NEWS ANALYSIS : Danger to Israel May Help Heal Ties With U.S.

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait has mixed implications for Israel, which finds itself in a more dangerous Middle East environment but which may now be able to repair frayed relations with the United States, Israeli observers say.

Indeed, some experts have concluded that Washington suddenly will rediscover Israel as an important military ally in an unstable region.

There is alarm in Israel that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, an avowed foe of Israel, showed a bold willingness to act without restraint in the face of adverse global opinion.

He might do so in the future against Israel, it is feared. Hussein already has threatened to obliterate half of Israel with chemical weapons if the Israelis launch any attack on Iraq or other Arab states.

Zeev Shiff, the defense analyst for the Haaretz newspaper in Tel Aviv, wrote in the wake of Thursday’s invasion: “The central lesson for Israel is that, even if one is talking about a threat which is not immediate in a geographical sense, it must be more prepared than today against the Iraqi threat under . . . Saddam Hussein.”

“In the medium term, the situation is bad because Saddam Hussein will be more daring,” said Emmanuel Sivan, a Middle East expert at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “I can predict he will test us and take more direct moves. We have deterrent capacity, but then, we may not use it. The possibility of a misunderstanding is great.”

Just last month, a senior Israeli official said any Iraqi use of gas weapons would bring an equal response from Israel. It was the first time that Israel publicly admitted to possessing chemical arms.

Iraq’s ill-defined territorial ambitions also worry Israel. Suddenly, the security of Jordan as a buffer state between Iraq and Israel has taken on paramount importance.

Israel has persistently warned the government of Jordan’s King Hussein not to permit Iraq to establish any kind of military bulwark in his country. But at just what point would Israel react?

“We cannot exclude the possibility that (Saddam Hussein) will start creeping into Jordan,” according to one Israeli analyst.

During the last two years, Jordan has permitted Iraqi spy planes to overfly its territory on missions directed against Israel. Jordan and Iraq also formed a joint air squadron, although its exact strength has not been publicized.

On the other hand, King Hussein (no relation to Saddam Hussein) recently announced that he will not permit foreign troops on Jordanian soil.

“King Hussein is sending out mixed signals. He must decide whether Iraq is a help or a danger,” said Dore Gold, a defense analyst at Tel Aviv’s Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.

In addition, there is a psychological side to Saddam Hussein’s war-making that also appears to endanger Israel. By styling himself as a sort of modern Saladin, he hopes to become the heroic figure, something missing from the Arab horizon for many years. Saladin, who turned back the Crusader advance in the Holy Land, was also the conqueror of Jerusalem.

In general, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait marks the revival of pan-Arabism as a vital ideology in the Middle East. Kuwait is exactly the kind of country that is anathema to Arabs who believe that regional greatness can only be achieved when there is an Arab nation stretching from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Euphrates River.

Countries such as Kuwait pay lip service to the pan-Arab ideal but in action are jealous of their small sovereignties--to the point, charged Saddam Hussein, of undermining Arab economies by overproducing oil and keeping down the price.

“No tears have been shed for Kuwait (in the Arab world),” Sivan said. “As long as (Hussein) appears to be the new Saladin, there is a chance of war.”

Israel, however, is far more offensive to pan-Arabists than Kuwait. Viewed as a Western implant in the Arab world, no dream of Arab grandeur is complete without Israeli statehood being erased.

Within this more apocalyptic landscape, there emerged a sense that Israel’s relations with the Bush Administration, strained by differences over resolving Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, may quickly mend.

The rightist Israeli government no longer feels pressure to settle the Palestinian conflict, many observers argued, and stalled plans for peace talks may be put aside indefinitely without much protest from Washington.

The parochial issues of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip have been pushed into the background by the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, now underwritten by an Iraq armed with chemical weapons, missiles, an outsized army and oil money to back it all up.

Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy is scheduled to visit Washington next week, and Israeli observers believe that the pressure on him to produce a workable plan for peace talks is off.

“This is the nail in the coffin of the peace process,” said Meron Benvenisti, an expert on the Palestinian issue. “Attention has been diverted to the external threat, and so internal threats are ignored. In the Palestinian conflict, you have the core and the periphery--and it is the periphery that is being emphasized now.”

Talk about reducing U.S. aid to Israel, a recent topic of heated debate in Washington, also may dissipate as the Administration seeks to shore up its friends.

“This (the invasion) will dampen any talk of cuts,” Gold said. “The greatest threat to U.S. security interests is in the Middle East and from Iraq. Under these conditions, it will be very difficult to cut aid to Israel.”

The invasion of Kuwait also may strike a death blow to the intifada , or Palestinian uprising, as the main engine for Palestinian independence. Already, the uprising had been weakened by fatigue, failure to win diplomatic advantage and the ascension of a hard-line, no-compromise government in Israel.

Not only has Iraq’s new muscle diverted attention away from the intifada, but it is likely to attract admiration among Palestinians under occupation and in exile.

“The situation is like a Greek tragedy, as there are always outside forces which affect the Israelis and Palestinians. In this case, there is nothing Israel could have done--and nothing the Palestinians could have done, either. They are just pawns in the game,” Benvenisti said.

Palestinian politician Elias Freij, the mayor of Bethlehem, added glumly: “We the Palestinians are entering a deep freeze of 60 degrees below zero.”

A few observers suggested that Israel should take the opportunity to strike a deal with the Palestinians, apart from whatever Iraq is up to.

“A settlement is an existential imperative for the Israelis and Palestinians,” said Yehoshafat Harkabi, a professor at Hebrew University. “They cannot circumvent it. In the world, this issue might appear to be less important, but not in Israel.”

Beyond all these dark clouds, some observers saw new diplomatic possibilities for Israel. Could a strange-bedfellow alliance of Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia emerge because all feel threatened by Iraqi hegemony? Could these states, along with Jordan and the Palestinians, decisively bring about the elusive comprehensive Mideast settlement that would give Israel security on its borders in exchange for a deterrent backbone to resist Iraq?

“The invasion has opened up possibilities that could never before be envisaged,” Sivan said.