Posted on 04/14/2002 7:32:00 PM PDT by Lessismore
Events in the West Bank are hindering the US president's Iraq strategy - and could threaten the anti-terrorism coalition, says Quentin Peel
If Saddam Hussein ever says his daily prayers, he must surely be saying a fervent thank you for the behaviour of Ariel Sharon.
The actions of the Israeli prime minister, in launching and now ruthlessly pursuing the current onslaught of the Israeli Defence Force on the Palestinian towns and villages and refugee camps of the West Bank, have almost certainly upset the plans of President George W. Bush for "regime change" in Iraq.
Anger throughout the Arab world, demonstrated on the streets from the Gulf to Rabat, has made practical planning of any large-scale military operation against Baghdad - an exercise that would anyway require months of preparation - incomparably more difficult.
Even such a loyal US ally as Bulent Ecevit, the Turkish prime minister, whose country would have to provide an essential base for action against Iraq, has been moved to denounce the Israeli action as "genocide". That seems certain to aggravate Turkish doubts about US policy, already seen as potentially strengthening its own Kurdish dissidents.
Pro-American Arab regimes, such as Jordan and Bahrain (not to mention Saudi Arabia, where demonstrations have been forbidden), could easily be destabilised by the backlash on the streets. The single issue that most unites and infuriates Arab popular opinion is the Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements. The second most inflammatory question is the suffering of Iraqi civilians. To combine the two could be devastating.
That is the problem facing Middle East policymakers in Washington. No wonder they are in a terrible muddle. Their confusion is in danger of undermining the entire US-led campaign against terrorism. For even if the conflict in Israel was not the root cause of the terrorist attacks on September 11, resolving that conflict will determine the success or failure of the response.
Colin Powell's latest trip to the region starkly demonstrated the confusion and indecisionin Washington. He came with a mandate to call on Mr Sharon to pull back his armed forces from the Palestinian towns. Yet almost as soon as he had arrived in Israel, another suicide bomb caused him to hesitate and put the onus instead upon Yassir Arafat to stop the terrorism.
Mr Sharon seems to be blithely ignoring both the US secretary of state's calls for restraint and the distant sound of Mr Bush stamping his foot. It was one of the more blatant diplomatic snubs an Israeli premier has ever inflicted on a US president.
The fact is that too few in Washington are prepared to admit what a rotten ally Mr Sharon is in its fight against terrorism. He is not just undermining the Bush plan to remove Mr Saddam. He is alienating Arab opinion. He is causing a backlash in Europe. And he is pursuing a no-hope policy for Israel that will do far more damage to his own country in the long run than it will to his neighbours.
The only good thing that can be said of Mr Sharon's use of tanks to terrorise the Palestinian people is that it will eventually discreditthe use of military force as a tool against terrorism. But the short-term cost to Israel and the Palestinians is terrible.
A few doubts about the Sharon actions are creeping into US public opinion, with concern for the humanitarian crisis precipitated on the West Bank. The polls suggest that the majority in favour of the Israeli military action has narrowed - with more than 40 per cent now doubting its justification. But Mr Bush's criticism of Mr Sharon has remained half-hearted, and Mr Arafat still attracts the main force of his anger.
One of the problems may be that Mr Bush has had no Middle East adviser on his National Security Council staff in the White House since he came to power. That has given the Pentagon Middle East hawks, such as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, disproportionate influence against Mr Powell's more reasonable doves in the State Department.
When it comes to Iraq, however, the determination to overthrow Mr Saddam seems to have become almost an obsession for the president and his closest advisers - to complete the business that his father left undone at the end of the Gulf war. His concern about the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction is real, because of the potential for Iraq to arm future terrorists. But this is more. It is also personal.
There are even voices suggesting that Mr Bush should press ahead with action against Baghdad before trying to calm the situation on the West Bank. The argument is that he will never get US political support to restrain Mr Sharon until he has a big Middle East success under his belt - and that means Iraq.
It is the sort of argument that ignores the reality on the ground in the region, and takes the whims of US politics as paramount. It is disturbing. And it is the kind of thinking that is causing heartache to Mr Bush's allies in Europe.
Even Tony Blair, the prime minister, that most devoted of European friends, doubts the wisdom of pressing ahead with action against Baghdad without first stopping the blood-letting in Israel and the occupied territories. He admits that nothing is likely to happen till the end of the year at the earliest. But the other EU leaders insist nothing should happen without full United Nations backing. It is an argument that seems to carry little weight in Washington.
Why is such a gap opening up across the Atlantic? It is not new, of course. Tensions date from long before September 11, as the reality of America's status as the solitary superpower, and its inclination to unilateralism, made the Europeans feel like second-class citizens. The terrorist attacks temporarily reversed the trend, but not for long.
Since then, public opinion on both sides has drifted apart. Many if not most Americans, and certainly most of the present administration, believe they are at war. They are not bothered about the causes of terrorism. They are bothered about the consequences.
Europeans do not think they are at war. They see the problem of terrorism far more in terms of tackling causes. In the Middle East that means focusing every effort on ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, not on launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
It is a fundamental difference. Mr Sharon - who knows he is at war - has brought it into sharp perspective. Mr Bush has a tough choice to make: between backing the Sharon tactics, or preserving a broad anti-terrorist coalition. He cannot have it both ways.
When the time comes to attack Saddam, Israel and the U.S. can move together toward Baghdad on a road paved with the rubble of Ramallah. Who needs Arab "allies"?
Presumpuous? No, It's the essence of ignorance. The writer chooses to ignore that the relationship between the USA and Israel is more than strategic or political, it is one written in blood.
Once before, the US neglected its reponsibilities to the Jews, turning away refugee ships so that the occupants could be sent to the death camps and then refusing to bomb the camps themselves.
Thank all that is holy that there will be no more betrayals. Bush can prevaricate and waver but, ultimately, he knows where his obligations reside -- unlike FDR.
A "realistic defeat of the Arabs" is a pipe-dream, especially when you consider that something like 60% of them are under the age of 18. This may be hard for people to accept in aging countries like Israel and the United States, but these Arabs are here to stay and will be a force to be reckoned with in the 21st century.
The untold story about the U.S. "neglecting its responsibilities" during the 1930s and 1940s was that FDR was under a lot of pressure to look the other way. When you realize how much of this pressure came from American Jews, you'll understand why I take any comment that includes references to "responsibilities" like this with a grain of salt.
The Financial Times is sort of like the Wall Street Journal of London. It has more the tone of an older brother telling a younger brother that he's been staying out too late, drinking too heavily, and running around with the wrong kind of women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.