It’s been ten years since my then-four-year-old daughter gleefully pulled the duct tape and plastic from the windows and door frame of our home’s security room in northern Israel. The end of the Gulf War meant the end of sirens, the end of the tiny plastic tent I stuffed her into during air raids and schlepped to her K-4 class each day, and the return to the army of the gas masks we later found out probably would not have protected us against an Iraqi chemical attack anyway.
Coupled with Israelis’ joy over the war’s end was widespread disbelief that the U.S. and its allies had left Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in power — seemingly unable to comprehend the Middle Eastern mentality that assured that Israel and the world had not heard the last of him.
Ten years later, with Saddam’s presence and power renewed, American and world foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be unraveling as quickly as the tape that ineffectually sealed our security room.
Easing sanctions against Iraq that don’t work makes sense as does monitoring Iraqi oil revenues, but resuming business ties without stringent weapons inspections while Saddam continues to develop a nuclear arsenal doesn’t.
It is equally nonsensical for the U.S. State Department to criticize Israel this week for “excessive use of military force” in quelling the violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip while also criticizing the country for attempting to exert economic pressure on the Palestinian Authority by withholding tax monies. (It should be noted that the amount in question is greatly disputed and may not amount to more than $10 million after monies owed to Israel by the P.A. for utilities are deducted.)
Nobody likes to see innocent people suffer. Nor should the complexity of foreign policy or the capabilities of those involved in the field be diminished.
But it seems logical to wonder whether it is fair to ask the Israelis to do next to nothing when P.A. president Yasser Arafat is refusing to implement agreed-upon measures to stop the violence. Is Israel expected now to fund the violent and terrorist activities of individuals and groups who receive money from the Palestinian Authority while Arafat himself squanders huge sums of money that could help his people and incites violence that can only end up hurting them? Even several Arab states recently decided not to transfer millions of dollars in aid promised to the Palestinian people for fear that it won’t get to them.
It’s no coincidence that Arafat and Saddam are pals. Both have put the needs of their dictatorships above the needs of their people, and both are smart enough to know that the western world, pragmatic oil needs aside, still doesn’t quite get the mind of the dictator. For that reason, Israel is rightly concerned not only with Arafat’s and Saddam’s actions, but with those of other regional dictatorships, such as Iran.
Certain facts are clear. The United States is free to set its own foreign policy and the current administration is still finding its way. But a hands-off policy won’t bode well for the Middle East because dictatorships don’t act according to the rules by which we think they should abide, and Israel is always held to unrealistic and unfair standards. Despite world opprobrium, Israel has exercised restraint in its handling of the violence and has learned, even if others haven’t, that there isn’t anyone to talk with about peaceful alternatives right now.
As well as I remember the end of the Gulf War, I remember the tense time at its beginning, when Israelis felt like sitting ducks waiting for someone (the U.S.) to do something about the Scud missiles raining down on the country.
If the U.S. and other countries choose to ignore the lessons of the last ten years, they should at least not expect Israel to do the same. When it comes to dealing with the dictatorships on its doorsteps, Israel can’t afford to have such a short memory.
Loading ...