Why
Israel is So Relevant Vis-à-Vis Iraq
The Politics of
Hypocrisy
by Kim Petersen
Dissident Voice
February 15, 2003
The hypocrite's crime is that he bears
false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that
hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the
cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is
true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite
is really rotten to the core.
--
Hannah Arendt
It seems that the
world stands posed at the edge of the precipice of a re-intensification of the
Persian Gulf War. The US and its UK lapdog are seeking an escalation in the
Persian Gulf War. The UK government, despite much dissension among the members
of the ruling Labour party and overwhelming public opposition, is so far
standing steadfastly with its cross-Atlantic partner. Incredibly these two
nations have the least moral standing to engage in such slipshod imperial
adventurism.
Iraq held itself
in diplomatic isolation for several years because of the tendentious US policy
to Israel. Comparisons of US policy of Arab Middle Eastern countries and Israel
have been largely marginalized in the mainstream media. Whether or not there is
a fair and balanced US diplomacy between Israel and Iraq is therefore an issue
worthy of critical examination.
A fair track
record is requisite to lay claim to the moral authority necessary to impose a
solution in Iraq, let alone to wage war. This moral paucity is compellingly
evinced when the actions of the two Anglo nations are examined in comparison to
Israel and Iraq. An analysis of the histories, use of force, and observance of
international law is rather telling.
History
In the aftermath
of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and was eventually consecrated to the
archives of history. The Ottoman Empire in 1918 had extended over a wide swath
of the Middle East and elsewhere. The Arabs were the allies of the British in
WWI and had been promised independence following hostilities. In a display of
imperialist treachery, the British reneged on an earlier promise of Arab
independence and divided up the Middle East according to the Sykes-Picot
Agreement. The Sykes-Picot agreement gave Britain control over a large region
of the Middle East. Israel, Iraq, and Kuwait were among those nations that
emerged from this morass.
Palestine
A British
Mandate was established in Palestine for which Britain had a wider plan. Lord
Balfour, in his eponymous declaration envisioned a homeland for the Jews in
Palestine. British records from this period showed the population to be
preponderantly Arab with a small Jewish minority. The transfer of Jews to
Palestine was underway and land was needed. Arab resistance to the expropriation
of their land was keenly felt. Armed confrontation was the outcome.
Jews formed
terrorist groups and began fighting for their dream of a Zionist homeland. In a
classic case of biting-the-hand-that-feeds, the Jews turned on the British.
Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo and the King David Hotel was blown up with
British troops inside. This was despite the fact Britain was fighting the
Nazis.
By 1947 Britain
had had enough and called on the United Nations to settle the question of
Palestine. Both democracy and the Arabs suffered as the indigenous Palestinians
were denied the right to a referendum on the partitioning of their land. The
Arabs, now comprising 70 % of the population and owning 92 % of the land, were
ceded 47% of Palestine in the east while the Jews wound up with the
Mediterranean coast. Jerusalem was to be an international city.
Not surprisingly
the Arabs were displeased and sought a different result. Similar to the ethnic
cleansing the Europeans carried out in the so-called terra nullis of
North America, the Jews ruthlessly expelled the inhabitants from the so-called
empty lands of Palestine. Jewish aggression put to death and flight hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians. War worsened the Arab plight; they did not fare well
against the Jews and lost more land. The Six Day War saw the loss of the West Bank,
Gaza Strip, Sinai, and the Golan Heights.
Iraq
Iraq was
immensely valuable to British imperial interests geo-strategically, being
situated near the British colonial jewel of India, and economically.
Exploitation of Iraqi oil resources fuelled British corporate interests.
However, Britain
did little to curry favor with the Iraqis. Britain occupied Iraq in 1917 and,
in a prelude to Guernica, conducted an air bombardment campaign to subdue the
rebellious north. In 1921 Kuwait was created purposefully impeding Iraq access
to the Gulf. An outsider was brought in as a monarch to rule the Iraqis. Iraq’s
military toppled the monarchy in 1958. The new government of General Quassim
sought a greater share of the oil profits and was opposed by the US and the UK.
Backed by the CIA, a coup saw the Ba’ath Party installed as the new government.
After a brief ouster, the Ba’ath Party begins uninterrupted rule in 1968.
In 1975 Iraq
ceded control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, an area of longstanding contention
between the two countries, to the Shah in Iran to bring about a cessation in
CIA-backed operations destabilizing northern Iraq. Later President Saddam
Hussein thought he had the military strength to take back the waterway
following the Iraqi revolution that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power.
Terrorism
It is necessary
to define ‘terrorism’ to avoid the trap of confusing one person’s freedom
fighter with another person’s terrorist. The FBI has an appropriate and
succinct definition: “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence
against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives.”
Israel is a spawn of terrorism. This claim is
not hard to substantiate, the Israelis speak rather openly about it. Noam Chomsky’s
book, Western State Terrorism, quotes Yitzhak Shamir, a Zionist
terrorist and later Israeli leader as having said: “Neither Jewish morality nor
Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are
very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.
First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate
for the circumstances of today...” (1) The retail
terrorism of the early Jewish groups fighting to establish a Jewish state has
since given way to the more lethal state terrorism.
The US is
undoubtedly, and by far, the leading practitioner of state terrorism. The
carnage inflicted through US state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism is a
long list ranging from Cuba to Greece, and Korea to Vietnam. (2)
Indeed, the US is the only nation to be found guilty by the World Court for
terrorism. In 1986, the International Court of Justice found that the US had
engaged in the “unlawful use of force” against tiny Nicaragua. The US was
called upon to pay reparations and cease funding of the Contras.
Despite repeated
mendacious attempts by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, the
U.S. Department of State admits the last terrorist action of Iraq is its
“known” involvement with the attempted assassination of former President Bush
in 1993. (3) This is supported by Mr. Bush Sr.’s former
advisor, US Gen. Scowcroft who said, “[Iraq’s] not a terrorist state.” (4)
Aggression
Aggression is a
concept which the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg opined: “To
initiate a war of aggression … is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated
evil of the whole." In 1974 the General Assembly Resolution 3314 stated:
"Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in
this definition." Clearly the US, UK, Iraq, and Israel are all guilty of
aggression. No country, however, approaches the level of the US in launching
aggression against other states, especially the weaker states.
War
Israel was
founded in the bowels of war. Certainly war has served the Zionists well as
Israel has expanded to its present size through military conquest. Israel has
been in occupation of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip since
its outright victory in the 1967 Six Day War. Many Zionists envision an Israel
that extends beyond its current international borders, thus the strategy to
construct “facts on the ground.” War has not been unkind territorially to
Israel but it has not addressed its security concerns.
Iraq under
President Saddam Hussein has also been very belligerent to neighboring
countries. It engaged in an eight-year war with Iran and invaded tiny Kuwait.
War has left Iraq in tatters. Mr. Saddam with his Republican Guard and security
apparatus intact has kept control inside the country. Internally Iraq is
divided along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines. The Sunni minority has
managed to put down and control any uprising of the Shiites, based in the
south, and the Kurds, based in the north.
Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD)
Iraq
Iraq’s first
experience with chemical weapons was on the receiving end from British RAF
bombers. Winston Churchill approved the attack with unconcealed racism:
I do not understand this squeamishness
about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against
uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses;
gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively
terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those
affected. (5)
Iraq has pursued
the development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. It has only
demonstrated achievement in the development of chemical weapons. While able to
culture biological agents it has not been shown that Iraq was able to weaponize
biological agents. There was an active nuclear program but it never reached the
stage where a bomb could be produced. Also Iraq has not been shown to have
acquired enriched uranium.
Iraq has used
chemical weapons. It used poison gas against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and
sinisterly against its own Kurds in the north. This was done with full US
knowledge and without censure at that time. In fact, Defence Minister, Donald
Rumsfeld, was meeting with Mr.Saddam Hussein, on the coattails of the Halabja
massacre.
Moreover, US
companies and other western companies were complicit in the development of WMD
technology by Iraq. This explains a recent deletion from the 1200-page Iraqi
disclosure to UNMOVIC. The US presented a sanitized version to other Security
Council members sans reference to the involvement of western firms.
Israel
Israel, on the
other hand does have the full range of WMD. It is said by most analysts to have
a nuclear armada of at least 200 missiles. Israel was aided by the US, and
especially France, in developing its nuclear capability. Israel is not a
signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and probably never will be as
Israel will not accept consignment to “vassal state” status. (6)
The London
Sunday Times reported that Israel has produced both chemical and biological
weapons with a “sophisticated delivery system.” A senior Israeli intelligence
official acknowledged: "There is hardly a single known or unknown form of
chemical or biological weapon... which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona
Biological Institute.'' (7)
USA
Even though the
US assisted the Israeli nuclear program, the US contradictorily provided
intelligence to help Israel launch a pre-emptive strike on the Iraqi Osirak
reactor. It seems there is hardly any semblance of disinterest on behalf of the
US.
US insincerity
is axiomatic with regard to WMD. It possesses the full spectrum of biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons. It has used them all in war, including the only
two nuclear bombs detonated on civilian populations: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The US seeks to entrench the status quo of ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ states under
the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty albeit Mr. Bush refuses to ratify the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The US also blocks meaningful verification of
the Biological Weapons Convention.
Mr. Dan Plesch
in The Guardian listed two “arguments in support of US policy” on
WMD:
The first is: "We are democracies so
our weapons are OK and we do not need further control." This is no more
than saying that because we are good we cannot be bad. The second is that only
western nations believe in ethics and law, so they are no good in the real
world. This is as self-contradictory as the first, and insidiously racist. (8)
Adherence to International Law
The US and
Israel are major violators of international law. Therefore it is not surprising
that the US vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution calling upon all member
states to uphold international law. The US along with Israel voted against a
General Assembly Resolution to the same effect.
UN
Security Council Resolutions
President Bush
has repeatedly said that UN Security Council Resolutions must be enforced
otherwise the UN risks irrelevancy. Clearly this principle must apply to all UN
security Council Resolutions. According to the US department of state: “Saddam
Hussein [sic] has repeatedly violated sixteen” UN Security Council Resolutions.
US client state, Israel, stands in contravention of a plethora of UN Security
Council Resolutions. The US has on numerous occasions used its veto to shield
Israel.
War
Crimes
None of the
principal actors in this paper can escape culpability for war crimes.
Genocide
The Jews were
victims of the Nazi genocide as were Communists, Romany, and homosexuals. For a
people who are taught ‘Never to forget,’ well, memory seems a bit short for
many Israelis. A systematic destruction of Palestinian society is ongoing. Mr.
Edward Herman has made a convincing case for the Sharonian genocide under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article
2. (9)
The regime of
Mr. Hussein is guilty of many abuses and massacres, particularly against the
Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north, but his death campaigns have
not reached the level of a genocide. Nevertheless an indiscriminate campaign of
death is being waged against the Iraqi people.
Three
high-ranking UN officials, serving in Iraq, have resigned in disgust at what
they termed the “genocidal” UN sanctions against Iraq. Water purification
equipment, medicine, and medical equipment are blocked or their entry into Iraq
is seriously hindered. Infant mortality has spiked obscenely. Former US
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in reference to the then half a million
dead children, quipped that it was a price “worth it.”
Geneva
Conventions
Israel has been
censured on numerous occasions for its flagrant violations of Geneva
Conventions to which it is a signatory. Collective punishment, crop
destruction, school closures, land confiscation, building of settlements, home
demolitions, institutionalized torture, use of human shields, impeding or
preventing the passage of ambulances and medical personnel are all
contraventions of international law. Israel as an occupying power has a special
responsibility in upholding the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The US as a
signatory also has obligations regarding Israel’s transgressions but has
blatantly sided with the transgressor. The US, itself, is in breach of several
Geneva Conventions, among them its arrogant disregard for the treatment of POWs
from Afghanistan. The US defiantly maintains that they are not POWS but rather
“enemy combatants.” The International Red Cross is the agency charged with
determining the status of such prisoners and has ruled that they must be
treated as POWS under the Geneva Conventions.
Democracy
Israel
Israel is always
held up as a beacon of democracy in a sea of authoritarian Arab regimes. There
is a lot of truth to this. Israel does have a parliamentary system whose
members are appointed from a party slate according to that party’s proportion
of the popular vote. For the Arab
minority, however, democratic virtues have proven illusory. (10)
Iraq
Iraq has never
tasted democracy. This is true, but colonial administration was replaced by a
dictatorship imposed by the UK. When direct British control in Iraq proved too
wrought with hazard a Hashemite outsider, King Faisal, was installed as a
monarch. The Hashemite monarchy sought to mollify the British overlords and was
unloved by Iraqi public. Following the Suez Crisis, Britain was too weak to
prevent the overthrow of the Hashemite ruler.
Into the ruling
role entered the Ba’ath party, which later consolidated its hold on power.
Eventually Saddam Hussein grabbed the leadership and has since inflicted his
merciless reign over Iraq.
United
States
Despite US calls
for regime removal and democracy in Iraq, paradoxically the Persian Gulf War
reinstalled the authoritarian Emir of Kuwait. The Orwellian-titled Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan saw the puppet-regime of Hamid Karzai installed
while the countryside became the fiefdoms of warlords.
Former US
attorney General Ramsey Clark said of the US: “But we’re not a democracy. It’s
a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us
that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” Noam
Chomsky stated:
Remember, the United States is not a
democracy - and has never been intended to be a democracy. It is what is called
in the political science literature a polyarchy. A polyarchy is one in which a
small sector of the population is in control of essential decision-making for
the economy, the political system, the cultural system and so on.
United
Nations Security Council
Insofar as the
UN Security Council is esteemed to be the highest level of international
lawmaking, the democratic credentials of this body are highly relevant. The
five permanent members of the UN Security Council represent the victors of
WWII. There is nothing democratic about this arrangement and there is nothing
democratic about their veto-wielding power. This same UN body is directly
responsible for the sanctions of genocide in Iraq, in stark contradiction to UN
Charter principles.
Leaders
President Bush
has characterized Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, as a “man of peace.”
The Knesset’s Kahan Commission found this “man of peace” responsible for the
massacre of Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila.
This is one of many great crimes that stain Mr. Sharon’s hands crimson. Mr.
Sharon would be more aptly characterized as a terrorist (a term he routinely
smears on the Palestinians) and a war criminal. Mr. Sharon is notorious for
having uttered: "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
This was a thinly veiled reference to Israel’s arsenal of WMD.
Nothing further
needs be said about Mr. Saddam. He is an open-and-shut case. The world knows
him for the cruel tyrant that he is. He is despot truly worthy of Mr. Sharon.
Hypocrisy and the Threat to Peace
Analysing the US
and UK role vis-à-vis Iraq and Israel exposes an extreme hypocrisy. Both have a
history of plundering Iraq and subsidizing Israel. On the Middle East stage a
systemic bias against Arabs states as well as the pro-Israeli stance has been delineated.
This is evident from the historical record, and the record of terrorism,
aggression, and adherence to international law. Former long-time CIA analyst
Bill Christison has theorized that, in addition to Iraqi oil, an equally major
“real reason for war” is the collusion between Israeli and Washington hawks who
plan “a new era of colonialism for the entire Middle East--a colonialism
dominated by the U.S. and Israel.” (11) When attempting
to make the case for war, the US, UK, and their colluding media ignore the
hypocrisy.
The criteria for
launching a pre-emptive strike (an action of dubious legal validity) have
featured shifting goal posts and twisted rationale. Mr. Bush called on Mr.
Saddam to let the inspectors in. If the Iraqis were then found to be concealing
WMD then they would be in breach of UNSCR 1441. Then in a supreme feat of
logical contortion the Mr. Bush declares that if the UNMOVIC inspectors don’t
uncover WMD then Iraq is in material breach because Washington knows that Iraq
has WMD. Alexandros Pagidas exposes convincingly the vacuous logic behind Mr.
Blair and Mr. Bush’s drive to war. (12)
So far the
intelligence provided by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair hasn’t enabled the UNMOVIC
inspectors to find any “smoking gun.” Rather the intelligence presented has
been misrepresented (plagiarized), unsubstantiated, based on unreliable
informants, and flat-out deceitful. Possibly it has also been conjured up. Why
should we believe satellite photos or audio evidence presented by the US? We
know now that the satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks poised to attack Saudi
Arabia were a hoax.
The US record
for aggressing another state has been based on such lies as Tonkin Bay, the
imperilled US students in Grenada, and the babies ripped from their Kuwaiti
incubators. Surely the correct moral choice would be for the US and UK to step
aside and relinquish the leading role to a less morally-challenged nation.
The UN warns of
a looming humanitarian disaster if a massive bombardment campaign is launched.
The world cannot support a war based on such hypocrisy and lies.
Kim Petersen is
an English teacher living in China. Email: kotto2001@hotmail.com
(1) Noam Chomsky, “International Terrorism: Image and Reality,” in
Alexander George (ed.), Western State Terrorism (Routledge, 1991),
Chapter 2.
(2) Howard Zinn, A People’s History of
the United States: 1942-Present (Perennial Classics,1999).
(3) Ben Snowden and Laura Hayes, “State-Sponsored
Terrorism: Rogue governments that support international terrorism,” http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html#iran
(4) Toby Harnden, “War of Bush's Ear
rages over Iraq,” The Telegraph (UK) on-line, 4 January 2002, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/04/war04.xml
(5) Quoted in Noam Chomsky, Deterring
Democracy (Noonday Press, 1992).
(6) John Steinbach, Israel’s Weapons of
Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace,
Indymedia-Israel: http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/36337.html
(7) Uzi Mahnaimi quoted in John
Steinbach, “Nuke Nation: Israel's weapons of mass destruction,” CovertAction
Quarterly, April / June 2001. Available on the Third World Traveller website: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Nuke_Nation.html
(8) Dan Plesch, “Iraq first, Iran and
China next,” The Guardian (UK), 13 September 2002: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4500228,00.html
(9) Edward S. Herman, “Ariel Sharon, From
Sabra / Shatila to Jenin: Another U.S.-approved ‘good genocidist’ free to kill,”
Z Magazine, June 2002. Available on the
Third World Traveler website: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Ariel_Sharon_Herman.html
(10) William A. Cook, “Israeli Democracy:
Fact or Fiction?”, 25 January 2003, CounterPunch, http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/counterpunch.htm
(11) Bill Christison, “Categories of war: The US
Gameplan for Iraq,” CounterPunch, 8 February 2003: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02082003.html
(12) Alexandros Pagidas, “The Blair Witch Project,”
13 February 2003, Dissident Voice: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Pagidas_BlairWitch.htm