The Iraqi-Palestinian Link

Items number one and two on Saddam Hussein’s to-do list: write ‘thank you’ letters to Hamas and Ariel Sharon. Had it not been for the suicidal attacks of Hamas terrorists and Ariel Sharon’s war on Palestinian cities, Saddam would be either dead or on his way to a war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

Instead, Saddam continues to smile that crooked grin from his Baghdad bunker. Fate intervened on his behalf, and, for now, he is safe. For months Washington had been plotting an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam from power. Just a few weeks ago, preparations were well underway: Vice President Dick Cheney was on a Middle East tour, shoring up support for the imminent attack; Washington had resumed funding of Iraqi opposition groups; and President Bush had all but declared war on Iraq in his January State of the Union address.

But then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took a turn for the worse. Vicious suicide bombings became near daily occurrences, killing 42 Israeli civilians since Passover. In return, Ariel Sharon declared “war” and sent tanks into the West Bank. The Israeli Defense Force has spent the past week besieging Yasser Arafat’s headquarters, raiding homes, and destroying everything and everyone in its path.

So what does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have to do with Iraq? The United States is politically incapable of sustaining both a war in Israel and in Iraq.

Any invasion of Iraq depends on the support of Washington’s traditional Arab allies—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. First, it makes things easier logistically because the U.S. would need to use Saudi and Kuwaiti airspace. More importantly, Washington needs to assure the Arab people that an attack against Iraq is not a war against them all. If America goes it alone, then Saddam will suddenly transform from pariah of the Persian Gulf into messiah of the Middle East.

However, Arab leaders cannot afford to support an invasion against Iraq during the siege of Palestinian cities. The greatest source of contempt toward the U.S. in the Arab world is Washington’s one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rightly or wrongly, Arabs blame the United States every time an Israeli soldier maims a Palestinian civilian. The billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid that pour into Israel every year and Washington’s refusal to put pressure on Israel when it uses excessive force have led Arabs to believe that the U.S. is complicit in Israel’s crimes.

The perceptions of the Arab people hold their leaders in check. So, no matter how pro-U.S. an Arab president may be, there are limits to what he can do in support of American policy. For decades, Islamic militants have exploited Arab leaders’ close ties to the U.S. in their ongoing effort to delegitimize and overthrow regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. To weather the storm of Islamic militancy, Arab leaders must walk a fine line, which means appeasing their American benefactors when they can and spouting Arab solidarity when they must. For Saudi Arabia’s Prince Abdullah or Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to support an invasion of Iraq now would be an invitation for civil war.

This explains why a group of normally compliant lackeys is suddenly standing up to their bosses in Washington. Vice President Dick Cheney was thoroughly embarrassed on his recent 11-country tour of the Middle East. One by one, Arab leaders refused to even countenance an attack on Iraq. “A strike on Iraq,” declared Jordan’s King Abdullah, “will be disastrous for Iraq and the region as a whole and will threaten the security and stability of the Middle East.”

Moreover, Cheney’s failure is relevant for another reason. By undertaking a promotional tour for a war against Iraq at a time when the situation in Israel was descending further into chaos, Cheney provided an opportunity for Arab leaders to air their grievances about Israel. By mixing discussions on Iraq with Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Bush administration unwittingly linked the two situations.

This link is precisely what Saddam Hussein has always wanted. In the negotiations leading up to the Gulf War in 1990, Saddam offered to withdraw from Kuwait if Israel withdrew from the Occupied Territories. In reality, Saddam does not care about the Palestinians any more than Osama bin Laden, but like, bin Laden, he championed the Palestinian cause to shore up support in the Arab world. The first Bush administration refused to allow any linkage between Palestinians and Iraqis and thus rejected Saddam’s offer to withdraw. But now, Cheney’s mistake and the sickening escalation of violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories have etched the Iraq-Palestine link in stone.

Washington’s silence on Israel and the Occupied Territories will continue until it can wait no longer to take the “War on Terror” to Iraq. When Washington needed support from Arab and Muslim leaders in its war in Afghanistan, President Bush trumpeted what the rest of the world had acknowledged for years: the Palestinians need a state of their own. Whether the gesture was made in good faith or whether it was purely a strategic ploy, the Arabs bought it, and most Arab nations supported the war in Afghanistan.

Arab leaders will barter away their brethren in Iraq if doing so means salvation for the Palestinians. Once the Bush administration figures this out, it will do what it promised it never would—become actively engaged with Israelis and Palestinians. Soon, a new U.S. peace initiative will fall from the sky, and Israelis and Palestinians will magically return to the negotiating table. And the suffering of innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians will become the suffering of innocent Iraqis.

Nader R. Hasan ’02 is a government concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.