The IDF's 'permissiveness' in the territories
By Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz, February 9, 2003 
A war in Iraq will soon break out, and with it a great darkness will descend on events in the territories. As long as what goes on there doesn't affect the war's execution, no one in the world will take an interest, no one will so much as cast a glance, at the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This is the time to caution us all that under the cover of that darkness, grave things may come to pass. Not that there is much light there now, either: for some time, it has seemed that anything goes in the war against the Palestinians. The fact is that there are no longer any voices of outrage over the situation in the territories. Not about flechette shells fired at a soccer field, not about innocent farmers who are shot to death, not about the demolition of homes at an appalling rate - 22 in one day - not about the destruction of an entire outdoor market, or about the razing of the home of a wanted individual who has not yet been apprehended, burying his tenant, Kamala Abu-Said, 65, under the ruins. All these events took place in the course of last week.

Back to 1914?
Editorial, Arab News, February 11, 2003
In Makkah at this very moment, some two million pilgrims are praying for peace among nations, peace in Iraq, peace in our homes, peace in our hearts. Not just in Makkah, but all over the world, millions upon millions of Muslims are making the same prayer. And not only Muslims. Millions upon millions of Christians, Jews and others too, in the US, in Europe, everywhere. And yet because of the Bush administration’s steadfast, arrogant refusal to be swayed from its determination to topple Saddam Hussein, all we can contemplate is a world on the brink of war. That the Americans have ignored Arab appeals to draw back from the brink and settle this crisis by means other than force does not come as a surprise. Washington only sits down and talks to the Arabs when it wants something from them, not the other way around. It is not US contempt for Arab opinions that astounds. It is the contempt they show for their allies and friends. The Europeans are not traitors or fools, as too many in the media and politics in the US try to make out. If the Germans, the French, the Russians, the Belgians and others all agree that an attack on Iraq is madness at this point in time, the US should listen, not hurl abuse at them. The Europeans are America’s oldest, best and truest friends. If someone cannot listen to the advice of his friends, then he is truly lost.

Professor Yusuf Ibish: Pan-Islamist of Ottoman dignity
By Tarif Khalidi, The Independent, February 7, 2003
Yusuf Ibish was in a sense one of the last of the Pan-Islamists, with a vast storehouse of knowledge of things Islamic and an extensive network of friends throughout the Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia. The Director of al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation in Wimbledon, south-west London, he had many professional and academic connections with the UK. In 1976 he had been one of the principal architects of the World of Islam Festival in London. Ibish was a distinguished scholar whose interests spanned both pre-modern and modern Islamic culture and societies. His particular field of specialisation was pre-modern Islamic political thought, but his interests and expertise ranged far. His professional life was spent teaching, at the American University in Beirut, Cambridge and Amherst. He leaves a legacy of some 30 books: bibliographies and documentation of Arab politics, treatises on Islamic political theory, analyses of Muslim society and biographies. Among his most important later works in Arabic is an invaluable concordance to the Koran, listing references to each verse from the 20 most significant commentaries, spanning many centuries and schools of thought...A great raconteur, he delighted both friends and students with his dead-pan delivery and his stock of stories. Forgiving much, the one injustice he could not forgive was that done to Palestine. To the end of his days, Palestine was central in his mind and heart.

Good morning, unity
By Uzi Benziman, Ha'aretz, February 9, 2003
The Labor Party is once again falling into the trap laid for it by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: It is being pressured by populist sentiment that imbues the term "national unity" with an almost mystic significance, and now finds itself forced to defend its refusal to join a government headed by Sharon. This pressure is capable of influencing the party's positions, and, combined with the egotistic motivations of some of Labor's senior members, is liable to drag the party into a Likud-led government once again. The term "unity" is loaded: it connotes closeness, intimacy, solidarity. The upshot is that anyone who opposes a unity government is alienated, someone who separates himself from the community, almost a traitor. The proper term to describe the goal of negotiations aimed at clarifying whether two parties can agree on a joint plan of action is the establishment of a "coalition government." But in Israel, neutral terms have lost their validity: Too many people are interested in pouring emotional content into these terms in order to derive political benefit from them. Thus the Likud calls itself "the national camp," sending the public the message that its political rival is not national - in other words, not patriotic. Labor, for its part, calls itself "the peace camp," thereby attempting to convince the public that the Likud desires war.

Political Islam: The view from the US
By Marwan Al-Kabalan, Arab News, February 9, 2003 
Political Islam has been at the heart of Middle Eastern politics since the late 1940s. For a variety of reasons, it constituted a source of political inspiration, legitimization and popular mobilization ever since. Throughout the past five decades, the US made full use of this political phenomenon and its approach toward it differed quite widely ranging from alliance to cooption to confrontation. Throughout the Cold War era the US regarded Islam as a bulwark against communist penetration into the Middle East. Washington supplied Afghanistan’s Islamist fighters with arms and money to drive the Soviets out of the country, helped Iran in the early days of the war with Iraq and supported conservative regimes. After the end of the Cold War political Islam fell from grace but retained a role in regional politics. Washington overlooked the activities of some Islamists and provided sanctuary for their leaders. The logic behind this was to use Islamists as a leverage to extract concessions from vulnerable Middle Eastern regimes and further consolidate US hegemony in the region. In addition, and by way of applying pressure to Arab governments to secure an (Israeli) peace and also to prevent a repetition of the Iranian scenario, Washington recognized Islam as a major political force in the region and did not hide its intentions to cooperate with Islamist regimes as long as they did not pose significant threat to its two intrinsic interests: oil and Israel. The Sept. 11 attacks, however, changed the picture, changed major assumptions in US policy and set the stage for confrontation.

Hebron: The Ladder Lady
By Art Gish, Palestine Monitor, February 4, 2003
I went on school patrol with three other Christian Peacemaker Team members in Hebron this morning, something we do each morning to protect Palestinian children from Israeli settlers who often harass them as they go to school, and to help get the children past Israeli soldiers who often prevent them from getting to school. This morning, as we started on our way, settler children threw stones at us. One of the soldiers who watched the attack cursed us and told us to leave. A settler cursed us and another settler greeted us with his middle finger. This is normal life here in Hebron. Then I met the "ladder lady." I had heard so much about her. Each morning she puts down a crude homemade ladder from a rooftop of the old city to let between 20 and 30 children from her neighborhood get out of the old city so they can go to school. The Israeli military has put up gates to prevent them from leaving the old city.

How to start an uprising
By Jeff Halper, Palestine Monitor/Alternative Information Center
First, you create great expectations. Handshakes on the White House lawn. A rhetoric of peace ("No more war. No more bloodshed"). Elections, giving them a flag of their own. Then secret meetings, summit meetings, dinners, retreats, peace treaties, interim agreements, promises, tantalizing benefits held before hungry eyes. More handshakes, more "gestures." Then you create a framework of peace that guarantees you
negotiating superiority. Take out international law, human rights covenants, UN resolutions, and for good measure enlist your strategic ally, the strongest power in the world, the one who supplies you with all your arms, as the "mediator." Then, as you talk peace in Oslo, Washington, Paris, Cairo, the Wye Plantation, Stockholm, Amman, Camp David, Sharm, you "create facts" on the ground that ensure your continued control and
prejudice the negotiations altogether. You exploit the last seven years since the signing of the Oslo Accords to...

From Dresden to Baghdad: 58 Years of "Shock and Awe"
By Mickey Z., Dissident Voice, February 7, 2003
"If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means sparing, in every way we can, the innocent." --George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003 -- The Pentagon recently revealed its plan for the first day of the inevitable saturation bombing of Iraq...Baghdad, in particular. On "Air Strikes Day" (or "A Day") the US and Britain will launch 300 to 400 cruise missiles into Iraq. "That's more missiles than were launched during the entire 40-day Persian Gulf was of 1991," says James Ridgeway in the Village Voice. The following day, another 400 missiles will be launched. "The sheer size of this has never been contemplated before," one Pentagon strategist told CBS News. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad." In warspeak, this plan is called "shock and awe." The idea is to crush the enemy's will to fight. According to military strategist Harlan Ullman, the planned attack will be "rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima." Air Strikes Day will "take the city down," wipe out the water and power supplies in Baghdad, and leave the Iraqis "physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted."
"What Bush proposes," says Ridgeway, "is not collateral damage, but a level of civilian destruction not seen since the Second World War, with tens of thousands of intended civilian casualties." Is Bush unique in his bloodlust? Hardly. He's the just the latest in a long line of humanitarians willing to slaughter the masses in the name of democracy. With the 58th anniversary of the US and British firebombing of Dresden on February 13, let's go back to the future.

An Old Evil Renames Itself as "Transfer": A Thousand Professors
By Alison Wier, CounterPunch, February 8, 2003
It's not every day that you get the chance to prevent a crime against humanity. This is one of those times. For several months now, those of us following events in Israel-Palestine closely have been hearing increasingly disturbing reports. Americans returning from the Palestinian Occupied Territories reported that the Israeli government appeared to be preparing to "transfer" the Palestinian population; in other words, to forcibly remove them from their homes and transport them elsewhere. Israeli parliamentary members began more and more openly to advocate such expulsion, and parties that actively promote transfer were included in the ruling coalition. A renowned Israeli historian suggested that the region would be much more peaceful today if all of Israel's original inhabitants had been forced out in 1948, instead of only 60 percent. The implication was clear: it was not too late to remedy this lapse. A major Israeli daily reported that the military was studying the tactics that had been used by Germany in the Warsaw Ghetto, looking for tips on how to control an unwanted, violently rebelling population. Palestinians sent out emails describing Israeli soldiers going from house to house, counting the occupants--"taking inventory of us," as one person wrote. Here in the U.S. more and more supporters of Israel began openly debating the merits of "transfer." Gamla, an American support organization for Israel, published a 9,000 word article entitled "The logistics of transfer." The author argued that "the only possible solution" to the Palestinian Question was transfer of the Palestinians, and claimed that ancient Judaic literature substantiates this tactic. A group in New York fought to name a street after the Israeli government minister who had most ardently urged such "cleansing."

The Smell of War
By Uri Avnery, Media Monitors Netowork, February 9, 2003
This is not a war about terrorism. This is not a war about weapons of mass destruction. This is not a war about democracy in Iraq. This is a war about something else. As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but the idea that he might be connected with Osama bin Laden is ridiculous. Sadam heads the Iraqi section of al-Baath, a very secular party. Bin Laden is an Islamic Fundamentalist, and al-Kaida aims at the destruction of all secular regimes in our region. The official who invented this particular lie is either an ignoramus or a cynic who believes that one can fool all the people at least some of the time. As for weapons of mass destruction: the USA supported Saddam when he used deadly poison gas against the Iranians (and their Kurdish allies in Iraq). At the time, America was interested in stopping the Iranians. Today there are chemical and biological weapons in most of the countries of this region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one of them has nuclear arms. As for democracy: Americans don’t give a damn. Some of their best friends in the Islamic world are dictators, some more, some less cruel then Saddam. As the old American adage goes: "He is a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch." If so, what is the war about?