October 1990, Page 34, 35

What Can Americans and Arabs Learn From the Gulf Crisis-Four Arab-American Views

End the Double Standard

By Casey Kasem

I certainly condemn what Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has done. It was wrong. He has to leave Kuwait. And virtually all of the Arab Americans to whom I've spoken feel the same way.

On the other hand, what do you say to the Arabs in the Middle East who feel that the United States loses its credibility when it condemns an Arab country like Iraq for invading another Arab country, but doesn't condemn Israel for doing the same thing?

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. It used cluster bombs which it had received from the U.S. on condition that they only be used for Israel's own defense. But it dropped those bombs on crowded Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. During that invasion of a neighboring Arab country, Israel killed 20,000 and wounded 40,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and made 250,000 people homeless. The Israeli invasion was a violation of a U.S.-brokered truce that had been honored by the PLO for 11 months.

Many people in Arab countries will look at that record and say there seems to be a double standard in U.S. Middle Eastern policy. Why, they will ask, does the U.S. condemn Saddam, but not condemn Israel?

In fact, it seems that what we demonstrate here is less American concern for human life and more concern for oil. If Lebanon had oil, if there were oil on the West Bank, I wonder if the U.S. wouldn't react differently to the human rights violations that are occurring there, and that have been occurring there for nearly three years since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada.

Children are being beaten. Babies are dying from the effects of tear gas fired through the windows of their homes and even into hospitals. People are being shot with live ammunition in their backs, necks and heads. If the U.S. does not have a double standard, why don't we initiate economic and military embargoes of Israel when they do the horrifying things that they do?

Why do we look at Arabs as something less than human? Israeli General Rafael Eitan referred to Arabs as "cockroaches." Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called Arabs "grasshoppers." Why do Americans go on supporting a state whose leaders refer not only to their Arab neighbors, but the Muslim and Christian Arabs under their military occupation and their own Arab citizens, in this manner?

You can't blame our friends in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the majority of Arab countries whose troops are serving alongside our own for thinking that our concern for them is not from the human, but rather the economic, viewpoint.

I don't want war. I'd like to see this solved in a peaceful manner. I'd like to see the president of the United States pick up the red telephone and call Saddam Hussein and initiate conflict resolution through dialogue.

Let me again make it clear that I, along with other Arab Americans, condemn what Saddam Hussein has done. He should not be in Kuwait. If he won't agree to leave, we and all free nations should embargo Iraqi oil until he is forced to move out.

I'm very happy to see that there is a strong coalition of Arab governments who are opposed to what Saddam did. It's wrong. But it's just as wrong for any other state to use force to annex or occupy territory belonging to others in the Middle East.

Casey Kasem is a radio and television host based in Los Angeles.

Occupation is Occupation

By Jawad F. George

The current crisis in the Gulf presents serious challenges for Arab Americans. The prospect of war, with massive American and Arab casualties, is not a welcome thought in our community. As a matter of principle, all major Arab-American organizations unhesitatingly opposed the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait and the use of innocent men, women and children as hostages. A similar consensus emerged in the U.N. The National Association of Arab Americans (NAAA), moreover, supported the Bush administration's decision to meet the request of the government of Saudi Arabia for a defensive U.S. troop deployment in the region.

Nevertheless, irrespective of their specific positions on the Gulf crisis, most Arab Americans are deeply frustrated at the lack of consistency and credibility in U.S. policy in the Middle East. While the U.S. moved swiftly to prevent Iraq from consolidating its hold on Kuwait by invoking the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, it has failed to invoke the same principle against the Israeli occupation of Arab lands. As a result, the U.S. position in the Gulf crisis has been severely weakened. Had the U.S. in the past enforced its own laws concerning U.S. aid with respect to Israel, the present geopolitical situation in the Middle East would be far more favorable to U.S. national interests.

Despite the billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid that it receives annually, Israel can play no significant role in attempts to solve the current crisis. Indeed, the U.S. has had to warn Israel to take no military action that could inflame the situation.

The defensive deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia presents inherent dangers for the U.S. and the Arab world, including the possibility of the outbreak of large-scale hostilities. Barring this undesirable eventuality, the Gulf crisis provides an opportunity for the U.S. to deepen diplomatic relations with its Arab allies and to strengthen U.S. national security interests in the region by securing the unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces to the international borders, restoring the legitimate government of Kuwait and securing the release of all hostages.

U.S. policy can only succeed, however, if two conditions prevail. First, it must be based on international consultation and cooperation. The U.S. deployment must remain defensive in nature and fulfill its objectives within a multinational framework. Second, the principled policy of the U.S. cannot continue to be applied selectively and retain its credibility.

There is a major lesson that must be learned by all sides in the Gulf crisis. For its part, the U.S. must come to the realization that the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, which is now being used as the cornerstone of the U.S. justification for its opposition to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, must be applied as forcefully in the case of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands. On the other hand, those who side with Iraq in the Gulf crisis must understand that they cannot effectively oppose the occupation of Palestine while at the same time justifying the Iraqi occupation. Occupation is occupation, regardless of the identity of the occupier or the occupied.

Jawad F. George is executive director of the National Association of Arab Americans.

Apply One Standard to Iraq and Israel

By Omar Kader

Arabs are engaged in bitter debate over the current Gulf crisis, with friends, relatives, and old allies challenging each other's loyalties, principles and pedigree. The exchanges rage over three issues: 1) rich Arabs versus poor Arabs, 2) Islamic versus secular democratic government, and 3) the fate of Palestinians and their continual humiliation by Israel.

The issue of wealth distribution to assist the poor in the Middle East is as serious as it is anywhere else in the world, but history has shown that force is not the answer. The second issue, that of Islamic fundamentalism, is a serious one, but in the long run it will lose impetus as Arabs absorb the lessons of the recent events in Eastern Europe, where democracy is a growing phenomenon.

It is the third issue, the Palestinian cause, that should remind Arabs that their desire for Arab solidarity does not justify settling a dispute by aggression. If it is wrong when Israel invades and occupies Arab land, then it is wrong when Iraq invades and occupies Kuwait. There is no logical or consistent argument that can sustain the case for Palestinian freedom and for Iraq's takeover of Kuwait.

When Saddam Hussein attempted to bundle his support for the Palestinian cause with his occupation of Kuwait, he demeaned the Palestinian cause.

Having suffered military aggression and occupation, Palestinians have always rejected illegal occupation as a means of settling political disputes. Every dispute must be resolved through mediation and negotiations. Otherwise the lives of innocent people are destroyed and the societies in which they live are disrupted by the machinations of political leaders.

This current Gulf crisis should serve as a reminder to the international community that problems of borders and national rights in the Middle East need to be solved once and for all, in order to thwart those who would attempt to exploit the Palestinians or any other national group for their political ambitions. Americans can learn through this crisis of the danger to the international community of ignoring one of the principal sources of instability in the Middle East-the Palestinian/Israeli problem.

Whether this crisis ends in a diplomatic solution or a military confrontation, the Palestinians will still be calling on the United States and others in the region to address the injustices that have been heaped on them for the past 45 years. We have a legitimate case against Israel for its occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights and South Lebanon. These territories are under occupation as a result of naked aggression. It is untenable for any Arab, here or abroad, to view illegal occupation of other peoples' lands with other than one standard. To do so robs the Arab cause of its legitimacy and the support of law-abiding citizens of the world.

Iraq's occupation of Kuwait is wrong and must be reversed. Palestinians and other Arab Americans, therefore, should seek the high ground in this dispute and maintain the integrity of their position against Israel by opposing aggression and occupation everywhere, and by upholding international law and respect for territorial integrity wherever it applies.

Omar Kader, a Palestinian American, is a consultant and expert on Middle East affairs based in the national capital area.

Let's Review Recent History

By Fuad Taima

After the armies the British deployed from India drove the Turks out of Iran in World War I, British bases there played a role in World War II, and the British continued to consider the area part of their "sphere of influence." Until the 1958 revolution, Iraq's government was known for its pro-West commitments. As the main player within the "Baghdad Pact," which also comprised the United Kingdom, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and the U.S., Iraq was well positioned to defend Western interests against any expansion of Soviet influence to the Arabian peninsula.

The 1958 revolution, in which King Faisal II and Prime Minister Nuri Al Said were killed, resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Iraq. It also initiated a period of intense mutual suspicion, in which Iraqis feared that the West, particularly the British, were trying to regain their former privileged status.

Iraq's diplomatic relations with the U.S., which were severed at the time of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, were resumed in 1984. In the intervening years, Iraq had experienced internal instability, a Kurdish separatist civil war, and it was still engaged in a bloody eight-year war with Iran. The U.S., Israel and the United Kingdom all played roles in these events, which brought great suffering to the Iraqi people.

The end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 promised a new era of cooperative political and economic ties with the United States. A substantial relaxation of Iraq's internal security measures became evident, as was a slow but steady growth of U.S.-Iraqi commercial ties. By the end of 1989, Iraq had become America's second largest trading partner. Major U.S. contractors such as Brown & Root, Bechtel and Parsons were actively involved in Iraq's economic growth.

Neither President Bush nor President Hussein has ever visited the other's country. Neither has any direct knowledge of the other's institutions or interests. They do, however, have one acquaintance in common, namely British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She has consistently shown intense personal dislike for President Hussein and the conduct of the Iraqi government on a wide range of regional and international issues.

President Bush has a strong positive relationship with Mrs. Thatcher and her government.

Our policy is being manipulated by Mrs. Thatcher and her government.

Since September 1989, Mrs. Thatcher and her government have been waging a highly effective and negative campaign against the government of Iraq. The conflicts arising between the British and Iraqi governments should be viewed objectively, however, in the context of British interest, ambitions, commitments and colonial traditions vis-a-vis the Arab world in general, and Iraq in particular.

President Bush and his administration need to re-examine whatever policy recommendations regarding the current explosive conflict have been suggested by the government of Mrs. Thatcher. It is my opinion that our policy is being manipulated by Mrs. Thatcher and her government on a wide range of Arab world issues. She still views the region and its resources as an exclusive province for British interests. In our own interest we need to recognize Prime Minister Thatcher's position, and act accordingly.

Fuad K. Taima is vice president of the American Iraqi Foundation.