For a nuclear-free Middle East
By Karen Asfour, The Electronic Intifada, January 20, 2003
The wheels of war roll on and it appears the world is getting closer to some type of armed conflict in the Middle East. In Pentagon war rooms, where the military huddle, planning for the coming battle, the possibility of using "low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons" is being discussed. This is not only being debated in the United States but is also being debated in Israel, America's closest ally and military partner in the Middle East and the only country in the region that hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). According to Robert W. Nelson in The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists (January/February 2001 Volume 54, Number 1), "even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas and would...necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15-kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout." A discussion alone of this missile's capability is a chilling prospect and its usage would be a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, which the United States signed on July 1, 1968. This treaty, entered into force on March 5, 1970, has 187 state parties as signatories, making it the most widely supported arms control treaty ever. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan are the only states yet to join the NPT and, with Cuba's voiced intention in 2002 to sign, they are the only three countries with significant nuclear activities that remain outside the NPT.

Open Letter To The American Public
By Paul Dean, Dissident Voice, January 20, 2003
Don’t Tolerate Media Disinformation About the Massive and Rapidly Growing Anti-War Movement -- Dear Friends, Family, and concerned citizens, I am writing this in an attempt to provide an accurate (albeit admittedly emotional) firsthand account of the Jan. 18th peace rally in San Francisco.  After reading national news accounts of the event, (CNN,  NBC ABC, CBS etc.) I have come to the not-so-surprising conclusion that our corporate media is reaching new lows in an attempt to delude citizens about the size, scope and commitment of the opposition to the Bush war agenda. The event in San Francisco was, by any measure, huge with a capital HUGE. There was no vantage point on the ground from which any observer could hope to survey the extent of the crowd. CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS all described the crowd size as “tens of thousands of people.” None of them carried a single photo on their web sites from the San Francisco march, to accompany their (completely inadequate) descriptions of the event. The Sunday San Francisco Chronicle did, however, print several photos which give the viewer some sense of the enormity of the event. These can be viewed on www.commondreams.org. One of them, either an aerial photo, or taken from a very tall building, shows an enormous, densely packed crowd that obviously expands well beyond what could be captured by the camera’s viewpoint. The other, taken near the right side of the stage, shows the view from the Civic Center. That perspective also shows a massive crowd. We were, for most of the event, several hundred yards to the right of the point at which that photo was taken, far outside the frame, and there were tens of thousands of people in that area alone. In addition, no one anywhere near the front could tell where the back of the crowd ended. I spoke to people who claimed that marchers were still crowding into the square more than two hours after the event officially began.

The people will choose disaster
By Gideon Samet, Ha'aretz, January 22, 2003  
Shimon Peres' meteoric rise to a position of near virtual victory in the polls is not quite one of the most surprising symbols of this disturbed election campaign. It is disturbed - and dangerous - because the voters support what is impossible in reality, an absurd transformation of Peres into prime minister, against the expected re-election of Sharon to a job in which he has betrayed every promise he made the first time. Nothing impossible is foreign to voters in this campaign in the land of opposites. It is no wonder, for example, that a majority still exists for the last thing the political system is able to produce - a compromise with the Palestinians. At the same the majority votes absolutely against it. Frantically, the voters are running in hordes to Shinui, which rules out Shas, so therefore won't enable the Likud to satisfy another national passion - to get together again under a unity government. In the midst of an economic catastrophe their preferences at the polls are for the party that brought it on.

Mystery surrounds killing of two Palestinians in Occupied Gaza
By Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, January 16, 2003
"Two Palestinians threw grenades Monday at an Israeli bus in the Gaza Strip and were shot dead by Israeli troops," the Associated Press (AP) reported on 13 and 14 January. AP stated that in the incident, "the two attackers charged the bus as it left the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, a senior army officer said. Troops opened fire, killing the assailants. A pistol and six more grenades were found on the bodies, said the officer, who gave only his first name, Yoel. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility." ("Two Palestinians Killed in Gaza Strip," Associated Press, 13 January 2003) According to its caption, an AP photo showed "Israeli soldiers guard[ing] the bodies of two Palestinians that were killed as they were trying to infiltrate to the northern Gaza Strip Jewish settlement of Netzarim on Monday, Jan. 13, 2003." The photo caption repeats the claim that "the Palestinians threw grenades at an Israeli bus before being killed by Israeli troops." AP named the men as Jamal Abu Qumbaz and Karam Al Maghani. Reuters news agency reported that "the Israeli army said troops in the Gaza Strip shot and killed two Palestinian men armed with grenades and pistols as they ran toward a bus carrying Jewish settlers." (From "Sharon regains ground in new poll," Toronto Star, 14 January 2003)

Gaza was indirectly reoccupied
By Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, January 22, 2003 
Proposals raised in the past to reoccupy Gaza, if only for a short period, were never serious, either strategically or politically, and were mostly an expression of rage. Occupation of the Strip would require taking control of a large, hostile population and would involve many casualties, without bringing an end to terrorism. However, despite this, the Gaza Strip has gradually been reoccupied in an indirect manner by the IDF, through a siege and control over the transportation routes and open spaces. Large concentrations of the Palestinian population have turned into islands cut off from one another. The change in command over the corps besieging the Strip (Brig. Gen. Yisrael Ziv, the Strip's corps commander for the last 18 months, is moving to the General Staff as commander of operations) is a good opportunity to examine this military development. The first lesson regards the security fence surrounding the Strip, whose operation can be deemed a success. During the past year, 10 or 11 people crossed it for criminal purposes or to seek work in Israel. Two crossed for terrorist purposes, but without munitions. There were 41 people killed trying to cross it.

Soundstage Journalism: From the Streets Into the Studios
By Robert Jensen, CounterPunch, January 21, 2003
On a blustery Sunday morning outside the CBS studio in Washington, D.C., I shared a moment with veteran television journalist Bob Schieffer that spoke volumes about the sad state of democracy and journalism in the United States. Schieffer was inside, behind the glass wall. I was outside on the sidewalk with an antiwar contingent organized by the women's peace group "Code Pink" waiting to ask one of Schieffer's guests on "Face the Nation" that morning -- Secretary of State Colin Powell -- questions about U.S. plans to invade Iraq. For a brief moment, Schieffer approached the window to get a look at us. He smiled. I smiled back and pointed to my sign, "From the streets into the studio." I gestured to him to come outside to talk. "I'll explain my sign," I said. He smiled, perhaps unable to hear me through the thick glass wall. "C'mon out," I said, waving and smiling to reassure him we weren't dangerous. "Let's talk." Schieffer smiled again, waved, and walked away. Shortly after that Powell arrived, ignoring our request that he take a moment to talk with us. (At least Powell came in through the front door. We had started the day at ABC, where the guest for "This Week," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, entered the studio in a car through the garage to avoid us.) About 15 minutes later, Schieffer began his interview with Powell by saying: "Yesterday we saw tens of thousands of demonstrators converge on Washington. A fairly large crowd, I would say, a very large crowd considering that the weather was in the 20s. They say we should not go to war against Iraq. I would just like to ask you this morning, what do you say those people who say we shouldn't?" I couldn't help but chuckle. Schieffer was invoking the antiwar movement and its sizable protest the day before, yet evidently he couldn't see a reason to take even a few seconds that morning to talk with real live antiwar demonstrators outside his door.

A blindness that puts us all in danger
By Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, January 23, 2003
The real threat is not from Iraq, but weapons on the open market  -- Does Iraq pose a greater threat with UN inspectors in the country, or not? Would the Middle East be a safer place if Iraq was bombed and occupied by US and British forces? Would the US and Britain be more secure as a result? Bizarrely, these questions are not rhetorical. Bush and Blair appear to believe that the answers are yes, yes, and yes. Of course, Saddam Hussein lied about his chemical and biological weapons and attempt to make a nuclear bomb. UN inspectors found him out before they left Iraq in 1998 to a pointless bombing onslaught. What's the hurry, why now? The short answer is because the Bush administration's domestic political agenda dictates it. Why does Britain have to support the US? Because, says the government, Britain's national security depends on maintaining its close relationship with Washington. That this relationship is synonymous with our own national security was emphasised by Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, to MPs last week when they asked him about the consequences of saying no to upgrading Fylingdales for America's missile defence project. Our relations with the US are a "vital part of the UK's national security", he replied.

On the Mall, we the people
By Fawaz Turki, Arab News, January 23, 2003
Won’t I ever give up, old geezer from the 60s that I am, on trying to make a difference, to change the world? I mean, heck, how long can I keep this shtick up, as a counterculture activist, marching, rallying, joining vigils, shouting slogans? To tell you the truth — as long as it’s gonna take. For how tragic, how wrong, how unpardonable it would’ve been to miss out on the peace rally on the Mall last Saturday, held to protest the imminent war on Iraq. And, hey, let’s bundle up for peace, for it’ll be eight degrees below freezing. No matter, for once you get there and imbibe the group ecstasy of 500,000 demonstrators from all over the East Coast and the Midwest, you feel the affirmation, the hope, the passion you share with all those fellow peace warriors around you. It’s allright to believe, you say, it’s allright to tell the world you’re mad as hell and you won’t take it anymore. But first you have to put up with the speeches — two long hours of that, standing there in the freezing cold — from the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, whose presentations were typically delivered as if a gospel choir was singing in the background, and the film actress Jessica Lange, whose birdy tweet, sonorous voice didn’t carry that well. But who was listening! You walk up and down the Mall, circulating as if at some social gathering, to see if all the usual suspects are there — the college kids, the lefties, the environmentalists, the feminists and, yes, the baby boomers, with graying beards, broadening waists and thinning hair, who had been there, done that, during the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement in the late 60s and early 70s.

Peace as a Civil Right
By U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Common Dreams, January 22, 2003
"Oh hear my song, thou God of all the nations, a song of peace for their land and for mine." - - This Is My Song, Finlandia, Jean Sibelius.  The life of Dr. Martin Luther King shines like the sun through the clouds which hover over this nation, casting a beam of light whenever darkness seeks to envelope us, illuminating our way over the rocky, perilous ground until we can envision the upward path towards social and economic justice. This evening let us reflect on his challenge to America's prosecution of a war in Vietnam as we ponder an America poised to once again use its destructive power against a nation of people already broken by war, by US sanctions, by an uncaring leader. America stands ready to accelerate the bombing over major cities in Iraq, to destroy lives, families, houses, buildings, water systems, electric systems, to light fires to force populations to move, to engage in house to house combat. All in the name of fighting terrorism. In the name of removing weapons of mass destruction. In his speech thirty five years ago at Riverside Church in New York City, Dr. King created the synthesis of peace and civil rights. "Somehow this madness must cease," Dr. King said then of the annihilation of the Vietnamese people and their nation. "I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted." Let us contemplate his words. "Somehow this madness must cease." Tonight we call for an end to the pretext for war. Tonight we call for the end of justification for war. Tonight we call for the end of a military build up towards war. Tonight we call for the end of war in the hearts of those who desire war. Tonight we call for the beginning of compassion. Tonight we call for human dignity. Tonight we call for human unity.

Obstruction of the right to know
Editorial, Ha'aretz, January 23, 2003
The judicial temperament and reasoning displayed by Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein in the wake of the leak about the investigation into the loan Ariel Sharon's family received from Cyril Kern was very worrisome and deeply disappointing to all those concerned about freedom of speech and for whom the rules of democracy are precious. Rubinstein's manner in the affair, from the moment he decided to investigate the leak, through his decision to involve the Shin Bet, to the authorization he gave to summon reporter Baruch Kra (who reported on the investigation against Sharon in Ha'aretz), is testimony to a grave failure of judgment on his part to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, compounded by a distorted understanding of the role of the press in a democracy. From the start there was no justification for an investigation to discover the source of the leak: the issue under discussion is not a highly classified state secret, and the publication caused no harm to the national interest. With those facts in mind, there is no other conclusion than the investigation to discover the leak was meant to please the prime minister, who was personally harmed by the publicity. Even if the argument is made that the publicity harms the actual investigation, the decision to put all the emphasis on exposing the source of the information instead of accelerating the investigation of the loan, demonstrates a faulty order of priorities.