The Peace Movement is Making a Mistake
By Bill and Kathleen Christison, CounterPunch, January 21, 2003
Oil Shouldn't Be the Only Reason for Opposing This War -- Amy Goodman said it (speech in Albuquerque, Saturday, January 18). Robert Fisk wrote it (The Independent, same day). Much of the U.S. Peace Movement talked about it (in demonstrations around the country, same day). On that day of all days, when the peace movement went into high gear around the United States, just about everybody seemed to emphasize, as Amy put it, "a three-letter word, O-I-L" as the real reason the Bush administration wants war in Iraq. Some peace advocates also mentioned the U.S. drive for global domination as a related reason. Few (we heard none) discussed Israeli policy and the increasingly close partnership between the Bush and Sharon governments as a factor at least as important as oil in pushing the U.S. toward war. Some people who oppose war in Iraq undoubtedly have a strong and sincere belief that no connection exists between the Israel-Palestine issue and U.S. policy on Iraq. More people, however, perhaps the vast majority of those who oppose the war, believe it is wise tactically to soft-pedal any Israeli connection to the war. The peace movement, after all, needs whatever support it can get, and many supporters of Israel also oppose war on Iraq even if the present Israeli government does not. Supporters of Israel tend to bristle at any effort to link Israel to the U.S war effort. So the thinking most likely goes like this: Why bring up the issue? We need the biggest coalition we can cobble together. Let's bury other differences where we can. (No one would ever charge either Amy Goodman or Robert Fisk with coddling Israeli or Jewish-American sensibilities, but they may indeed believe that stopping the war is the number-one priority and that oil is the best and most unifying issue we have.) But this approach is shortsighted and mistaken. Why? First, the evidence that Ariel Sharon has since the 1980s fervently desired the ouster of Iraq's present government and other troublesome Arab regimes as part of "transforming" the entire Middle East to Israel's benefit is crystal clear.

Aiding Israel In Ending the Settlements
By Debra DeLee (president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now), January 21, 2003
The past 26 months have been brutally violent and financially wrenching for the state of Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has requested some $12 billion in new military and economic assistance from the United States to help Israel grapple with its national trauma. Yet he is unwilling to consider stopping the flow of money being lavished on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, a policy that squanders Israeli resources, weakens its military posture and threatens Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic state. Americans for Peace Now supports the annual U.S. aid package to Israel as necessary for bolstering Israeli defenses in a tough neighborhood and helping nurture its economic development. But if the United States truly wants to demonstrate its concern for Israel's future, it should insist on conditions for the new economic aid that will compel Israel to reverse its settlements policy. There is no question that Israel's economy has taken a severe beating over the past few years. Unemployment is rampant, investors are scarce, and poverty is growing. The intifada, the worldwide recession and the collapse of the high-tech industry have all contributed to Israel's financial decline. Further, Israel has been forced to spend more on security in order to respond to horrific terrorist attacks and prepare for the consequences of a possible U.S.-led war on Iraq. For these reasons, Israel's request for additional military aid should be granted. Its request for new economic aid in the form of loan guarantees should be granted, too.

A Stirring in the Nation
Editorial, New York Times, January 20, 2003
A largely missing ingredient in the nascent debate about invading Iraq showed up on the streets of major cities over the weekend as crowds of peaceable protesters marched in a demand to be heard. They represented what appears to be a large segment of the American public that remains unconvinced that the Iraqi threat warrants the use of military force at this juncture. Denouncing the war plan as an administration idée fixe that will undermine America's standing in the world, stir unrest in the Mideast and damage the American economy, the protesters in Washington massed on Saturday for what police described as the largest antiwar rally at the Capitol since the Vietnam era. It was impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers — from young college students to grayheads with vivid protest memories of the 60's. They gathered from near and far by the tens of thousands, galvanized by the possibility that President Bush will soon order American forces to attack Iraq even without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Bush and his war cabinet would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the administration's plans because of the shock of Sept. 11 and that many harbor serious doubts about his march toward war. The protesters are raising some nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and aftermath of the war the president is contemplating. Millions of Americans who did not march share the concerns and have yet to hear Mr. Bush make a persuasive case that combat operations are the only way to respond to Saddam Hussein.

Remembering the Real Martin Luther King
By Stephen Zunes, Common Dreams, January 20, 2003, 
Twelve years ago, at a forum honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., some participants wanted to take the opportunity to make a statement opposing the Gulf War that had just broken out in the Middle East. The organizers objected, saying they did not want to detract from the message honoring King’s memory. Few who ever knew King and his work, however, could miss the irony of the organizers’ objections, for there is no question that had King still been alive he would have forcefully spoken out against the war, as he did all war. As we celebrate his birthday on what may be the verge of another Gulf War, it is important to recognize that King – who would have turned 74 last week – would have unquestionably been on the forefront of the burgeoning movement opposing a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most people who learn about Martin Luther King. in school learn about Montgomery, Birmingham, Selma, the march on Washington and his other great accomplishments in leading the movement to end legal racial segregation in the South. Yet King saw that Jim Crow laws were but one manifestation of injustice in American society. King also opposed the de facto segregation in housing and other manifestations of racism in the north; he challenged the draining of our national resources for the military; he passionately opposed the Vietnam War and other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. He also questioned the very economic system which allowed for such enormous poverty in the midst of such great wealth. He died while planning the Poor People’s March, where he was to lead thousands of poor Americans — black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indians — to Washington, DC to demand not just racial justice, but economic justice.

Hearts and Flowers
By Annie Higgins, The Electronic Intifada, January 20, 2003
Every home has flowers. "It's because we want to show that we still find beauty in spite of all the difficult conditions," explains Im Ayman. But I suspect the tradition pre-dates Israel's oppression. It must have its roots in the ancient gardens of peasants and urban classes alike, in a common appreciation of nature's gifts. And they are reproduced in profusion: red and yellow roses complete with dew drops in a ceramic bowl, pink flowers in a basket with the handle as a halo, apricot blossoms amid deep green leaves in a white ceramic shell, delicate yellow petals adorning the inside of a large cutaway jug. They are everywhere, in living rooms, on the school principal's desk, as a backdrop in the photography studio, and hanging from the rear-view mirror of the taxi. One young man's white sportscar-to-die-for has a sleek black interior free of any ornamentation save a single red rose at the glove compartment. Climbing roses in twin frames deck Siham's kitchen wall. In another home, twin martyrs look out from a hinged double frame, each boy's photo graced by an oversized red flower between the portrait and the glass.

A taste of the right-wing government to come
By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz, January 21, 2003
Last Friday, a few hours before the attack on Hill 26, a Cessna flew through the clouds over the area south of Hebron. Dror Atkas, who tracks settlement construction for Peace Now, looked out the window, and pointed down at a group of white cubes at the end of a dirt road that led to the top of one of the hills. "That's a new settlement," he said. "The last time we were here, they weren't there. That's how a new settlement begins." We didn't manage to see Hill 26 on Friday. The clouds also hid Havat Maon, those mobile homes evacuated by order of Benjamin Ben-Eliezer but in effect only moved to a nearby hill. But throughout the area north of Hebron the skies were clear. We could see the houses and trailers and mobile homes at the 55 outposts grabbed under the cover of the "unity government." Atkas says that on foot he found that 39 of them are populated at least part of the time. Five others have been thinned out, but they still exist. Only nine outposts - all uninhabited - were completely dismantled at the time. A week ago, the defense minister officially stated that Shaul Mofaz had finished studying the outpost issue. The office also said all the illegal outposts included in the list prepared by the professionals to the previous defense minister, Ben-Eliezer, were dismantled to the foundations. A flight over the West Bank and the Peace Now report show that not only are most of the outposts that Ben-Eliezer ordered dismantled are still in place, but while Mofaz was "studying" the issue, at least five more were added. Shima'a Tzafon went up south of Hebron; a new hilltop outpost went up 200 meters from Southeast Yitzhar; new mobile homes have popped up between Alonei Shiloh and Karnei Shomron/Neve Menachem; two new mobile homes were added to Havat Yair; and 4-5 new mobile homes were added near Metzudat Yehuda south of Hebron.

The Jenin Story Will Finally Be Told
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, January 20, 2003
SEATTLE (PalestineChronicle.com) - I sat quietly, gazing at a pale concrete wall. The imprint from an absent framed photograph was engraved in the thick, gray dust. The missing framed picture, I imagined, was Palestinian. Instead, a poster, covered with Hebrew writing replaced it, hanging tastelessly, strapped up with duct tape. It didn’t belong there, I thought to myself. Yet I didn‘t dare share my thoughts with anyone, as I was extremely cautious of the Israeli intelligence officer, who was glaring at me, and two other Palestinians. My fellow Palestinians curled up in their chairs, trying to be invisible, and awaited their fate. This wasn’t a trial in an Israeli military court, although it felt that way. It was the border between Amman, Jordan and the West Bank in April, 2002, less than a month after the major invasion of the West Bank, the Jenin atrocities and the mass graves in Nablus. How I wished for the friendly faces of the Palestinian workers to replace these Israeli soldiers, who retook the border point and hung an Israeli flag where a Palestinian flag once waved. I wasn’t out of my mind, as many friends and relatives suggested once they learned that I was heading to the West Bank, which at the time was undergoing a curfew and a bloodbath. In fact, I was very clear about my objective. I was setting out to visit the refugee camp of Jenin. It was not only the anguish of so many innocents that compelled me to travel to Jenin. It was my concern that Israel might end up re-writing history yet one more time.

The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung
By Uri Avnery, Palestine Chronicle, January 20, 2003 
What is the difference between soap and a political leader? Ask any of the "experts", copywriters and "strategists", and he will tell you: None. Selling soap and selling a leader is one and the same. One does marketing research, finds out what the consumers (= the voters) want and gives it to them. All one needs is some good copywriters. My own answer is: There is a hell of a difference. Who am I to talk? Well, I am not quite an outsider. I have fought four hard election campaigns, three on behalf of the Haolam Hazeh - New Force Movement (1965, 1969, 1973) and one on behalf of the Sheli party (1977). I won three and lost one. I have tasted both victory and defeat and know the pressures, provocations and temptations lying in wait. In this respect there is really not much of a difference between the campaigns of a small and a big party.

Hazards of Uranium weapons in the proposed war on Iraq
Dai Williams, Eos Life-Work, September 22, 2002
Uranium weapons in 2001-2003: Occupational, public and environmental health issues -- This is a new analysis that questions the weapons that may be used by US and allied forces in the proposed war on Iraq and issues arising for international decision makers and media. The use of these weapons may create serious and permanent health hazards for troops, expatriate civilians and the Iraqi population. This report updates information and issues raised in Depleted Uranium weapons 2001-2002 (http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm ) concerning the suspected use of Uranium warheads in a new generation of hard target guided weapons. It questioned their use in Iraq and the Balkans since 1991 and immediate health and safety issues for civilians and troops from their use in Afghanistan. All the suspected Uranium weapons used in Afghanistan, plus several new systems under development and ground launched anti-armor weapons not deployed in Afghanistan are likely to be used in the proposed new offensive against Iraq. Some are already operational in the Iraq no-fly zones.

Russia and Iraq
Editorial, Arab News, January 21, 2003
Washington certainly will not have been pleased, but this week’s deal between Iraq and Russian oil and gas companies may be as politically significant as it is commercially. The oil field development deals for Russian firms Stroitransgas and Soyuzneftgas and the return of Lukoil to the West Kurna oil field, from which it has been thrown out last year, for failing to start contracted work, is something of a business triumph. Russian oil companies already have a direct interest in a third of Iraqi oil and gas production. The question now is whether those assets will be worth very much in the event of a US attack. While Washington’s war planes are unlikely to target oil field installations, Saddam Hussein demonstrated in Kuwait that his regime has made a specialty of blowing them up itself. In the worst-case analysis, one of Saddam’s final acts might be to order the destruction of Iraqi well heads. However, in the long term this would be a futile gesture as Kuwait also proved. What the Russians have done is to increase their position in the Iraqi oil market at a time when Saddam is increasingly desperate for any lever that might ward off American aggression.