³¼ISRAEL AND IRAQ¼³ 

³¼TWO OF A KIND ?¼³
¹

In the last issue of Top Secret, a Jor-
daninan guy named Dunhill of Conquerors 
seemed to be  quite  upset  about  some 
people, including me, writing anti-Sad-
dam articles. Some of  the  things  you 
say, mr. Dunhill, more  than scream for 
reactions.

First of all, your most  used  argument 
is, that "you  don't  understand  that, 
because you have no brain"! What a high 
level of  discussing! I  actually  won-
dered if it was worth the time to write 
a  reply  to  this, but  as your other, 
more relevant arguments, also contained 
some major misunderstandings, I felt, I 
had to react.

You keep asking, why UN forces  weren't 
used against Israel, when they attacked 
Palestine back in 1967. Well, this com-
parison, Israel-Palestine  to  Iraq-Ku-
wait, was also used by  Saddam Hussein, 
and  he  actually  managed to gain some 
understanding for  it, especially  from 
some, mostly  left-winged,  politicians 
in the West. BUT, the comparison is un-
fair, mr. Dunhill. After  World War II, 
the state of Israel was  founded by the 
UN, and it was attacked  by  it's  Arab 
neighbours only a few days after. Seve-
ral  attacks, both  military- and  ter-
rorism-attacks,  followed,  and   there
fore, Israel needed a security  zone to 
it's neighbours. Palestine became  this 
security-zone.

For some years now,  Israel  has  built 
many houses for Israeli families in the
occupied lands, and some  Israeli poli-
ticians  want  to  annex  the  occupied 
lands  in  Israel. Therefore,  it's  of 
course a bit difficult to call it a se-
curity zone  today. I'm  certainly  not 
suggesting, that Palestine should never 
be free, but you can't give  the  Pale-
stinians independence  just  like that. 
Some of the  occupied land  is  totally 
surrounded by  Israel, and  will  there
fore have to depend on  Israel  in  the 
future. In order for a free Palestinian 
state to work out, some things have  to 
be taken care of:

First of all, Israel must guarantee the 
independence of the Palestinian  state. 
Secondly, the  Palestinian  state  must 
guarantee the independence AND RIGHT TO
EXIST of Israel. Also,  democracy  must 
be established in the Palestinian  sta-
te, instead of just  handing  over  the 
power to   Mr. Arafat. The  Palestinian 
people must  be allowed to select their 
own leaders, not just the guys with the 
guns.

Another thing you mention, mr. Dunhill, 
is that the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. 
Shamir, has been wanted  for  terrorism 
activities. That's probably  correct, I 
have to admit,  that I  didn't  know HE 
was wanted, but  during the British oc-
cupation of  Palestine, now Israel, the 
first leader of  Israel,  Mr.  Menachem 
Begin, was a member of an, at that time 
so-called, terrorist-group. These "ter-
rorists" are of course considered  free
dom-fighters in Israel today. It's  al-
ways the winners of wars that write the 
history books, no doubt about  that. A-
nother example could be, that while the 
whole Western world was concerned about 
the   German  concentration  camps, the 
British  had  camps almost like that in 
Asia, but as the British won World  War 
II, that's not in the headlines  of the 
history books.

As I've  hopefully  made clear now, Mr. 
Dunhill,  I  don't  agree  with  you on  
your comparison of Iraq and Israel, but 
another thing: Even if the Israeli  oc-
cupation of Gaza and the Western  Bank, 
at the time it  took  place,  had  been 
considered wrong by many UN states, no-
thing could  have  been  done. At  that 
time, the  USA  and the USSR were still 
enemies, and if  one  of them supported 
one side in a war, you could  be  sure, 
that the other would support the  other 
side in  that  war. Therefore, the veto 
in the  UN  Security Council made sure, 
that no action could take place against 
Israel or any other state.

The attack on Saddam was performed only 
shortly after the fall of Communism  in 
Eastern Europe.  Therefore, the Soviets 
had enough trouble  of  their  own,  so 
they  let  the  USA  take  care of  the 
Middle East. In  fact,  it  was at that 
time, that the attacks  on  the  Baltic 
countries  were performed,  and  I  be-
lieve, that  an unofficial agreement be
tween the USA and the USSR existed: "If 
you let us handle Iraq,  we'll let  you 
handle  the  Baltic  countries".  Think 
about that!

Now, another  thing  you  write,  which 
really upset me, is, that the Kurds had
attacked the Iraqi "people"! The  Kurds 
are just fighting Saddam, who, like you 
reluctantly admit, attacked  them  with 
chemical  weapons. Remember, that  Sad-
dam's  army   was   also   attacked  in 
southern Iraq  after Desert Storm, down
there it was by Iraqis, who didn't sup-
port him, and who now saw the chance to 
get rid of him. Saddam Hussein does NOT 
represent the Iraqi  people.  First  of 
all,  elections  never  take  place  in 
Iraq, and  the  so-called Iraqi parlia-
ment consists only of members  of  Sad-
dam's Arab-Socialist Baath-party. Then, 
of course a dictator can be very  popu-
lar, but Saddam is a  Sunni-Moslem, and 
the Sunnis are only about 20 %  of  the 
people in Iraq, while the Shias are al-
most all the  rest (that's  one  reason 
for the war against Iran, by the  way). 
As a Jordanian, and Arab, living in the 
Middle East,  where  religion  plays  a 
major role in  daily  life, you  should 
know, mr. Dunhill, that a guy represen-
ting a religious minority in  Iraq  can 
never be popular among his people.

PS: Mr. Dunhill, you call me "The hand-
some Mr. Estrup"! Not very relevant for 
the article, but how can you know, that
I'm handsome? Good guess, anyway!

                 
                ³ By Estrup/Static Bytes¹