From Scotsman.com March 20, 2003

Palestine will be loser in this war

Professor Yasir Suleiman

THE timing of President Bush’s announcement to publish the "road map" to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was a clear indication of his determination to initiate military action against Iraq.

The announcement came to assuage the fears of the Arab countries, who wonder why Israel can be allowed to have the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, in an area in which its military occupation of Palestinian lands is the most serious threat to peace.

The Egyptians have proposed nuclear disarmament for the whole area, but Israel, with tacit American support, has refused to take part. The Arabs were not surprised. They think the American support extended to Israel is another example of Western hypocrisy, which speaks in one way and acts in another.

No wonder the Arabs feel threatened and angry at American double standards. One does not need rocket science to conclude that as long as the American leadership ignores the legitimacy of the Arab position, and refuses to respond to it positively, the Middle East will continue to seethe with anger. And it is this anger which is the source of the support for Saddam Hussein on the streets of the Arab capitals from the Atlantic to the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

The Arabs are also bewildered at the duplicity of the American position, which insists that Iraq must carry out its obligations as prescribed in a series of Security Council resolutions, but turns a blind eye to the larger number of UN resolutions on Palestine which Israel totally disregards. For the Arabs, this discrepancy smacks of immorality and even racism. Opinion poll after opinion poll in the Arab countries has shown that America’s blind support for Israel is a source of huge resentment, and that it is the reason for the "bad name" that the West generally has among Arabs and Muslims.

The Americans have the power to do something about this. They can stop the cycle of despair by saying to the Israelis: "Enough is enough". But they are unlikely to do so for reasons that are embedded in their own domestic politics and in the belief that Israel is a useful instrument of politically desirable instability in an area rich in oil.

Arabs have therefore concluded that as long as Middle Eastern instability does not threaten America’s interests, or those of its allies, the Americans will do what they have always done: to support Israel no matter what it does.

BUT there is another reason behind the timing of President Bush’s announcement. There is no doubt that he wanted it to be a reward to Tony Blair, who has come under enormous pressure at home and internationally for his support for the American position vis-à-vis Iraq. Over the past few months, Mr Blair has campaigned vigorously behind the scenes to convince the American administration that the Palestine issue is central to any serious attempt to fight terror and to dealing with Iraq.

It would seem that, at long last, President Bush has decided to listen. If this is the case, it is a great pity that it has taken the American administration something of the magnitude of the Iraq crisis to recognise what is blindingly obvious. It is therefore likely that the Bush announcement will be consigned to the rubbish bin of failed Middle Eastern initiatives. The announcement lacks conviction. It should have been accompanied with an American affirmation that the world will reverse Israel’s illegal acquisition of Palestinian territory, in the same way that the world community, led by the Americans, dealt with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. What the world needs at a time of crisis, such as the one it is facing at the moment, is a principled position. President Bush could have made his mark in history by proclaiming such a principle.

The Palestinian leadership have said that they are ready to discuss the road map to peace with members of the quartet (US, UN, EU, and Russia) and Israel. This is to be expected. The Palestinians have been starved of international diplomacy, and this is the only game in town. They are desperate to restore a semblance of normality to the shattered lives of their own people. They know that by accepting to talk they can get the economic support they desperately need to feed their starving people.

They have for this purpose accepted changes in their political structures to mollify the Americans and, to some extent, the British. And they have done so in the knowledge that Israel demanded these changes from the American administration.

The Israelis too have accepted the road map as a document for discussion. But, at the same time, they signalled very strongly that they wished to modify it to remove the milestones it contains. They seem to be adamantly opposed to a time limit of three years for establishing an independent Palestinian state.

Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has also signalled that progress in the implementation of the road map to peace will depend on the total cessation of violence on the part of the Palestinians. He knows that this is not possible as long as his repressive policies are in place, but this is the kind of get-out clause he wants to walk away from any peace negotiations. He has in fact been doing precisely that over the past two years.

Mr Sharon has indicated the Palestinians will have to accept deep territorial compromises, and that their presence in Jerusalem will be symbolic. In addition, he has demanded that the Palestinians drop their insistence on the right of return for the Palestinian refugees. Mr Sharon knows that no Palestinian can accept these conditions. This is why he is demanding them.

IF past experience is anything to go by, it is likely that the Israelis will have their way, thereby blocking the possibility of a historical compromise with the Palestinians. The Israelis will at least be able to procrastinate until such a time when they can reveal their real intention of limiting Palestinian statehood to the margins of viability. And once the Iraq crisis has become a distant memory, President Bush will feel that he would be unwise to accord more importance to the wise counsel of his friend, Tony Blair, than to the cheque books, and political and media support of those who can engineer for him a second term at the White House in the next elections.

As for the Palestinians, they will draw the conclusion theirs is the path of suffering, despair and resistance. And Heaven knows no fury like a people disenfranchised and scorned.

· Professor Yasir Suleiman is director of the Edinburgh Institute for the Advanced Study of the Arab World and Islam, based at Edinburgh University

Iraq fires back

BY IAN SWANSON

SADDAM HUSSEIN today hit back just hours after American forces tried to kill him in a surgical missile strike.

Four Scud missiles and two smaller Chinese-made missiles were reportedly fired at British and US forces in northern Kuwait, sending soldiers scrambling to put on gas masks.

But Kuwaiti officials said the missiles caused no damage and were carrying conventional warheads. At least two of the Scuds landed in the desert and reports said US Patriot missiles were used to intercept them.

The war against Iraq began at dawn as 40 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs were fired at Baghdad.

The CIA had told President George Bush it had located five senior Iraqi figures, including Saddam himself, in a residence in the south of the capital.

The surprise attack was launched in the hope of taking out the regime’s leadership in a single blow.

Military officials made clear it was not the start of the major onslaught against Iraq. But they described it as "a target of opportunity" that might not come again.

Some 45 minutes after the attack on Baghdad began, President Bush went on

television to tell the American people: "I assure you this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory."

But the Iraqi dictator appeared to have evaded the strike. Three hours after the first missiles rained down on Baghdad, Iraqi TV broadcast pictures of Saddam condemning the "criminal" assault on his country.

And Iraqi officials claimed the bomb and missile attacks had hit some non-military targets, killing at least one civilian and injuring others.

The Iraqi retaliation began a few hours later. Details of the type and number of missiles and their intended targets were unclear but no injuries were reported.

A Kuwaiti defence ministry spokesman said one Iraqi Scud hit northern Kuwait at about 0940 GMT, while US officers said two Scuds hit Kuwait, and another two were inbound.

US troops and journalists covering the conflict rushed to don chemical-protective suits as emergency air-raid sirens blared in Kuwait City.

Photographers were transmitting photographs back to Britain wearing gas masks. They had been given a "bunker call" to shelter from possible unconventional attack. Ten minutes later they were given the all-clear.

In Kuwait City, emergency air raid sirens blared, an all-clear was heard, and then fresh sirens were sounded.

A spokesman for the Kuwaiti military said one missile was intercepted, and the rest fell in northern Kuwait and in Kuwait Bay.

A security official said the city had not been hit by any Iraqi attack but added that unspecified blasts in the desert had echoed through the streets and unsettled residents.

In a slightly conflicting report, a British military spokesman said Iraq had fired just one Scud, which was brought down by a US Patriot missile defence battery.

"The debris is being investigated at this moment. What we can say is there are no casualties," said the spokesman at a US-British military headquarters in Qatar.

Iraq has denied it had any Scud missiles. The Soviet-designed weapons have a range of up to 650 km, exceeding the 150-km maximum limit imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

A British government report released in September last year said Saddam had retained up to 20 Scud missiles following the Gulf War.

Other analysts have estimated Iraq retained between 12 and 25 of the missiles, which would be capable of reaching Israel, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey and Iran.

Baghdad had been destroying its stock of al-Samoud missiles, a successor to the Scud, under the eyes of United Nations weapons inspectors. As of this week Iraq had scrapped about 70 of its 120 al-Samouds, which also exceed the 150-km range limit imposed by the UN.

Earlier Iraq fired two other missiles into the northern desert, but Kuwaiti officials described these weapons as smaller, Chinese-made missiles. The British spokesman said Iraq had fired two seersucker anti-ship missiles.

Washington today revealed that British SAS men and their American counterparts were already operating inside Iraq.

A spokesman said the Allied Special Forces were already in action preparing the way for the main attack by ground forces. Some of the special operatives were believed to be working to protect Iraqi oil fields and prevent Saddam setting fire to them.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed today’s US strike had been targeted at the Iraqi leadership.

He said: "This is simply a warning shot across the bows of the Iraqi leadership. They cannot rest, they cannot hide, we will simply deal with them. This is part of preparing for more substantial military operations that will undoubtedly take place shortly, but this is not in itself the start of a massive campaign against Iraq."

American military sources suggested limited US air raids would continue against Iraq for the next two or three days as part of a "pre-battle" plan ahead of a major assault.

Home Secretary David Blunkett warned people to be vigilant from a terrorist threat that "remains real and is serious."

He pledged that the Government was taking full precautionary measures to deal with events they could anticipate but could not guarantee "100 per cent security".

He said that rather than try to detain large numbers of Iraqi citizens as in the 1991 Gulf War, the Home Office was now interviewing and keeping under supervision the "very small number of people in this country who may be sympathetic to the Iraqi regime."

He said that more than some 2350 police officers had been trained in tackling chemical and biological attacks and the Department of Health had 360 mobile decontamination units.

As many as 20,000 Iraqi troops were today said to be ready to surrender rather than fight.

However, US-led forces fired back after Iraqi artillery opened fire on the Iraq-Kuwait border today, a Kuwait defence official said. "There was an exchange of artillery fire earlier in the morning. The Iraqis fired over the border. The coalition replied and put a stop to it," the official said.

Intelligence reports from Iraq spoke of "mass desertions", with thousands of troops planning to give themselves up when the war started.

US sources today claimed two divisions of the Iraqi army were already preparing to surrender - hours after a massive leaflet drop urging Saddam’s forces to give up or face death. Reports named the 11th Infantry Division and the 51st Mechanised Division as being prepared to lay down their weapons.

Up to 17 Iraqi soldiers gave themselves up to US-led forces at the Kuwaiti border, only hours before the deadline for Saddam to leave the country or face war. British reports said some Iraqis had tried to surrender to British forces but had been turned away because the war had not started.

The US military has encouraged Iraqi soldiers to surrender rather than risk annihilation, and US officials expect mass surrenders in the case of an invasion.

British and US aircraft dropped two million leaflets over south-eastern Iraq urging Iraqi soldiers not to use weapons of mass destruction or torch oil wells. They also advised them to lay down their weapons rather than die for a lost cause.

To avoid destruction, the leaflets advised, Iraqi soldiers should abandon their tanks and vehicles and gather in unarmed groups at least a half-mile away.

Iraq’s military has about 350,000 personnel. Iraq has six divisions of the elite Republican Guards, comprising three armoured, one mechanised and two infantry divisions. There are four elite Special Republican Guards brigades as part of a force designed to protect Saddam and the leadership. The regular army has 16 divisions, including 11 relatively low-grade infantry divisions. It also has five commando and two special forces brigades.

Transport Secretary and Edinburgh Central MP Alistair Darling said today: "It’s regrettable that it has come to conflict but we’ve got to see it through because if we had walked away Saddam Hussein would have known he wouldn’t have to disarm and give up his weapons of mass destruction."

From wn.com

U.S. Raids Afghan Villages for al-Qaida
About 1,000 US troops and attack helicopters swept into villages in southern Afghanistan on Thursday in a new military operation to flush out remaining al-Qaida terrorists and their allies, an Army spokesman said(US Air Force)...