Mideast Instability Threatens To Explode
Antagonizing Iraq Would Complicate War on Terrorism
By Geoffrey Kemp
Reprinted from the December 9, 2001 edition of the San Jose Mercury News
The suicide bombings in Israel last weekend by the Palestinian group Hamas caused the deaths of 25 Israelis; 185 others were seriously wounded. That is roughly equivalent, in terms of population ratios, to 1,200 Americans dead and more than 8,000 wounded. It was the worst terrorist attack against Israel since spring 1996.
Predictably, the Arab-Israeli conflict has reasserted its dangerous and unstable dynamics in the Middle East, this time in the midst of a war in Afghanistan. It has precipitated a crisis for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, moderate Arab countries -- and the United States. Among the many questions it poses for this country is whether, in such an unstable environment, it is prudent to consider an imminent military campaign to oust Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
The political outlook in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is utterly depressing. Sharon and Arafat have shown no capability for leading their constituents back to the negotiating table. Neither man has a vision or strategy for peace that is remotely acceptable to the other side. The left wing is discredited in Israel and, at this time, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, has greater popularity in the Palestinian territories than Arafat's Fatah party.
Sharon was elected prime minister in February with the most decisive mandate in Israeli history. He routed incumbent Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak was voted out because of his failed efforts to reach a final peace settlement with the Palestinians. Barak's last five months in office were consumed by violence, as the Palestinians engaged in what they called Intifada 2. Israel responded with military force.
Now it is Sharon, Israel's perpetual strongman, who has to face his most serious challenge. If he fails to curb further successful suicide attacks he, like Barak, will be history. If Sharon lost his hold on power, Israel would probably turn to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a hard-liner to the right of the current coalition.
But if Sharon responds with too much force against the Palestinians, which could lead to Arafat's ouster, he risks the breakup of his tenuous coalition government and the resignation of Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Sharon could also risk alienating the United States at a time when the Bush administration has begun to show greater support for Israel's terrorist dilemma and the need to rein in Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another terrorist group.
Still, difficult as they are, Sharon's problems pale in comparison to those facing Arafat. After the latest attacks, the U.S. government demanded that he do much more to curb the activities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and that he take steps to dismantle their infrastructure in the Palestinian territories. That would include confiscating their weapons.
Arafat's high stake
If Arafat refuses and terror continues, the Israeli government might well end his career, or his life. But if he does what the United States and Israel request, he runs the risk of a Palestinian civil war. He also risks the possibility of being assassinated and vilified as a traitor to the cause he has fought for all his life. Given Arafat's background, he's more likely to choose letting Israel kill him. Better to be a martyr than a traitor.
There has been no preparation for Palestinian leadership succession. Arafat's death, or loss of control, could lead to chaos and an Israeli reoccupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza. And that would pose a huge quandary for the United States and its war against terrorists worldwide.
Indeed, the focus of U.S. diplomacy since Sept. 11 has been to build an international coalition, including prominent Muslim countries, in the fight against terrorist organizations. To do that, U.S. leaders felt it was crucial to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict on the back burner. It was for this reason that Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a major speech Nov. 19, called for a Palestinian state and an end to Israeli occupation of the territories.
Powell also dispatched retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to the region to try to orchestrate a cease-fire. Zinni was in Jerusalem when the two bombs went off last weekend, demonstrating for a world audience the difficulty of his task. The United States must now rethink its basic strategy both toward terrorism and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Likewise, the moderate Arab governments must, at last, become more engaged in support for U.S. efforts. They must put greater pressure on Arafat to rein in the terrorist groups. If not, they will face even further anger from an America disappointed with their tepid responses to Sept. 11.
Worst of all, they could face a new Arab-Israeli war if the current spate of violence is not quickly and decisively contained. That should give moderate governments an incentive to act; an Arab-Israeli war could threaten their own governments. Already, the crisis prompted an unexpected -- but inconclusive -- visit to Israel by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher. That was the first high-level visit by an Egyptian in three years.
What all this adds up to is that a new and dangerous factor has been introduced into the broader campaign against terrorism.
Republican hard-liners' demands that Bush use military force to oust Saddam Hussein as soon as possible must now be balanced with the concerns that any military action against Saddam will probably cause Israel to be drawn into the conflict, with fateful consequences. Saddam will most certainly target Israel with missiles if the United States attacks Iraq. And those missiles could be armed with weapons of mass destruction.
We could then face the prospect of Israel and the United States fighting Iraq at the same time Israel is using sustained force against the Palestinians. That has all the ingredients of a catastrophe.
For this reason, the Bush administration must think carefully before contemplating any move against Saddam, absent a smoking gun linking Iraq to direct terrorism against the United States, either on Sept. 11 or in the subsequent anthrax attacks.
The immediate problem
Focusing instead on the threats posed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad might yield more benefits. Moderate Arab governments were dismayed by the recent suicide bombings, so they might be more willing to lend support than they would be if we went after Saddam. Beyond that, the threat in Israel is immediate. The intention of the Palestinian terror groups is to destroy any hope of Arab-Israeli reconciliation and to continue their relentless campaign until Israel literally ceases to exist as a Jewish state.
A successful U.S. campaign, including political and economic pressure, to defang these groups would send a clear message to the rest of the region -- including Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. It would say we are deadly serious about terrorism that kills civilians of any nationality indiscriminately.
Geoffrey Kemp is Director for Regional Strategic Programs at the Nixon Center. Kemp served on the National Security Council staff as adviser on the Middle East during the first Reagan administration.
