Carpe diem
The war in Iraq affords the Arabs a golden opportunity to expose Israel's insidious influence on US foreign policy, Emad Gad* argues
From the moment the US-Iraq crisis exploded, it has been clear Israel is deeply involved, pushing the US into a confrontation with the Gulf country and urging it to start a war. Israel sees the military campaign as ultimately serving its interests, whether directly or indirectly. The destruction of Iraqi military capabilities would clearly be to its benefit, while the installation of a regime in Baghdad along the lines of the one holding sway in the 1950s, might indirectly serve its interests.
Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor as part of its policy of achieving a monopoly over nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That belligerent act taken in conjunction with the war being waged on Iraq sends a message to other Arab countries, warning them that they may face the same fate if they think of acquiring such weapons.
Yet for Israel, the most important consequences of the attack will be felt when US forces occupy Iraq and Washington installs a client regime that feels indebted to the US. The new regime will thus work to implement the will of Washington and its allies, and will work to ensure its continued presence on the regional and international stages by conforming with the US administration's views. Once a regime is in place, the US's first step will likely be to draw it into the framework of the peace process. Hence, the regime will recognise Israel and establish diplomatic ties, thereby undermining the Arab front and Arab nationalism. The ultimate outcome of regime change, then, will be to replace the nationalist regime with a Western client regime, reminiscent of the Baghdad Pact episode that undermined nationalist aspirations in the region in the 1950s.
Israel believes that a new Iraqi regime's desire to secure its domestic, regional, and international standing would ensure that it coordinates policies with the US, thereby expanding the common ground between it and Iraq. Israel also knows that the primary challenge facing the new "democratic" regime will come from the Shi'ites, who represent a majority of the population. But Israel has a solution: the Iraqi leadership could can offset the Shi'ite majority by settling about two million Palestinians -- most of them Sunni Muslims -- in northern and southern Iraq. This deal would solve Iraq's dilemma while ridding Israel of the refugee problem -- one of the most complex issues along the road to a final settlement.
For these reasons, Israel, the Zionist lobby in the US, and other pro-Israeli figures working in sensitive government positions and think tanks in the US all portrayed the war on Iraq as a walk in the park for the invading forces. US forces were depicted as "liberators" coming to save Iraqis from their government. Some Iraqi opposition figures in Washington and London took up the same line, and joined the chorus of those telling the US administration that the Iraqi people would welcome coalition forces with roses.
Despite the almost hysterical push for war there were voices in the US clearly warning of the dangers of military action. They repeatedly said there was no justification for war and that the losses it caused would be tenfold the gains. These voices stressed that they only had US interests in mind, alluding to other parties with a greater stake in striking Iraq. They also reminded the administration that it should abide by international law and try to reduce the global enmity felt towards the country.
Such hostility is no longer only the purview of countries forming the "axis of evil" or "renegade nations", but extends as well to nations inside the Western alliance and the capitalist camp. It has gone beyond states and regimes to the people, who have turned out in unprecedented numbers to proclaim their rejection of the war.
The opposition shown by the American public to the administration's war is not an unusual phenomenon in the United States. Wide swathes of American society have protested policies detrimental to other nations and peoples, emphasising the humanitarian costs. Indeed, moral issues inspire the greater part of US public opinion. This presupposes, however, that the American public is being kept apprised of the truth and of the administration's foreign policies. There are many reasons to believe this is not happening.
The US media tends to obscure the truth, and the Zionist lobby controls much of the material that makes it into the press, much of which serves the interests of Israel rather than the US. Another well-known factor is the average American citizen's lack of interest in following international affairs. His own continent is so expansive that simply following local news and affairs -- in essence continental -- fills all the time he dedicates to keeping up with the news.
It is clear, however, that the military campaign against Iraq has begun to eat away at this equation. Prior to the war, some voices in the US were saying their country had no interest in pursuing such an avenue, referring obliquely to "Israel's war". The gain will be Israel's, but the US will bear the losses. As Virginia Congressman James Moran recently said, if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for the war, the US would not have launched it.
Some Americans are beginning to call for an examination of the Zionist role in the war, expressing openly what they had only felt or discussed quietly behind closed doors. The most prominent expression of this transformation was seen on 23 February when NBC's Meet the Press hosted one of the administration's biggest champions of Israel, Richard Perle, who was at the time an adviser to the Department of Defence. Perle was asked several questions about Israel's interest in the US war on Iraq -- showing that the matter had made it onto the mainstream media's agenda.
With the news of US casualties and POWs, the American public is starting to ask about the real reasons that led the Bush administration to start the war. They want to know why young Americans are being killed and taken prisoner, and why the US is facing unprecedented hostility from the Arab and Islamic worlds and Europe as well. Recent developments even led Richard Perle to resign from his position late last month.
As the war continues and the US sustains more losses, these questions will turn into demands, and people will begin discussing Zionist control over US policy making. Consequently, this is the perfect moment to address the American people and make them understand that a clash between Arabs and Americans is not inevitable. Indeed, much common ground can be found if non-American elements are removed from US policy making. The war on Iraq and the horrors it involves provide a golden opportunity to appeal to the American public to create a new relationship between Arabs and Americans -- a relationship based exclusively on the interests of the two parties. The initiative must come from the Arab side, for the American people have already sent several small messages, and the martyr from their midst who fell in Palestine will surely not be the last.
* The writer is an expert at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
