An Israeli embassy in Baghdad?
By Michael Freund
February 5, 2003
It
would serve as the tangible sign of a truly post-Saddam era
There is something delightfully ironic about Colin Powell's scheduled
appearance Wednesday at the United Nations. After months of reportedly
working behind the scenes to forestall military action against
Iraq, Powell is now being dispatched by the Bush administration
to make the case for an impending American invasion of Baghdad.
It was just 12 years ago that Powell, while serving as chairman
of America's Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed the first Gulf War
and then pressed for its early end, leaving Saddam safely ensconced
in power and able to threaten America's interests.
How fitting, then, that he will now serve as the harbinger of
Saddam's imminent demise.
And imminent it is. The Iraqi ruler will fall hard and he will
fall fast, for the simple reason that his dictatorship is predicated
on fear, not on loyalty. Unfortunately, his removal is unlikely
to come about blood-free, along the lines of the Velvet Revolution
in Czechoslovakia; but it will almost certainly be swifter, and
briefer, than the critics would have us believe.
Few Iraqis, after all, will be willing to go down fighting for
a lost cause headed by a despot, particularly one that has repressed
them and their dreams for so long. In the next few weeks the streets
of Baghdad are likely to resemble those of Kabul after the defeat
of the Taliban: free, joyous and celebratory.
When it does happen, Saddam's removal will signify a turning
point in the region, opening up new opportunities for America
to reshape the world. After the previous Gulf War much of the
postwar pressure was applied on Israel, forcing the Jewish state
to attend the Madrid Conference, which paved the way for the Oslo
Accords and led to a decade of unprecedented Palestinian terror.
This time around America should turn its postwar attention elsewhere,
placing the onus on the Arab world to reform itself and its governing
institutions. That is where the true cause of Middle Eastern instability
lies, and the dismantling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime will present
a real chance for lasting change to come about.
Indeed, the anniversary this week of a battle fought long ago
serves as a reminder of just how powerful an impetus war can be
in bringing about dramatic change. It was 60 years ago this past
Sunday, on February 2, 1943, that German Field Marshal Friedrich
Paulus of Hitler's Sixth Army surrendered to Soviet forces, ending
the Battle of Stalingrad and marking a turning point in the Second
World War.
The battle came about in no small measure due to Hitler's miscalculation
regarding Russia's determination, much as the current war on terror
is the result of Saddam's and Osama bin Laden's misreading of
America's resolve to defend itself.
Despite suffering huge losses after launching the invasion of
Russia in June 1941, Hitler erroneously believed that he had weakened
the Soviets and could overwhelm them. He hoped to take the large
industrial city of Stalingrad before driving south toward the
oil-rich Caucasus region.
HAD THE plan succeeded, it would have dealt a devastating blow
to the Soviets, one that might have shifted the course of the
entire war. But the Russians held out. Though they lost over a
million men, they ultimately managed to turn back the invading
Nazi forces.
When it became clear that his troops were on the verge of defeat,
Paulus radioed Hitler in Berlin to inform him that the battle
was lost. Using words that sound chillingly like those often invoked
by Saddam, Hitler is said to have radioed back: "Capitulation
is impossible. The Sixth Army will do its historic duty at Stalingrad
until the last man."
That, of course, did not happen, as the defenders of Stalingrad
instead took tens of thousands of prisoners, delivering a withering
blow to the Germans, one which Winston Churchill said "tore
the guts out of the Nazi war machine."
Two years later the Nazi regime was no more, and Germany sought
to rejoin Western civilization as a democracy.
Similarly, the upcoming war in Iraq will present America with
a unique opportunity to "tear the guts" out of the forces
of anti-Western and anti-Israel rejectionism by toppling a dangerous
tyrant who has sponsored terrorism and sought to obtain weapons
of mass destruction.
To build on that success it will be necessary for America to
ensure that Saddam's defeat signifies not just the end of his
regime but the downfall of everything that he represents.
The surest way to do so, of course, is to make certain that his
successor heads a democratically elected, pro-Western government,
one that would anchor Iraq squarely in America's camp. But that
alone would be insufficient. It is also crucial that the new administration
in Baghdad sign a peace treaty with Israel, thereby setting an
example for other Arab states to follow.
Israel and Iraq have no border disputes, so there is no reason
why a state of war should continue to exist between them once
Saddam is gone. The opening of an Israeli embassy in Baghdad,
and an Iraqi one in Israel, would serve as a tangible sign that
a truly post-Saddam era has emerged.
Since the new Iraqi government will owe its very existence to
the United States, the Bush administration will be in a good position
to twist its arm on this issue and make it happen.
As the aftermath of the last Gulf War proved, the way forward
in the Middle East will not come by forcing Israel to make concessions
that threaten its existence. It will come by compelling the Arab
states to accept Israel's right to exist, and to finally end their
century-long struggle against Jewish self-determination.
The key to Middle East peace, then, may ultimately lie in Iraq.
The question now is whether Powell and his colleagues will know
what to do with it.
The writer served as deputy director of Communications &
Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.
This article was originally published in the The
Jerusalem Post on February 5, 2003
Home
| Worthwhile Reading
| Cartoons
| Videos
| Selected Quotes
| Links |
Contact
us
