Ramadan 1424
Nearing the “Tipping Point” in Both Iraq and Palestine?

Note to Readers: Please see the letter to readers on Page 3 concerning recent publication delays.

Ramadan is, for Muslims, a month for reflection and prayer. As the month in which the Qur’an was first revealed, it is a time for meditation on scripture and an emphasis on home and family. This Ramadan of the hijri year 1424 is one which probably needs all the reflection and prayer possible, and not merely among Muslims.

There are some indications that in both the Israeli-Palestinian arena and in Iraq, events are reaching a crucial nexus, a “tipping point” which could make the difference between peaceful settlement and something much bloodier. But in saying this, it is important to note that the point has not yet been reached; disaster is not inevitable. In fact, there are faint glimmers of hope.

As this issue was going to press, the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority were talking, mostly it seemed through backchannels, following a week in which the Israeli Chief of Staff rather openly criticized the level of restrictions placed on West Bank Palestinians as making the security situation worse; and though the Israeli government repeatedly denounced the “Geneva Accord” negotiated by a group of dovish Israelis and Palestinians (examined in greater detail in this issue’s Dossier), the accord itself, a draft “final status” agreement, is a reminder that some on both sides of the conflict still see the possibility of a breakthrough. And the largest peace demonstration in years was held in Tel Aviv on the eighth anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination.

Perhaps even more important was the criticism leveled by Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya’alon. In saying that the tight restrictions on West Bank Palestinians amounted to applying tactics which undermined Israel’s strategic interests, Ya’alon essentially was criticizing his own civilian chief (though recently his uniformed predecessor), Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. Mofaz is reportedly furious, but an open breach with the IDF brass at this time would be a political disaster for Ariel Sharon, already being pursued in the domestic political sphere by a financial scandal and threats of a general strike. None of this means that peace is at hand. For one thing, Yasir ‘Arafat remains as an obstacle, always reluctant, unwilling to make hard compromises, and most importantly of all, unwilling to yield decision-making authority to younger men.

The ‘Arafat Health Issue
Last month’s flurry of reports that ‘Arafat had either suffered a heart attack or possible had been diagnosed with stomach cancer was denied by his doctors, who claimed he had only stomach flu. But the intensity of interest in the Arab as well as the Israeli and Western media reflects the fact that even among many Palestinians, there is a sense that things will be easier once the old man leaves the scene (provided of course he does not leave it as a martyr killed by Israel or a persecuted leader expelled by Israel: the departure must be natural). Many believe that ‘Arafat suffers from Parkinson’s Disease: certainly he shakes visibly and has been known to doze off or drift out of consciousness, even once during an Arab League summit. He suffered neurological damage in a 1992 plane crash in Libya and had an operation to drain swelling in his brain at the time; some of his ailments appear to stem from that incident. But the facts of the matter are that he is 74 and ailing, and even many Palestinians would not mourn him very much (though the funeral would be huge) were he to pass on. One unpredictable factor is whether that might happen before the security fence and other Israeli policies create new facts which will be hard to undo when the two sides again, someday, are prepared to return to a two-state solution. The tipping point after which it will be much more difficult seems to be approaching, but may not yet have been reached.

Iraq
In Iraq, the stepped-up attacks on US and Iraqi targets and the downing of a US helicopter kept the death toll mounting, amid growing concern that the death toll and the approach of a Presidential election year in the US may increase the pressures for a precipitate move to defuse the situation or even withdraw. While the wisdom of the war and hte legitimacy of the rationale used are increasingly the subjects of heated partisan debate in the US, there is also the fact that, as an occupying power, the US has certain obligations under international law which it must exercise until it is able to transfer sovereignty to an Iraqi regime with some credible degree of legitimacy. A Beirut- or Somalia-style withdrawal would confirm the convictions of those who believe that the US cannot and will not accept even moderate levels of casualties.

Just as it is no doubt still possible to return to a peace process that will lead to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over time, but a turning or tipping point is approaching after which it will be much more difficult, so it is still possible to simultaneously build up a new civil society in Iraq (that is being done in most areas) while using indigenous security forces and US forces trained in internal stability and counterinsurgency to root out the insurgency before it spreads further or brings other groups, such as dissident Shi‘ites, into direct alliance. The decision to put Iraqi decisionmaking under the aegis of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice may be a sign that the Administration has realized that at least some of the Pentagon civilian theorists of this war find themselves uncertain about what to do next. The question remains whether Dr. Rice will find the answer.

As The Estimate has noted before, the US has won many guerrilla wars. It has lost one, but the one it lost was at the cost of 58,000 dead, and Vietnam continues to haunt American public opinion even when those making the comparisons understand neither Vietnam nor Iraq. Vietnam began as a guerrilla war but was not fought as one. The mistakes made there are unlikely to be repeated. Generals may fight the last war, but not if it is one that they lost.

But the key word here is war. President George W. Bush finally seems to be recognizing the fact that even if “major combat operations” really did end on May 1, a persisting guerrilla war is continuing and casuatlies are again on the upswing. The enemy ability to down helicopters increases the lethality and the numbers of American dead. (But it does little good to denounce the attackers as “terrorists”, because that devalues the real meaning of the word. A terrorist attacks civilians. Someone firing a shoulder-launched Russian-made Strela missile at an American Chinook helicopter carrying combat troops is doing precisely the same thing that, in the 1980s, an Afghan mujahid was doing firing an American-made Stinger at a Russian Hind helicopter carrying combat troops in Afghanistan. He is an irregular using military means against a uniformed military target occupying his country. To blur the distinction between terrorism and guerrilla war is to undermine the war on terrorism.

But the US has been reluctant up till recently to acknowledge that this is indeed a guerrilla war. It has been portrayed as a last-ditch resistance by Ba‘athists and international terrorists, and the “spin” that argues that the more intense the attacks, the more successful the US must be, has been lampooned by editorial cartoonists. If the US government acknowledges to the US public that this is a guerrilla war and invites it to consider the implications of losing it versus the costs of winning (and comparing actual progress with other wars including Vietnam), it will be able to sustain a better case than it has done so far.

Home

Current Issue

About Us

Back Issues

Resources

Subscribe