Blowback
Juan Cole had an interesting column yesterday where he discusses how the situation in Iraq instead of increasing Israel’s security has actually weakened it – the exact opposite of what was supposed to have happened.
He points out that despite some rewards for terrorists, “Saddam never did anything practical to help the Palestinians. At some points, as in the late 1980s, he reportedly made behind-the-scenes overtures to the Israelis to arrive at some sort of a deal. He did not allow Palestinian radicals to launch operations against Israel from Iraq. By the late 1990s, Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons program, and had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpiles. Its ramshackle army had virtually collapsed before the American invasion in 2003.”
In contrast, he says, “If it is hard to see how Baathist Iraq posed any real threat to Israel, it is not so difficult to see a menace in the current instability.”
“Anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian feeling is strong among several major Iraqi ideological groups and currents. The more radical Shiites, who generally follow the theocratic notions of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, routinely chant and demonstrate against Israel.”
“Sunni Arab fundamentalists deeply sympathize with the Palestinians and with Hamas, and those in Iraq have deep historical inks with fundamentalists in Jordan and Palestine.”
“Whereas Saddam Hussein's dictatorship ensured that such populist currents were kept firmly under control, they are now free to organize. An Iraq in which armed fundamentalist and nationalist militias proliferate is inevitably a security worry for Israel. If even a modicum of normality and security can be returned to Iraq, its citizens will be able to benefit from the country's petroleum reserves. That private wealth can easily be funneled into aid for the Palestinians and for Lebanese Shiites.”
“Israel's security interests are best served by peace with its neighbors, which can only be achieved by trading land for peace with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon's aggressive near annexation of almost half of the occupied West Bank and his indefinite postponement of any Palestinian state have created unprecedented rage and violence. The anger has spread throughout the Muslim world, including Iraq. The promotion by the pro-Zionist right of twin occupations - in the West Bank and in Iraq - has profoundly weakened, not strengthened, Israeli security.”
I think the same thing has happened here in this country. Getting rid of Sadaam, while in a vacuum is certainly a good thing, but the political repercussions of how we did it, makes us less safe and has greatly increased terrorism around the world. And I’m afraid rather than learning that Israel’s hard-line policies rather than making them more secure has made them less, that we will adopt similar policies by “pre-emptively” striking Arab/Muslim nations and rather than decreasing terrorism, we will only engender more.
He points out that despite some rewards for terrorists, “Saddam never did anything practical to help the Palestinians. At some points, as in the late 1980s, he reportedly made behind-the-scenes overtures to the Israelis to arrive at some sort of a deal. He did not allow Palestinian radicals to launch operations against Israel from Iraq. By the late 1990s, Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons program, and had destroyed its chemical weapons stockpiles. Its ramshackle army had virtually collapsed before the American invasion in 2003.”
In contrast, he says, “If it is hard to see how Baathist Iraq posed any real threat to Israel, it is not so difficult to see a menace in the current instability.”
“Anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian feeling is strong among several major Iraqi ideological groups and currents. The more radical Shiites, who generally follow the theocratic notions of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, routinely chant and demonstrate against Israel.”
“Sunni Arab fundamentalists deeply sympathize with the Palestinians and with Hamas, and those in Iraq have deep historical inks with fundamentalists in Jordan and Palestine.”
“Whereas Saddam Hussein's dictatorship ensured that such populist currents were kept firmly under control, they are now free to organize. An Iraq in which armed fundamentalist and nationalist militias proliferate is inevitably a security worry for Israel. If even a modicum of normality and security can be returned to Iraq, its citizens will be able to benefit from the country's petroleum reserves. That private wealth can easily be funneled into aid for the Palestinians and for Lebanese Shiites.”
“Israel's security interests are best served by peace with its neighbors, which can only be achieved by trading land for peace with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon's aggressive near annexation of almost half of the occupied West Bank and his indefinite postponement of any Palestinian state have created unprecedented rage and violence. The anger has spread throughout the Muslim world, including Iraq. The promotion by the pro-Zionist right of twin occupations - in the West Bank and in Iraq - has profoundly weakened, not strengthened, Israeli security.”
I think the same thing has happened here in this country. Getting rid of Sadaam, while in a vacuum is certainly a good thing, but the political repercussions of how we did it, makes us less safe and has greatly increased terrorism around the world. And I’m afraid rather than learning that Israel’s hard-line policies rather than making them more secure has made them less, that we will adopt similar policies by “pre-emptively” striking Arab/Muslim nations and rather than decreasing terrorism, we will only engender more.
posted by Zack at 6:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home