Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2002, page 8

Special Report

 

Israel’s Friends Use Delaying Tactics to Prevent a Just Peace

By Richard H. Curtiss

No matter what surprises remain in the war against the Taliban, it is coming to a close. What should follow is a renewed and determined effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This tragedy has blighted the lives of three generations of Israelis and Palestinians—and its repercussions now have reached American shores as well. It must be resolved in a manner that gives both Palestinians and Israelis a chance to lead normal lives.

The means for its solution—and, indeed, the premise of the Oslo accords—are based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The Mitchell Plan is a good place to resume the peace process which was interrupted with the defeat of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the ending of any serious negotiations by his successor, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Seriously negotiating an end to the Arab-Israeli dispute, however, is not what the Israel lobby wants to happen. As a result, there will be a desperate series of delaying actions to prevent a just peace, and, if the Israel lobby has its wish, new detours along the way.

The first diversion already is completely predictable. There will be an attempt to postpone any solution of the Palestinian problem on the grounds that it is more important to deal first with the vexing problem of what to do about Iraqi President Saddam Hussain. The battle lines already are drawn.

On one side are all the forces arrayed against Saddam Hussain. The same arguments that were put forward at the end of the Gulf war have been resuscitated. The truth of the matter, now as in 1991, is that there was no possibility of continuing the campaign with the coalition forces once Iraq had been expelled from Kuwait.

A new coalition might have been proposed, but it already was obvious that the Russians and others would not have stood still once the Iraqi aggression had ended. There was no stomach for further conquests, and the results would have been deeply divisive.

In a way, the arguments are simply repeating themselves. If it turns out that Saddam Hussain was in some way instrumental in helping the Taliban, there would of course be grounds, a casus belli, to extend the war on terrorism into Iraq. But try as they may, the anti-Iraq contingent can produce no credible evidence for that conclusion. All allegations that there were terrorist connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda have come to naught. At this point there has been nothing even remotely concrete—despite the obvious counterfeiting of “evidence” to the contrary.

That, however, has not deterred the Israel lobby from saying that even if there were no connections with terrorism, it would be an opportunity “to finish the job” which George H.W. Bush was unable to do in 1991. That’s not enough to convince most countries, east or west, to start a new war against Saddam Hussain. In fact, most countries have already concluded that it would be a catastrophic mistake to proceed down an uncertain and basically indefensible course.

Amazingly, the Israel lobby seems determined to go ahead anyway, come what may and damn the consequences. This is a reckless and thoughtless approach by Israel’s “friends,” characteristic of Israel’s strategy of doing anything, no matter the cost, to postpone the final day of reckoning. Amid the contradictory influences surrounding the administration’s war effort the naked lobbying has become increasingly bold. So far George W. Bush appears still to be considering his options.

It would be nice if Saddam Hussain would allow United Nations inspectors to make whatever arrangements they need to show that he is not hiding any weapons of mass destruction. It would be nice—but of course that is not anything that Saddam Hussain has done willingly before. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to go forward without convincing proof. Fortunately, some of the major players in the Bush administration, headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, seem to agree.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, however, who has become one of the Bush administration’s media stars, now has had to be reined in, after upsetting long-term plans by Bush to increase cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

For reasons that are not clear—perhaps the result of his old Cold War habits—Rumsfeld had tried to derail the Bush-Putin courtship.

Another key player is National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. She is a Bush loyalist, but seldom weighs in even on life-or-death matters such as the question of war or peace with Iraq.

Meanwhile, an ad hoc war party has begun waging guerrilla warfare on behalf of the Israeli lobby. Its primary instigator has been Richard Perle. A former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, over the years he has alternated between jobs within the Israel lobby and influential Republican Party positions.

With the arrival of the new administration, Perle mounted a shameless campaign for a major Bush appointment. But Perle found strong resistance, based on his earlier record as an Israel-firster. Instead, he received an appointment to the Defense Policy Board, a bipartisan group of national security experts. Its members include former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and many other prestigious members roughly divided between Democrats and Republicans (see article on p. 49).

Perle took what he could get, however—and then began exploiting his opportunities. The fact that he had little real influence in the Bush administration soon was lost in the flood of talk shows, op-ed articles and newspaper interviews he generated. Perle then used his connections to mount a campaign against Saddam Hussain.

Other allies in the war party include Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, some conservative American Enterprise Institute members, former CIA director James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, always an opportunist seeking a way back into elective politics, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz. Those supporting Secretary Powell include his deputy, Richard Armitage, and retired Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the new Middle East coordinator. Unfortunately events are moving fast, and so far the dangers of another Middle East war have not been adequately presented to the public.

If Powell is successful in convincing Bush that another attack on Saddam Hussain is not worth the risks of unforeseen consequences, Richard Perle’s war party already is looking for other diversions. Among the replacement villains they might seek are Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, Iran or, even if the lobby must manufacture evidence, Syria. Efforts to alienate Egypt and Saudi Arabia will continue.

Saudi Arabia, with its enormously important petroleum resources, and Egypt, with the largest and best-educated population, are too big to deal with seriously, however. Soon Iran, too, will become a major Middle East player again. If Israel’s real friends had its interests at heart, they would be urging the Jewish state to make peace while it still can.

In fact, no matter what Israel tries to do, it can only create a series of delaying actions. Eventually, there has to be an independent Palestinian state. The longer these diversions continue, therefore, the more likely Israel will lose its chances for constructive relationships with any of its Middle Eastern neighbors.

It is clear that Secretary of State Powell was within just a few days of making another major move in settling the Middle East problem. Now the shock of Sept. 11 has forced him to delay important moves. Likewise President Bush, having agreed on the need for a Palestinian state, seems indecisive about what to do next.

The next step in renewing the peace process should be to adopt the Mitchell Plan. If this runs into trouble from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a likely solution is to turn the entire issue over to the United Nations. That’s where it should have gone many years earlier.

If the Israel lobby finds no immediate excuse to postpone serious negotiations, you can count on all of the delaying tactics that have been used so effectively many times before. One tried and true tactic is for the Israeli cabinet to dissolve, thus necessitating new elections.

The longer these delays stretch out, however, the more difficult the end result will be. It is quite possible that, if Washington postpones action too much longer, the United States may find itself not merely on the wrong side of all of the rest of the United Nations, but in a full-scale war alongside Israel against all the countries of the Arab League. If nothing else, that would prove to be the most popular war ever waged against the Western powers. The possible consequences boggle the mind.

Two things are certain, however. The U.S. would have virtually no allies in such an endeavor, and the entire world would be the loser.

Richard H. Curtiss is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >