinian terrorist capability are obvious requirements. As obvious, much as during the Gulf War, is the US requirement not to be, or be seen to be, explicitly in league with Israel. Hence the repeated and urgent calls for Israel to get out of the West Bank Palestinian territories. Any US effort to topple Saddam will not be based on a massive conventional ground forces military campaign, Gulf-War style. It will instead rely on air power and intelligence and special forces capabilities to bring about a "democratic revolution" in Iraq. This defines yet another reason why elimination by Israeli proxy of the Palestinian terrorist network is a must: Terrorists can do little to derail a large-scale conventional military campaign; but they can pose a serious threat to more delicate combined intelligence and special forces operations. Is there a US peace plan, then, for the Middle East, a plan for a Palestinian and a Jewish state side by side in secure borders? The answer is yes, but most leading Bush administration members now believe that the road toward peace leads through Baghdad and will not involve Arafat. Deprived of the support of a tyrannical, extremist neighbor, it is believed that popular Palestinian support for extreme solutions will wane and moderate new leaders not bent on the elimination of Israel and the Palestinian "right of return" to Israel will come to the fore and make peace. And there is a broader agenda. The doyen of US Islamic scholars and Middle East experts, Princeton University's Bernard Lewis, holds that "Iraq is in many ways the most advanced, most developed of the Arab countries. The Iraqi government of the time [pre-Saddam] probably did a better job than any other of putting its oil revenues to constructive use. They built an infrastructure, they built a good educational system ... Although all this has suffered terrible damage at the hands of Saddam Hussein, it has not been entirely destroyed. I see the possibility of a genuinely enlightened and progressive and - yes, I will say the word - democratic regime arising in a post-Saddam Iraq." On that basis, Lewis propounds a potential "domino theory" of democracy for the Middle East: If the Saddam tyranny gives way to democratic rule in Iraq, a democratic Islamic belt encompassing Iraq, Palestine and Turkey could be created - and still theocratic, but restless, Iran would not be far behind. Not far behind, one might add (and hope), would be Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states as well as - in different measure - Jordan and Egypt, which have already made peace with Israel. There is substantial evidence that with the ongoing transformation of Afghanistan the US has effected, Lewis's vision is shared in varying degrees by Bush administration officials. The focus there now, as most clearly expressed by the most eloquent Bush administration spokesman, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his Texas A&M speech of a few days ago, is Iraq. "Instrumentalizing" Israel and Palestine in the Iraq and wider Middle East game may appear cynical. It may also serve a larger and perhaps redeeming purpose. © Asia Times Online, 2002. All rights reserved. |
--------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
