|
CounterPunch
October
16, 2002
Between Armageddon
and Peace:
Iraq and the Israeli Occupation
by HANAN ASHRAWI
It is no coincidence that the most vociferous
voice advocating a military attack on Iraq is that of the Israeli
Likud-led government and its spin machine.
In fact, if Sharon had his druthers,
the US would oblige by conducting Israel's proxy war on its behalf
against a long list of targets, including Iran, Syria, Libya,
Sudan, and even Saudi Arabia (or at least a convenient fragmentation
and "regime change" there).
War mongering had become such a favorite
past time of the Israeli establishment that Sharon found himself
uncharacteristically asking his cohorts to tone down the rhetoric
and curb their gleeful drum beating.
In addition to Iraq being viewed as a
"strategic threat" to Israel, the motives are diverse.
They include the weakening of the Arab world, maintaining Israel's
"strategic superiority" in the region, imposing a solution
more favorable to Israel on a "defeated" Arab nation,
plus the further debilitation of the captive Palestinians and
their leadership.
The flip side of the coin is the current
Israeli preoccupation with the question of "will he-won't
he" (i.e. Saddam Hussein) strike at Israel in the course
of the war, particularly if he concludes that "all is lost"
and he has "nothing more to lose."
The "will we-won't we" (respond)
argument seems to be rhetorical, at best. Actually, the nature
of the debate seems to be more in line with "when"
and "how" rather than "whether or not."
While those who are openly in favor of
a preemptive strike are in the minority, particularly given the
gigantic monkey wrench that this would throw into the American
machinery), there are still those who would seek to join a war
in progress.
To do so, they need a visible excuse
such as another feeble missile strike against Israel to justify
its involvement under the pretext that Israel has the right to
"self defense" and that sitting idly by would be construed
as weakness and hence would weaken Israel's deterrent ability
in the eyes of the Arab world.
In fact, such a strike would play straight
into the hands of this government that had already threatened
the use of nuclear weapons in such an instance to the extent
that Iraq would cease to exist as a state.
Furthermore, a major cause for concern
among American war mongers has become how to keep Israel out
of the war and to keep it straining at the leash rather than
stampeding into the battlefield and fulfilling doomsday projections
of Armageddon.
To the Palestinians, however, the most
prevalent doomsday scenario is in Israel's exploitation of the
world's preoccupation with war to carry out its own end game
in Palestine.
Anti-war Israeli, international, and
Palestinian voices have repeatedly cautioned against the "final
solution" of "transfer," or the ethnic cleansing
of Palestinians through forced expulsions.
Given the nature of the discourse in
Israel and the "legitimization" of racism and extreme
measures advocated by military sources, pseudo-respectable partners
in the government, and thinly-disguised "think tanks,"
such a course of action may not be as unthinkable as it seems.
Neighboring Arab countries have taken
this threat with sufficient seriousness as to close down their
borders with Israel/Palestine, particularly Jordan and Egypt
who had signed peace agreements with Israel and who would view
such expulsions as a declaration of war.
Israel, however, might be contemplating
a variety of additional options to complete is destruction of
Palestinian reality.
These would include a further tightening
of the already devastating siege by imposing long term, unrelieved
curfews that would further exacerbate the economic, educational,
health, and personal suffering of the Palestinians.
Expulsion might take on a more restricted
and selective form by targeting "undesirable" leadership
figures and/or specified populations along the lines of the "security
fence."
Further violent measures might include
massive "military operations" in refugee camps, urban
centers, and more isolated rural areas including vulnerable villages.
A wholesale military assault on Gaza
(as opposed to the daily attacks or incursion by installments)
has been on the drawing board for some time and is still being
viewed as an option awaiting the opportune moment of implementation.
The pretext for such drastic "operations"
does not have to be more than one incident of violence by a Palestinian
individual or group, or (as some Israeli spokespersons are hoping
for) a misguided show of support for Saddam by any Palestinian
individual or group.
In all cases, the Palestinian people
under occupation feel targeted and vulnerable should the projected
war against Iraq materialize.
The collective mood however is one of
staying put-digging in of heals and resisting any attempt at
expulsion. Hence one can discern the resurgence of the spirit
of "steadfastness" or sumoud that had characterized
the earlier intifada.
Along with the conscious rejection of
any panic or fear response, the Palestinians are engaged in a
reevaluation of the most effective and acceptable forms of resistance,
thereby generating greater support for peaceful, popular resistance
and civil disobedience.
The return of a direct Israeli military
occupation has also given rise to the more constructive forms
of resistance including the establishment of popular/support
committees and other forms of community empowerment.
These certainly would be essential in
any war scenario and regardless of the course(s) of action adopted
by the Israeli military forces and armed settlers.
With all that in mind, however, the most
effective means of protection and of preventing Israel from resorting
to any drastic measures and forms of insanity remains in the
hands of the international community.
It has become imperative that European
and American decision-makers finally reach the inevitable conclusion
that a policy of more positive and engaged intervention is required.
Rather than piecemeal handling or selective
crisis management and partial damage control, the time has come
to fully engage in a comprehensive program of on-the-ground control.
"Control" is translated as
forces or troops along with an army of civilian experts and professionals
to carry out the dual task of peace-making/keeping and nation-building.
With Sharon on yet another visit to the
US to enhance his most frequent White House visitor status, it
behooves the American President to spell out a timely and unequivocal
message to his guest (war criminal cum "man of peace").
UN resolutions are adopted to be implemented;
violence against civilians will not be tolerated; the last remaining
military occupation cannot be allowed to last forever; there
are no unilateral or military solutions to the conflict; the
US "vision" of a two-state solution and the end of
the June 5, 1967 occupation will be decisively carried out; Israeli
military measures (including the reoccupation, incursions, assassinations,
mass detentions, siege, daily killings, and all other human and
economic violations) must cease; a global rule of law means full
Israeli compliance.
Both Bush and Sharon must be called upon
to understand that the question is not a temporary and artificial
calm before the new storm in the gulf, but a comprehensive and
just resolution of the underlying causes of conflict and instability
that should have been addressed yesterday but definitely must
be addressed today if a disastrous breakdown is to be averted.
Contrary to the scare tactics of the
ideological right, the apocalypse is neither an option nor an
inevitability now.
Yesterday's
Features
Anthony Gancarski
Safe
and Sorry:
Notes on DC Snipers
Jeffrey St. Clair
Iraq
as Prison State
Uri Avnery
One Big
Hizballah
Richard Thieme
Flesh:
Letelier, Torture, Chile and the CIA
Ben Tripp
A Bird Lover's Guide to the Chickenhawks
Brian Willson
An Open Letter to Sen. John Kerry on Iraq
Aaron Michael Love
Israel and White Supremacy
Sani Rifati
The Roma
and Humanitarian Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- How to Change the Subject: Corporate Scandal and Pension
Reform as Weapons Against Warmongering;
- Padilla's Predecessor: Court Ruling Cites 1904 War
Against Mining Union;
- Adios Hitchens: the Dorian Gray of Our Time;
- Object of Suspicion: How the FBI Watched Janis Ian
From Birth;
- First Carter, Then Clinton,
Now Sen. John Edwards:
Another "New South" Slimeball;
- Corporate Crooks: Nature or Nurture?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|