I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
By Terry Jones, The Observer, January 26, 2003
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

Military Power Threatens the Planet: Wisdom Hasn't Advanced with Technology
By Alwyn Moss, Common Dreams/Roanoke Times, January 24, 2003 
WITH EVERY passing day, the likelihood of war in the Gulf region grows despite the efforts of many people, in and out of the realm of international and national politics, to prevent another episode of military violence as a purported means of resolving the problems in Iraq; problems which many people in the world and in our own nation believe could well be handled through diplomacy and the ongoing U.N. weapons inspections. Yet the almost hypnotic pull toward war, a war that will be dominated by another display of overwhelming high-tech weaponry, looks to prevail in the coming months. After 9/11, "everything changed." That was the prevailing theme of comments made in those terrible first weeks after the devastating events. Surely, this seemed as if it was one of the defining moments of human history calling for significant change. But what actually changed? Or did the response to 9/11 simply accelerate the slippery slope humanity has been on since the end of World War II? The sense of fear we experienced in September 2001 is certainly not diminishing. Almost every new episode of violence is countered by a response of equal or greater violence. Yet to lay the cause of today's worldwide insecurity exclusively at the door of terrorism and "rogue nations" is to avoid seeing the long-term perspective and threats of our time and the future. I refer to the widening gap between the magnitude of humankind's high-technological capacities in the realm of weaponry and warfare, as compared to our limited ability to resolve disputes peacefully. In this dilemma we can, to some extent, foresee the greatest danger of all for this planet and its people. Soon after the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japanese civilian centers at the end of World War II, Albert Einstein, whose discoveries went a long way toward making such weaponry a reality, is quoted as saying: "Everything has changed - except the way we think." "If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

Stop. Think. Listen
Editorial, The Independent, January 26, 2003
Stop the rush to war. Think of the consequences. Listen to reason -- The momentum towards war is almost unstoppable. The troops are in the Gulf. The pre-war diplomacy is reaching the final phase of hyperactivity. The momentum becomes in itself a reason for war: surely now troops are in the Gulf they cannot withdraw? Surely President Bush and Mr Blair have invested too much political capital to pull back now? These are the questions posed by those who accept the inevitability of war. Over the next few days President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have the opportunity to show they mean it when they say that "war is not inevitable". There is still a chance to stop the headlong rush to war. In the short term there are signs that the more cautious wing of the divided US administration, backed by the UK, has prevailed. There will be no immediate military strike in the days following the report from the senior UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, which is to be published tomorrow. Yesterday the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, declared that the US would "patiently examine the report, consult with our friends and allies". This pause provides an opportunity, perhaps the final opportunity, for the voices of the many doubters to be heard. And heard they must be. Not that we hold out much hope. In a separate interview for The Financial Times yesterday, General Powell was more candid when he said: "The issue is not the inspectors. The issue is Iraq." On one level The Independent on Sunday agrees with him.

An engineered crisis
By Brian Whitaker, January 27, 2003 
The desire for hegemony over the Middle East - not Iraq's weaponry or even its oil - is America's real motivation for war -- On the first day of war the United States will rain down 300-400 cruise missiles on Iraq, according to a report by CBS news. That averages out at one missile every four minutes around the clock, easily exceeding the total fired over six weeks in the 1991 Gulf war. The aim, according to the Pentagon sources quoted, is to cause such "shock and awe" that Iraqi troops will lose their will to fight at the outset. Just in case they do not get the message immediately, the US plans do the same again on day two, CBS said. Whether this is the actual plan or merely a strategically timed bit of disinformation intended to terrify Baghdad in advance, I have no idea, but anyone who has watched television over the last few days can be in little doubt as to the awesome array of weaponry that is now being assembled for the attack. To a world that remains mostly unconvinced of the need for it, there is something surreal and not quite believable about this. How has it come about? And why now? In 1990 at least, the issue was clear: Iraq had invaded a sovereign state (Kuwait) and could not be allowed to get away with it. Everyone, including those who favoured a solution by diplomatic means, could understand the principle at stake.

Sharon’s war
Editorial, Arab News, January 27, 2003
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might not gain new votes in tomorrow’s elections following Saturday’s military incursion into Gaza City which killed 12 Palestinians and wounded more than 50. But this biggest Israeli raid on the Gaza City since the Palestinian uprising began more than two years ago will not hurt Sharon either. He can only benefit as he runs on a platform of no negotiations with the Palestinians and tough military reprisals. Sharon is certain to defeat the new leader of the Labour Party, Amram Mitzna, who has pledged to withdraw from the Gaza Strip within a year. Mitzna is proposing first a call to the Palestinians for swift negotiations but then, if the Palestinians procrastinate or prevaricate, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, plus the completion of an impassable barrier to keep the Palestinians out of Israel. But Israelis, now an entirely post-Oslo people, are in no mood for Mitzna’s message of compromise. They feel that Labour’s last attempt at peace, under Ehud Barak, was a disaster and led to the past two years of violence that have seen more than 700 Israelis killed. But the paradox of this election is that under Sharon’s 23-month stewardship, five times as many Israelis have been killed in the intifadah than in any two-year period of Israel’s history, excluding wars.

America's crude tactics
By Larry Elliott, The Guardian, January 27, 2003
Of all the rogue states in the world it is Iraq's oil that makes it a target -- Let's get one thing straight. George Bush's determination to topple Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with oil. Iraq may account for 11% of the world's oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia, but the military build-up in the Gulf is about making the world a safer and more humane place, not about allowing America's motorists to guzzle gas to their heart's content. So, lest you should be in any doubt, let me spell it out one more time. This. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. Oil. Got that? Of course you haven't. Despite what Colin Powell might say, it takes a trusting, nay naive, soul to imagine that the White House would be making all this fuss were it not that Iraq has something the US needs. There are plenty of small, repressive states in the world - Zimbabwe for one - where the regimes are being allowed to quietly kill and torture their people. There are plenty of small, repressive states with weapons of mass destruction - North Korea, for example - which appear to pose a larger and more immediate threat to international security. But only with Iraq do you get a small, repressive country with weapons of mass destruction that also happens to be floating on oil.

Israel's Amen Corner
By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, January 24, 2003
How is it that U.S. policy in the Middle East has essentially nothing to do with vital American interests? How is it that, in the midst of a war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, the United States is about to launch a war on the entire Arab-Muslim world, pursuing a policy that pleases the Evil Imam to no end? What is behind the relentless drive to war with Iraq – a country that has never attacked us, and represents no military threat to U.S. territory or forces? Foreign policy is supposed to be about an abstract concept that goes under the rubric of "the national interest." But since I am a libertarian – that is, someone who believes in the primacy of the individual – this kind of rhetoric doesn’t impress me. Since only individuals can have interests and the means to pursue them, such a concept as the "national interest" is highly suspicious, to say the least. So the question, when it comes to foreign affairs, is really whose interests are being served by a given policy. The idea that some noble, disinterested goal is being achieved, like the growth of "democracy" or the protection of the legitimate rights of our allies, is an illusion perpetrated by the beneficiaries of those policies.

A warm relationship
By Natan Guttman, Ha'aretz, January 27, 2003
Bush has received Sharon in the White House seven times. Clearly, the president favors the prime minister.  -- WASHINGTON - The announcement from National Security Council spokesman Sean MaCormack last Thursday concerning the positive manner in which the United States views Israel's request for special aid of $ 12 billion could not have come at a better time for the Likud. Throughout the election campaign in Israel, the American administration made every effort not to create the impression that there might be a problem of any kind in Jerusalem-Washington relations, and the latest declaration makes it clear that not only is everything A-okay, but that the U.S. will now step forward to save Israel's economy. Former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir must be rubbing his eyes in disbelief. Just 10 years ago, he was forced to sweat it out with George Bush Sr. and came home without one red cent in aid - only to lose the election. And now George W. Bush is making life so easy for Ariel Sharon?

No nighttime arrests
By Danny Rubinstein, Ha'aretz, January 27, 2003  
Their elections were canceled but the Palestinians went ahead and drafted laws for their state.  -- The Palestinian public and its leadership are resigned to the chilling prognosis, as far as they are concerned that the elections this week in Israel will leave Ariel Sharon in the Prime Minister's office. "If [Israel] elects the right-wing parties, then they have opted for continuation of the conflict, and if they vote the right wing out, then their message is clearly for peace," said the Jerusalem Times editorial this weekend, adding, "Just listen to Ariel Sharon speak to understand that this man has no peace plan in mind whatsoever - [proposing] the most ridiculous ideas for a Palestinian state suggesting that if Yasser Arafat goes then it would be possible to make peace with the Palestinians knowing very well that there is not a single Palestinian who is willing to accept Sharon's conditions for a state." The Palestinians are not pinning much hope on the idea that post-election (and post-Iraq war) period will bring American and European efforts to look for a solution to the local conflict. "The U.S. and Israeli language offers nothing new to the Palestinian and Arab people. We have been hearing it for decades and yet nothing happens. We have been promised salvation since the Arabs joined the British against the Ottomans. Both the U.S. and Israel assume that the Arabs are so stupid that they can be easily fooled with pleasing words. The truth is the Arabs have been duped so far. So are we going to see a real Arab awakening before it is too late?"

Can anyone do something to stop this?
By Art Gish, The Electronic Intifada, January 25, 2003
RETALIATION AND COUNTER RETALIATION -- In the summer of 2001, a small group of five to ten Israeli settlers confiscated a hill belonging to Palestinian farmers at the north end of the Beqa'a Valley, near the Harsina Settlement, east of Hebron. The settlers erected a few primitive structures and began a new "illegal" (according to current Israeli law) outpost. From the beginning settlers harassed and threatened the Palestinians living next to the new outpost and destroyed their property. The settlers prevented the farmers from going onto their land near the new outpost. They shot at children and stole a tractor, as well as other machines,tools and animals. They destroyed many trees and 400 grape vines and assaulted more than twenty of their neighbors.

World Rebels Against America 
By Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star, January 26, 2003  
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Having positioned enough U.S. troops and equipment all around this Persian Gulf neighborhood, George W. Bush can launch a war on Iraq any time, with or without United Nations' approval. But he has already lost the political war. That came through loud and clear in my journey through Europe, the Middle East and Asia in the last three weeks. It should become evident to North Americans in the days ahead. Tomorrow, the United Nations arms inspectors will call for a continuation of their work to disarm Iraq peacefully. On Tuesday, Bush will deliver his State of the Union address and be applauded on Capitol Hill and in the obeisant American and copycat neo-con Canadian media. But around the world, his words likely will bring public derision, so eroded is American credibility. A similar fate awaits the promised American "evidence" against Iraq. On Wednesday, when the Security Council meets, France, assisted by Germany, will lead Russia, China and others in resisting American calls for a U.N. mandate for war. For the first time in its history, the council may be confronted with an anti-American resolution. On Friday, British PM Tony Blair will go to Camp David. He will pledge his fidelity but hedge it, in deference to opposition brewing in his cabinet and caucus. There already is a global rebellion against America, separate and apart from the recent terrorist attacks on U.S. civilians and soldiers in Yemen, Pakistan and Kuwait. Governments everywhere are dreading the dawn of American imperial unilateralism. They are even more scared of their riled-up citizenries.