Intended to Give an Insight

¶ … intended to give an insight into the Middle East with emphasis on the areas of concern namely Israel and Palestine, and Iraq. The viewing of the situation is from the Conservative point-of-view and taking into consideration the growing feeling among the Conservatives that the current administrative policies have been influenced strongly by the Neo-conservatives against whom the Conservatives have strong reservations. The Middle East is a very significant region in the world and just as it is important so has it been deeply misunderstood.

It is the cradle of Western civilization where the ancient civilizations flourished and also the birthplace of three important religions namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It houses a variety of cultures and peoples that include Arabs, Berbers, Armenians, Jews, Iranians, Turks and Kurds. This diversity has been the cause of conflicts and will continue to be so. In addition external intervention has been a frequent occurrence in the history of the region and it has been the target of conquests by Romans, Mongols and Turks among others.

This region will be of vital interest to the United States and other world powers as it is the biggest source of petroleum. It is also receives a large quantity of foreign aid and it is of vital strategic importance. (Political Science 375: Middle East Politics) The collapse of communism has made many Western countries including the U.S. To view the rising militant Muslim fundamentalism and certain Middle Eastern countries as the biggest threat they currently face. The events of September 11, 2001 have gone a long way in reinforcing this.

The Average American is quite often confused and some times find the Middle East inexplicable despite its significance. This arises from the diversity of the region. There are many sects of Islam and the other regional faiths are also divided, having their own character and history and this makes the region quite confusing. The political systems are varied too and include authoritarian regimes, monarchies, parliamentary democracies, presidential democracies and theocracies.

Finally the countries in the region have significant differences in the levels of wealth, population and size of the country, levels of education, minority groups, domestic and external politics. (Political Science 375: Middle East Politics) Israel and Palestine: History as well as different views of history could well be the most significant factors in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several accounts of this history have been written and interpreted in different ways depending on whether the intention is negation of the other sides views or whether it justification of the views held.

Many of these accounts try to convince rather than inform. Determining who is right by using history or accounts of history just for the sake of convincing anyone, as to who is right hardly seems convincing. Should truth be found in any of these accounts and it is bitter, then quite likely it will be buried. The land called Israel or Palestine depending on who is doing the calling is a small strip of land approximately ten thousand square miles in size.

(Israel and Palestine: A Brief History) During the long history of this land the ownership has varied and so has its area and population. The current state of Israel occupies all the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In the south it is bounded by Egypt, Lebanon in the north and Jordan to the east. The state of Israel occupies approximately 78% of the land. The rest is made up of areas occupied by Israel since the 1967 war and the autonomous regions under the Palestinian Authority.

The Gaza strip consisting of 141 square miles of area and to the south of Israel is also under the control of the Palestinian Authority, though there are small pockets of Israeli settlements. (Israel and Palestine: A Brief History) The national unity government of Ariel Sharon and the use of tanks of and helicopters in attacks on the Palestinian towns on the West Bank and Gaza and the blockade of the areas under the Palestinian Authority brought the peace process under the Oslo declaration of 1993 to an abrupt end.

The Palestinians now press for a return to the pre-1967 borders as an independent state with East Jerusalem as their capital. They also reject any interim accommodation, as it will keep them in a situation of dependence. This unfortunate deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict including the freezing of negotiations between Syria and Israel comes at the critical time when a new set of leaders have taken the reins at Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UAE and Palestine.

It could be the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Middle East, which has seen a lot of economic, political and social challenges especially since the events of September 11. Will this collapse of the peace process be final and would that cause a new conflict in the region and will the political confrontation taking place between the Arabs and the Israelis lead to a bigger conflict of religions are two questions that need to be addressed with careful consideration.

(a special focus on the Middle East) Iraq: During the First World War, British troops gained control of the area known as Mesopotamia in 1915. After the war under a League of Nations mandate Britain retained control of the territory. A bloody Arab uprising in 1920 causes Britain to establish a Hashemite monarchy in 1921. In 1932 Iraq became nominally independent with Britain retaining a major interest both in petroleum and defense. The borders of present day Iraq were drawn up by diplomats, as was the practice at that time.

There was no thought given to geographic or ethnic differences. The north was carved out of Kurdish region and the south made up of politically dominant but outnumbered Sunnis along with the relatively powerless yet numerous Shias. Saddam Hussein officially took the reigns of Iraq in 1979 and petroleum dollars made Iraq a thriving regional power. In 1980, he declared war on Iran in an attempt to crush the fledgling Shiite Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini and gained control of the Shatt al - Arab waterway, which was disputed territory.

(Special Section: U.S. Vs. Iraq History) The war continued for eight years causing terrible casualties and devastation, yet not disturbing the boundaries on the maps. In 1990 Sadaam Hussein declared oil-rich Kuwait as a province of Iraq and occupied it. This led to the Gulf War the next year in which the U.S. led coalition with the support of many Arab states routed the Iraq army and set Kuwait free.

The UN regulations ending the war required Iraq to give up all plans for any weapons of mass destruction, including the destruction of any such weapons already in their possession. Subsequently Hussein refused to stop any activity leading to the development of weapons of mass destruction, which he was bound to do as per the UN resolutions and in addition ousted the UN weapon inspectors sent to supervise the destruction of such weapons and international sanctions were imposed leading to severe economic devastation. In 2003 the U.S.

along with a coalition of countries came together to remove Saddam Hussein from the leadership of Iraq, as it was felt that weapons of mass destruction were still in Iraq's possession and Saddam was a threat not only to the region but to any other country in the world and that his people were suffering under his rule with mass persecutions and did so. (Special Section: U.S. Vs. Iraq History) Signs of Iraqi chemical readiness were increasing as the army neared Baghdad.

Tabun a nerve gas and chemical weapon, which Iraq is banned from possessing were retrieved from a training facility in the western Iraqi desert by American troops. Nearer to Baghdad at an Iraq's biggest military industrial complex nerve agent antidotes, documents on chemical warfare and a white powder apparently used in the preparation of explosives were found. (Allies Find Signs of Iraq's Chemical Preparedness) Men, women and little children slaughtered in cold blood by the stooges of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein were found in a trench.

A similar terrible mass grave was discovered in the desert of northwestern Iraq near the town of Hatra. These are similar to what was found at the town of Hilla south of Baghdad in 2003, just after Saddam was ousted. A mass grave of Iraqi Shiite Muslims was found there. Many of these were those who opposed the rule of Saddam Hussein and rose in revolt in 1991. Women and civilians were also seen among the dead bodies.

(Reporter's Notebook: Saddam's Killing Field) The Conservatives in the U.S.: Opposition to rapid change in government and society are the tenets of Conservatives and so too in the U.S. This demands that any change be brought about by the rule of law rather than through a sudden upheaval or revolution and that this might finally end up in a right or left leaning government is less important. An example of this is the conservative views against the forced democratization of Iraq.

Conservatism is right leaning and could tend to isolation as seen by the proponents of anti-immigration and anti-international policies. Therefore they view in alarm the neo-conservatives, which is strictly a term relevant to the U.S., who are a subclass of conservatives, but have a very aggressive foreign policy stance. (Conservatism) The common ground of both the conservatives and the neo-conservatives is the support for a strong U.S. military. The Conservatives, however have strong reservations with regard to military intervention and the so-called nation building of the neo-conservatives.

The events subsequent to September 11, taken against the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq are clear indications that the neo-conservatives have no inhibitions to force regime change and reshape states believed hostile into the American image of what a state should be. This is alarming to the conservatives and gives support to the charge that the current administration is strongly under the influence of neo-conservatives.

The neo-conservatives also believe in strong action in whatever form deemed necessary to end state sponsored terrorism and this is likely to cause an aggressive stance for democracy in the Middle East by the Bush administration. Even with what happened on September 11, many conservatives look upon this as a dream with too much zeal and quite likely to cause nightmarish consequences.

(Neocon 101 some basic questions answered) The Conservatives and the Israel -Palestine Issue: Despite the pressures on President Bush by the neo-conservatives who could use the tag of being anti-Semitic on the President and advice him that there should be no pressure on Israel, Bush did call on Ariel Sharon to pull out of the West Bank in 2002 and this stance is supported by the conservatives in keeping with what they believe is the right action by the U.S. In Israel.

That it did not come to much as Sharon refused to is a different matter except that it shows that the administration did not push on with it because of the neo-conservative support to a hands-off policy on Israel. The Conservatives support the stance that former U.S. NATO commander Gen. George Joulan took in that the U.S. might have to impose a peace on Israel.

The Conservatives do not believe that this would be a sell out of an ally, by asking Israel to give up the West Bank and the Gaza strip for peace and stability in the area as claimed by the neo-conservatives, who compare it to the sell out of Czechoslovakia by Britain and France in pressurizing the country into giving up Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany in 1938 in exchange for peace.

(Whose War? A neo-conservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest) The Conservatives believe that President Bush needs to pressurize Israel into trading these lands for peace in keeping with the Oslo Agreement as was believed by his father, when he was President and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, despite any criticism he may face from the neo-conservatives.

This is because the Conservatives believe there will be no peace in the Middle East if President Bush fails to achieve this with Sharon. This volatile situation in the Middle East will pose a security threat to the U.S., as there will be no end to the terror the U.S. will have to face. This terror threat, as per the Conservatives, is because the U.S. has failed to be even handed in the events there and the viewing of the protagonists.

These include the failure to restrain the provoking actions of Ariel Sharon, failure to condemn the Israeli excessive use of force, and the moral complicity in the U.S. turning a blind eye to the looting of lands of Palestine by Israel and the denial of Israel to the Palestinian right to self-determination. These actions help to sustain the anti-American feeling in the Muslim world in which terrorists and terrorism breed. The Conservatives take the view that the Israeli people are friends of the American people.

That they have the right to lasting peace and secure borders is also a part of the concern of the Conservatives and also that the U.S. should assist them in securing these rights. The Conservatives also believe strongly in the moral commitment that the nation has and has been endorsed by half a dozen presidents that the Israelis should not be made suffer anymore in seeing their country conquered and destroyed.

This is a commitment that should be honored by the Americans, but the Conservatives also believe that the interests of the U.S. are not identical with those of Israel. As a result there are times of conflict between them and it is the view of the Conservatives that the interests of America should prevail over those of Israel. They do not share the view that the current Ariel Sharon government in Israel can be considered America's best friend.

(Whose War? A neo-conservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest) The Conservatives hold the view that since the time of Ben Gurion the successive Israeli regimes resemble Jekyll and Hyde. In support of this are these incidents cited by them. In 1950, Mossad the Israeli intelligence service got agents in Egypt to destroy U.S. installations just to make it appear to be the work of Egypt so that relations between America and Egypt would be destroyed.

During the Six Day War there were repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty by Israel leading to the death of thirty four American sailors and injuries to another hundred and seventy one. The machine-gunning of the life rafts carrying the survivors compounded this act. Yet due to an act of national cravenness this massacre was never investigated or punished. For every Jewish citizen in Israel the Americans have provided $20,000 yet there seems to be the minimum concern of Israel towards the interests of America.

They continue to refuse to stop building settlements that remain the root cause of the Palestinian unrest. The American good name has been dragged through the mud and blood of Ramallah and all requests of President Bush for restraint have been turned down. In addition they have sold American weapons technology to China against the American interests. These technologies include the sale of the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile and the Lavi fighter, which is founded on the American F-16 technology. Direct action by the U.S.

prevented the sale of the AWACS system to China. Israel used Jonathan Pollard to get all the American secrets and refuses to assist in ascertaining whether any of these were sold to the Russians, by the return of the documents they have. As the price for signing an agreement at Wye Plantation with Arafat, that President Clinton was trying for, the then Israeli Prime Minister wanted the release of this same agent so that he could take this traitor back to Israel as a national hero.

The Conservatives ask these actions of the supposed friend Israel be compared with those of their closest ally in Europe namely Britain to differentiate what a friend is. They repeat their admiration for President Bush yet they have their reservations in any attempt to start endless wars in the Middle East all because it serves the interests of Israel.

(Whose War? A neo-conservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest) The Conservatives and the Iraq War: The Egyptian President has said that the war on Iraq and subsequent events there has caused unprecedented hatred in the Middle East of Americans like was never seen before. The picture of America as an honest broker has been destroyed.

The reaction to this is likely to be seen worldwide and the interests of both the Americans and Israelis are not likely to be safe anywhere in the world. This is exactly the Conservatives feared and now believes that the neo-conservatives and Israelis have got President Bush exactly, where they want him headed towards a wider war in the region using American troops got by conscription, just to serve as the legions of Israel.

The Conservatives believe that America went to war on false pretexts of weapons of mass destruction and the non-existent links of Iraq with Osama bin Laden. The American Secretary of State lied in the UN and then set course to destroy what was left a country ruined by fourteen years of sanctions and American bombings.

(and Now for the Conservative View: Locked on Course to Wider War) Neo-conservative ambitions coupled with Israeli requirements got attempts at spreading this war to Syria and Iran but were curtailed due to the lack of troops, yet events there have kept fueling Iraqi uprisings that could provide the necessary reasons for this.

The likely reactions in the form of uprisings and further acts of terror will justify any call for more troops by President Bush and to wider action in this war to deal with the terrorists who would appear to prevent the ambitions of freedom of the people of Iraq. The Conservatives strongly feel that this would bring fire and destruction not just to the Middle East but also to the Americans themselves.

(and Now for the Conservative View: Locked on Course to Wider War) The Conservatives do not want the war on terrorism to spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to the Middle East Islamic nations and centers of power namely Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran as none of these nations had anything to do with the events of September 11. These countries have a definite interest in not being linked with the al-Qaeda, which is being hunted by the enraged U.S.

Irrespective of the nature of these regimes they could be utilized in the hunt for the al-Qaeda leaders. The Conservatives feel that by providing enough incentive to President Bashir Assad of Syria assistance could be got in tracking down the remaining elusive al-Qaeda elements as they are a disruptive lot to the current world order. This could be in a similar manner as George Bush's father did in getting assistance from President Assad's father in ousting Iraq from Kuwait.

(No End to War: The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict) Therefore it would be in the U.S. interests to make Syria an ally rather than enemy. The problem is that the neo-conservatives will not allow this as they do not want to narrow the list of targets to those that attacked the U.S. But rather expand it to include the enemies of Israel.

The Conservatives believe the strategy that needs to be used is one that collects all the centers of power as Bush I did during the Gulf War. He convinced Russia and China to be part of the Security Council resolution, Germany and Japan to finance the war and got troops from France and Britain and also from the Middle East countries of Syria and Egypt. In short he lined the world up against Iraq.

(No End to War: The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict) The Conservatives believe that of the three options available for the U.S. In Iraq, which are bringing.