BARAK ON IRAQ

Liberals are confused about Ehud Barak's hawkishness on Iraq. How, after all, could the man that put his political life on the line for peace at Camp David be pushing for an U.S. attack on Iraq? Isn't that just the position of Sharon, the Likud, the messianic settlers (you know, the Israeli bad guys). Does this mean that Barak has gone to the "dark side"? No, what this reflects instead is the shallow understanding of liberal pundits (even a light of Veritas like Matthew Yglesias) when it comes to war and peace in the Middle East.

The Israeli consensus on Iraq extends far past a core of hard-line Likudniks. It is embraced by the High Priest of Oslo himself, Shimon Peres. From its inception, the Labor-Likud debate on the merits of Olso was mirrored by a similar debate on Israel's strategic threats. Likud's security experts argued that Israel's main existential threat remained its vulnerability to a ground invasion, and thus it was essential to retain the defensive high ground of the Golan Heights and the West Bank ridge. Labor's security experts, on the other hand, felt that Israel's greatest existential threat came from weapons of mass destruction delivered by intermediate missiles. Thus, Labor believed that Oslo would enhance Israeli security by resolving the Palestinian conflict (and a Golan deal would settle the Syrian border), allowing Israel to focus on the greater threat - an Iraqi or Iranian drive towards regional hegemony powered by unconventional weapons. Likud, on the other hand, felt that the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank would make Israel's dense coastal plain a tempting target for terror or other military attacks.

Seen in this context, therefore, it is unsurprising that all of Labor's leaders from Peres to Barak are hawkish on Iraq. In their minds, if Hussein is not taken out, he will eventually launch a non-conventional attack against Israel. This is something that is inevitable, not provokable. Thus, it is better to remove Hussein now, when he is relatively weak, than to wait until he has a greater capacity to harm Israel. Finally, it is precisely because of Labor's commitment to a negotiated peace with the Palestinians that they support the removal of Hussein's regime. With Oslo in tatters, all but the most myopic of the Labor party realize that a major shake-up has to occur to get any peace process back on track. The overthrow of Hussein will send shockwaves throughout the Arab world, weakening radicals and strengthening pragmatists. And if its influence is strong enough for the Palestinians more sensible leaders to sack Arafat, institute reforms, crack down on terror and return to good-faith negotiations - it may accomplish the impossible task of bringing Labor back from the dead.