By Hakam Al-Samarrai
Imagine this if you will (it may not be so difficult, as the
following might sound familiar): a sovereign country in the Middle
East feels that it has been wronged, that its security, dignity and
people have been threatened by another country, and thus proceeds
to move troops and tanks outside its borders, attacking what it
believes are government facilities and personnel ““ and
anything else it feels could constitute a threat. It is clear that
this attacking force is a superior power, and shows no sign of
relenting.
Then imagine that President Bush, much like the United Nations,
condemns the actions, but also warns the governmental powers of the
country in question to pull out, to stop the aggressive actions.
But the warnings go unheeded because the country in question
believes that the United States is an ally.
Then imagine that President Bush, seeing that he is being
ignored, gives the country an ultimatum ““ pull out or else.
And still the warnings go unheeded. So the United States forces
take action, making an alliance with other countries who want the
matter resolved. They work together to bomb the hell out of the
country in question, destroying their military forces and weapons
(which for the most part were trained and purchased from the United
States in the first place), eliminating the infrastructure.
In the end, the country finally yields to the United
States’ power. But the story doesn’t end there.
Instead, President Bush demands that the country in question be
disarmed of all “weapons of mass destruction,”
including any nuclear weapons and/or programs in the works. For
more than a decade the country is kept under the strictest of
embargoes ““ the economy and lives of country’s millions
of citizens in the tight grasp of the United States.
By now it’s apparent the preceding scenario is a mix of
two different periods, and ironically enough, there are two
different Presidents Bush (senior and junior) leading the U.S.
The scenario is a reasonable account of what has been happening
recently in Israel, and could clearly be applied to Iraq and Kuwait
12 years ago. But the continuation of the story has only been the
fate of Iraq, and I seriously doubt that Israel would face anything
even remotely close to that possibility. Regardless, it is evident
that there exists a double standard in American policy concerning
these two countries, Israel and Iraq.
Let us review. Both countries have violated U.N. laws, ignored
U.N. resolutions, and been accused of violating international laws,
humanitarian and otherwise. Israel, however has had the powerful
support of the U.S. veto power in the United Nations almost any
time its actions are to be condemned.
Both Israel and Iraq have leaders, Prime Minister Sharon and
President Hussein respectively, who have been accused of ordering
the deaths of thousands of innocent people. While many countries in
Europe and throughout the world supported the creation of Israel,
countries like France changed their views and opinions after 1967,
when it became clear that Israel was becoming the aggressor and not
the victim.
Countries around the world are greatly offended by Israel, and
disturbed by the actions being taken, not because these countries
are anti-Semitic, but rather because a grave injustice is being
committed. As our current President Bush stands ready to take
action against Iraq, he takes relatively little or no action toward
Israel and Sharon. Why is this? Is it because Hussein is seen as a
dictator and Sharon isn’t?
Regardless of title, Sharon does not have a better reputation or
history, and is just as unlikely of winning the Nobel Peace Prize
as Hussein. Maybe it’s because we have different officials in
office now than we did a decade ago. Or do we? We have a Bush who
despises Hussein as much as his father did, a Cheney, a Powell, and
all their underlings with the same mind-set as before ““
perhaps we could title them the Bush Family “Regime,” a
term that the rest of American media has no problem throwing
around.
Or perhaps the U.S. has its hands tied by powerful pro-Israeli
lobby groups. It is no secret that Israel has some very powerful
supporters in the U.S., perhaps most evident by the amount of
financial aid that goes to the country (more than any other foreign
aid distributed by the United States) from our collective tax
dollars. If Iraq had such powerful lobbying groups in the United
States, they would have had no problem in the past.
Just as the actions of Iraq could neither be justified nor
condoned, the same holds true for Israel today. Neither the Iraqis
or the Israelis can be denied a safe and plentiful existence as a
result of a stubborn ruler and American foreign policy. There is no
acceptable reason that Iraq should face continuing embargoes while
Israel be free of them. Holding these two countries to different
standards only deems one human life more worthy than another.