Internal Conflict

By Devora Liss
UC Berkeley

Looming above our heads like an impeding storm, the question whether or not war on Iraq is justified remains unanswered. My conscience tells me one thing, my gut tells me another, and both contradict each other relentlessly.

Being a rational human being, I'm inclined to follow this logic: Saddam is an evil man with weapons no less devastating than his intentions. Therefore, conventional wisdom tells us to attack him before he attacks us. "Ha ba le'horgekha, hashkem le'horgo," (one who comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first) as the Talmud teaches us (Sanhedrin 72a), translates into a preemptive strike. Why postpone ousting Saddam with conventional weapons at the cost of letting him have the first strike that could potentially be of biological or nuclear nature?

Today everyone agrees that Israel's destruction of the reactor in 1981 placed a critical obstacle in Iraq's way towards reaching full nuclear power. Twenty one years (the lifetime of the author) later, Saddam has revived his country's weapon production and again poses a threat to both the Middle East and world at large. These two decades of stability and relative calm would not have been possible if it were not for Israel's remarkable mission.

Israel's role of involvement with Iraq did not end in 1981. In the midst of the Arab-Israeli conflict Saddam emerges with a vested interest in the promotion of suicide attacks against Israel. Going beyond the regular incitement we have all sadly grown accustomed to, he supports terrorism by providing the families of suicide bombers with a hefty gift of $25,000. Perhaps the key to ending these horrible attacks in Israel is cutting the monetary incentive at its source. $25,000 is a repulsive price to pay for the lives of innocent Israelis whose only crime was riding the bus.

Causing suffering is nothing new to Saddam. Refusing to comply with United Nation resolutions calling for disarming, he effectively subjects his people to suffering under the world's sanctions against his country.

Despite the evidence presented above, doubt still irks in my mind. Sometimes we forget that we are not strategizing for a game of Risk. Real missiles will fall on real towns while real soldiers are involved and real people are killed. Americans tend to forget this; the illusion we have created for ourselves gives us a false sense of security. The longer we perpetuate this notion, the harsher the wake-up call will be. Biological warfare is not unheard of in our world. Egyptian President Nasser gassed Yemen in 1967 and Saddam has used toxic gases against the Kurds. What makes us any safer than others who fall victim to those who believe that force is a legitimate means of persuasion? In lawyer jargon, the United States would be setting a dangerous precedent, one of a country reserving the right to topple another country's government through military attacks and without specific provocation. Under this logic, the al-Qaeda operatives were just in flying an airplane into the Pentagon; they attacked a government they did not approve of, punishing it for what it saw as evil ways.

Differences between the "western" way of thought and Middle Eastern mentality are almost innumerable. Assuming the US and its allies succeed in toppling the Iraqi government and destroying Saddam's rule, Arab humiliation would prevent coming to terms with an American victory, similar to the sentiment following Israel's miraculous victory of the 1967 Six Day War.

Furthermore, while the Arabs are anything but united, America and Israel are always a cause of agreement. Nothing will do marvels to the Arab street more than an American attack on Iraq. Living without basic personal freedoms, the only dissent tolerated in Arab countries is that directed against American and Israel. At this time, Israel cannot afford to fight on another front. World opinion is already turned against it, and retaliation against Iraq's missiles would not resonate well in Europe's eyes.

On a personal level, I fear for my friends and family in Israel. Ultimately, they will face running to the shelter, wearing a gas mask and worrying whether their country has been suddenly filled with toxic substances; an innocent bystander who happens to be in an unfortunate neighborhood.

Writing this article had little effect on determining my beliefs regarding war. While the merit of passivity is avoiding making a decision, neutrality is a difficult position to hold regarding an event of this magnitude. One thing I am sure of: the results of whatever happens should bring us one step close to achieving world peace, and creating a world where suicide bombers and biological weapons are not an accepted norm.

[Posted 3/2/03]