Iraqis See Israel as Culprit in Bombings

BAGHDAD — As the bombing disaster early this week is cemented into people’s consciousness, three emotions dominate: anger, ambivalence about the U.S. role in Iraq and a desire to lay blame at the door of adversaries rather than fellow Muslims.

“I am sure that the people who did this are enemies of Iraq, not the enemies of the Americans,” Dunya Khalil Ismail, a 28-year-old college lecturer, said as she left work Wednesday. “Whether it was the Israelis or the Americans themselves, they are aiming at us.

“It started with the war, and this is just another stage,” she said. “I don’t know what can be done. The Americans have everything in their hands.”

Ismail is one of many people here -- rich and poor, religious and secular -- who see Israel as being behind the suicide bombings Monday at the International Committee of the Red Cross and three police stations, which killed at least 35 people and wounded more than 200. It might be an idea that seems farfetched to many Americans, but seen through Iraqi eyes, it has a kind of logic.

The reasoning goes like this: The people who masterminded the bombings wanted to hurt Iraqis, the vast majority of the victims. Who are Iraq’s enemies? Israel is the one nearest at hand and the one that, it is widely assumed here, urged the U.S. to remove President Saddam Hussein. Who will benefit if chaos weakens Iraq? Again, Israel, because it will feel safer. And if Iraq is chaotic, it may force the Americans to keep troops in the country longer. Who wants American troops on Arab soil? Again, the answer is Israel.

And if that line of thought is true, then is there anyone who can be counted on to bring stability to the country? The answer for many Iraqis is that they face a violent and uncertain future.

The alternative view -- that Israel and the U.S. want an Iraqi partner rather than a subject, and have much to gain from this country becoming stable -- is often greeted with a dismissive shake of the head.

The attacks Monday left many here confused about where to turn for protection. Those who support the U.S. presence say, for the most part, that American soldiers have been too lax. But few believe that the Iraqi police are the answer.

“Where are the checkpoints around Baghdad? Where are the surprise searches, the police dogs?” said Mouwafak Rabii, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, who wants to see all responsibility for security handed over to the new police force and to special militias or police under the control of still-unformed units of the Interior Ministry.

“They should be much firmer, and if Americans see a quarrel between two Iraqis they should intervene to stop it,” said Mohammed Mashidir, 62, a retiree who lives in the working-class Al Washash neighborhood.

“We don’t know who did this, but maybe Israel is behind this. Saddam would never do such a thing,” he said. “I am one of those Iraqis who is longing for the time of Saddam Hussein. During his time we used to sleep peacefully.”

Lost in the desire to find some solution is the reality that when U.S. troops have been tough, the results at times have been disastrous -- with soldiers shooting randomly at civilians who fail to halt at checkpoints or humiliating Iraqis with intrusive searches. The American solution has been to replace U.S. soldiers with Iraqis, but many say that offers little comfort.

“We don’t have real confidence in the Iraqi police,” said Abdul Kareem, who runs an import-export business and was sporting a Western coat and tie as he visited some friends at Mustansiriya University. “Most of the newly recruited Iraqi police are inexperienced, and some even were thieves or were involved in the looting.”

Students at the Baghdad university said security was so poor that rumors of a bomb at the school over the coming weekend had elicited mass panic and many students were planning to stay home. “My parents will not let me come,” said Noor Ahmed, 21, as she sat talking in the university courtyard with friends.

In the minds of many, the bombings Monday brought out the stark distinction between attacks on Americans -- military and civilian -- and those aimed at Iraqis. The distinction highlights the difficulty Americans face in getting the needed intelligence to help thwart clashes that are killing or injuring soldiers nearly every day.

For Suhaib Sultan, 27, a surgical resident at Al Numan hospital, where many of the injured were taken after the bombings, it takes American deaths to convey the message that the U.S. is failing to keep Iraq safe and get it to function again.

“I was so glad about the bombing of the Al Rashid,” he said, referring to the Baghdad hotel where many American military and government officials live and which on Sunday was struck with rockets. But the attacks Monday saddened him.

“In the Al Rashid, all the people are members of the occupation forces. They are taking our souls, our oil. They are not doing anything for us. They are just talking.... I hope what happened in the Al Rashid forces them to rethink their ideas,” he said during a break Monday.

But none of that necessarily means that Americans are being encouraged to withdraw from the field. Instead, many Iraqis say the U.S. has a responsibility to deliver the security that makes streets and neighborhoods safe, and they believe the U.S. has an almost omnipotent power to make things better.

“They need to be serious in doing their job. Bush is president of the United States. How can it be that he cannot do something about security?” said Ismail, the lecturer.

“He is controlling the world. He could get rid of the regime we had for 35 years, but he can’t control a few saboteurs, a few thieves, a few groups? Do they think we’re naive? Of course they can do something.”

But that conclusion is far from certain.