I think we're all off-base to one degree or another when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Too dense and depressing a topic, and I think that's what leads some to use terms like "genocide" to describe what seems to be an endless tragedy. It's akin to throwing up our hands and saying "Fuck analysis -- so-and-so are just Nazis!" and leaving it at that. Easier to define. Less strain.
Linking I/P to Iraq will not be easy, though there are plenty of links already, from the history of Israel's backing of Saddam (to keep Shia nationalism in check) to Saddam encouraging and paying suicide/homicide bombers in the territories.
That's why it's important, in my view, to ask, if not war with Saddam, then what? Because you can't advance any decent position on the Middle East without answering that question. It's easy and terribly smug to chant "US Out of the Middle East!," but what does that really mean? The US is deeply connected there (in mostly negative ways, true), and played a significant role in helping Saddam build his war machine and feeding his territorial ambition. A retreat to isolationism, or something similar, isn't gonna work, and may cause more bloodshed down the road.
I don't know the answer, comrades. It's a tough region to deal with, the only region I've studied where turning each page was like lifting marble, so heavy the history and the probable future.
DP