Our soldiers? Impossible
By Amira Hass
Haaretz, March 21, 2003
On the phone, his voice sounded very young, like that of a high school student. But no; he's a soldier, serving somewhere in the West Bank. He identified himself by name, named his company, the unit, and the location of the base (and in a separate conversation named the base). He was bashful, hesitant, apologetic that he might be disturbing someone, but something was bothering him. Soldiers in his unit "beat bloody" two Palestinians whom they had arrested earlier that day and had brought to the base, he said. One was an Arab caught in the field with a gun. The second "was a detainee that the Shin Bet said did nothing and that he should be released." That was his conclusion from what he heard from one of the soldiers who had heard the officers. "`He didn't do anything. Take him and toss him out somewhere on the road,'" said that soldier. But meanwhile, the soldier with the youthful voice said on the phone that the two detainees were being held at the base. Their hands were tied behind them; their eyes covered with a blindfold. One was lying curled up on the ground, the other sat on a chair. And the soldiers beat them. A lot of soldiers. Beating and kicking until the two began to weep, and continued to beat them until the two pleaded for their lives. It was difficult for him to describe the scene he saw. "It reminded me of the Ramallah lynch," he said. The officers weren't present when the soldiers - as the soldier said - beat up the two detainees. The officers were in a nearby room.

It's only Sderot. Only us
By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, March 25, 2003
These are the names: Al'a Hilo, 23, and his brother Said, 28; Tamer Qata, 27; Amar al-Dayeh, 19; Abd al-Karim Bakroun, 25; Mohammed Salhoub, 27; Abd al-Rahman Kassam, 26; Munzar Safadi, 27; Ali Abu al-Hir, 30; Iyad Abaed, 27; and Abd al-Rahim Abu Naja, 30. Eleven Palestinians, who were killed in the Israel Defense Forces operation in the Sejiya neighborhood of Gaza City last Wednesday. Most (not all) of them were armed, but were they all marked out for death? Together with two others killed in Nablus and one in Jenin, 15 Palestinians died in that day's bloody harvest. The next day the headline in the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth blared, "City under shelling." Which city? Sderot, in southern Israel. In the twin paper, Ma'ariv, none of the headlines and sub-headlines contained any mention of the Palestinians who were killed or of the destruction wrought in Sejiya by the Givati infantry brigade combined with tanks and helicopters. Only Sderot, only the Qassam rockets, only us. Four Qassams landed in the southern town in the wake of the Sejiya operation, lightly wounding a forklift driver, Vladimir Valodya, 48, who works in a local factory that makes shower stalls (he was initially said to be in serious condition). Israel was preoccupied exclusively, and almost hysterically, with him and his city. A future historian who peruses the papers will reach the conclusion that Sderot was the only city that was shelled last Wednesday. Israelis again learned that they are the only victims of the violence. As for the killing and devastation in Sejiya, who heard about it? Who knows about it? Similarly, the fact that the rocket attack was in direct response to the action in Sejiya, following three weeks of quiet on the Qassam front and an effort by the Palestinian Authority to put a stop to the rocket attacks, was barely noted. The Palestinians are shooting, and it makes no difference why.

Colonization in the 21st Century
By Hassan Tahsin, Arab News, March 25, 2003
During a session of the House of Commons last Tuesday which debated Tony Blair’s request for Parliament to give its go-ahead for the invasion of Iraq, a statement by one of the MPs caused the hall to go into dead silence for a few seconds, and no one dared object. “It’s really strange that you want to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, other colleagues present in the House and myself recollect signing a few years ago an agreement to sell such weapons to Iraq, which you now say are weapons of mass destruction and pose a threat to world peace and British interests. Is there some kind of explanation for this?” the MP asked. The House of Commons discussions remind me of the time in history when Britain ruled the waves and colonized half the world. France, Spain and Portugal as well as Italy, Belgium and Holland all had the inclination toward colonization though the last three were less successful. Therefore, the urge toward colonization is inherently European and rooted in the economy. War was the only acceptable way to realize economic interests — witness the two world wars both of which were fought for no other reason but economic interest. After the end of World War II and in the face of the horrors that the people of the world suffered from, peace became the only slogan. With the end of the military-colonization ideology the search was on for an alternative. Thus emerged what we call neocolonialism or economic colonialism. It is the imposition of foreign policy, economy and culture on a nation without the need for military presence all the while acknowledging its independence and sovereignty.

Statement regarding the US attack on Iraq
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., TransAfrica Forum, March 20, 2003
Many of us have friends and family serving in the Persian Gulf. Some of those individuals are in direct combat. To them we offer our prayers, hoping for their safe return. Were it not for the recklessness of the Bush administration, and the arrogance of its new National Security Doctrine, we would not be in a situation of desperate hope for the safe return of our loved ones. The Bush administration has brazenly decided upon a course of action that breaks international law by adopting a perverse notion of preemptive war. The notion of a preemptive assault as applied by this administration in a situation where there has been no evidence of a threat to the United States or to Iraq's neighbors is aggressive and dangerous. It places the United States on a collision course with most of the rest of the world. Instead of political analysis, the Bush administration is advancing fortune-telling, that is, predicting what a certain leader might do in the future if they obtain certain weapons. Using that 'logic' this planet could annihilate itself in a never-ending search for potential threats. It is critical to recognize that the African world faces grave threats as a result of this war. The Bush administration attempted to bully various countries-such as Angola, the Cameroon and Guinea-into supporting it in the United Nations (UN), and it is now being reported that the USA is taking a similar tack concerning upcoming UN discussions which might result in a condemnation of the US aggression. This attitude of contempt for the rest of the world can be understood from any reading of the National Security Doctrine. The aim of the Bush administration is to consolidate and dominate a global capitalist empire. Anyone opposing this march to barbarism is, in the words of today's press, decapitated.

Only Iraqis can decide
By Neal Ascherson, The Guardian, March 24, 2003
If the US denies Iraq democracy and independence, its freedom will be bought with blood -- The landscape after the battle, in a conquered country, does not smile in a warm morning of freedom. Instead, there begins a rat-infested twilight, and many of the rats are human. The prisoners will emerge and the exiles will return. But as they shoulder their rucksacks and try to find their homes in ruined streets, they will often see those who imprisoned and exiled them riding past in the conquerors' jeeps, wearing new armbands of authority. Politicians in new offices will sell options on good jobs and stolen aid shipments. Decent families will scrabble like white mice for food and favours. Iraq, at first, will be no different. But the world cannot afford to leave it like that. For this potentially wealthy country of 23 million people, with a large and sophisticated middle class, there has to be a new invention of nationhood. The sad limbo status of yet another UN protectorate, partitioned and mafia-ridden, is not an option for Iraq. With neighbours like Iran and Turkey, the appearance of an enormous grey area of indefinite sovereignty in one of the most contested regions on earth would invite catastrophe. Incredibly, with American tanks half way to Baghdad, there is still no agreement on how to run a military occupation regime, let alone on a programme to reconstruct an Iraqi state. (The best suggestion so far is for a UN "blue police force" drawn from Muslim countries to restore order and justice at local level.) But last week's quarrel at Brussels is not as serious as it looks: Tony Blair is evasive about free elections in Iraq, but at least he and Chirac seem to agree that the security council must authorise a post-Saddam civil authority. The real trouble is in Washington.

One rule for them
By George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 25, 2003
Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay? -- Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them". He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes. This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth 
By W. Clark, Independent Media Center/Crimes Against Humanity,  March 6, 2003    
Summary: Although completely suppressed by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The real reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, and a dual OPEC oil transaction standard. These reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency warfare. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be . . . The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation.

Channels of Influence
By Paul Krugman, New York Times, March 25, 2003
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here. Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration. The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Saddam starts to sound more like his hero, Uncle Joe
By Robert Fisk, The Independent, March 25, 2003
Let us now praise famous men. Saddam Hussein was keen on doing just that yesterday. And he proceeded to list the Iraqi army and navy officers who are leading the resistance against the Anglo-American army in Umm Qasr, Basra and Nasariyah. Major-General Mustapha Mahmoud Umran, commanding officer of the 11th Division, Brigadier Bashir Ahmed Othman, commander of the Iraqi 45th Brigade, Brigadier-Colonel Ali Kalil Ibrahim, commander of the 11th Battalion of the 45th Brigade, Colonel Mohamed Khallaf al-Jabawi, commander of the 45th Brigade's 2nd Battalion, Lieutenant-Colonel Fathi Rani Majid of the Iraqi army's III Corps ... And so it went on. "Be patient," President Saddam kept saying. Be patient. Fourteen times in all, he told the army and the people of Iraq to be patient. "We will win ... we will be victorious against Evil." Patient but confident in victory. Fighting evil. Wasn't that how President Bush was encouraging his people a few hours earlier? At other times, President Saddam sounded like his hero, Joseph Stalin. "They have come to destroy our country and we must stand and destroy them and defend our people and our country ... Cut their throats ... They are coming to take our land. But when they try to enter our cities, they try to avoid a battle with our forces and to stay outside the range of our weapons."

On NPR, Please Follow the Script 
By Robert Jensen, March 24, 2003, CommonDreams.org 
Last week I found out that National Public Radio wants the opinions of antiwar activists -- as long as we follow the right script. After a day of antiwar protests on the University of Texas campus and in Austin, I found myself booked as a late-night guest on NPR’s all-day coverage of the war to be interviewed by Scott Simon, the popular host of Weekend Edition on Saturdays. I knew something about Simon’s politics from an essay he published in the Wall Street Journal a month after 9/11. In that piece he explained that he had become a Quaker and pacifist during the antiwar movement of the 1960s but now supported Bush’s “war on terrorism.” His prose at the time was undistinguishable from the president’s rhetoric: “But those of us who have been pacifists must admit that it has been our blessing to live in a nation in which other citizens have been willing to risk their lives to defend our dissent. The war against terrorism does not shove American power into places where it has no place. It calls on America’s military strength in a global crisis in which peaceful solutions are not apparent.” So, when I found out Simon would be interviewing me, I had an idea of what to expect: The liberal defense of the American empire that one hears from people who have accepted the idea that we now intervene only for “humanitarian” or defensive reasons, and besides everything is different since 9/11. These people would never be so crude as to try to silence antiwar activists or question their patriotism; instead, they prefer to indulge our naivetι with that “someday you will understand” look. Even though I was not in the studio with him, I could feel that look on Simon’s face through the phone line.