Horror scenarios coming true
By Amira Hass, Haaretz, March 26, 2003
It has been almost a week since the United States and Britain launched the attack on Iraq, and the horror scenarios outlined by the Palestinians in recent weeks - concerning Israel's military policy toward them - are not coming true. These scenarios were drawn up by private individuals and official spokesmen or activists from various organizations. They warned that international attention would be focused on what is happening in Iraq, and under that cover, Israel would take advantage of the opportunity to increase its attacks. But a full curfew has not been imposed on the West Bank territories. The internal closure has not been toughened. The frequent Israel Defense Forces attacks, especially in the Gaza Strip, which took about 10 lives on each occasion, have not been renewed. And the horror scenarios of mass deportation, internal expulsion and a direct blow to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat have certainly not come true. Cynics will say it is still early to breathe a sigh of relief at the non-realization of the horror scenarios. After all, the war in Iraq has only just begun. Perhaps if ultimately the Iraqis do try to attack Israel - the reaction will in part roll over onto the Palestinians. However, it could be said the warnings have been effective: The United States in particular, but also the European countries, have warned Israel not to escalate the situation at a time when the countries attacking Iraq need regional stability. The alarm bells rung by the Palestinians before the war with Iraq could have created the impression that their lives were "back to normal" - a not unbearable routine. The proof: It hasn't blown up. Yet this is not the case. By any economic, sociological, historical and humane standard, about 3.5 million Palestinians are living in a catastrophic situation and constant disruption of normal life. Horror scenarios are in fact happening every day to every individual and community.

Multiple Layers of Oppression: US Imperialism & the Official Arab System
By Kareem M. Kamel, Islam Online, March 16, 2003
The Arab official system suffers from a serious fault. It is precisely this fault that is leading others calmly to try and swallow us up bit by bit, realizing that the different parties to this system do not appreciate the importance of agreeing to a common vision and adopting a hardened and strong stance that is able to say “No” to others. It is precisely this that has allowed Washington – the capital of the new global empire – to offer strong support to the Zionist entity in its war against the Palestinians, and is now allowing it to pick on Iraq. From the Franco-African Summit in Paris to the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Kuala Lumpur, and from the Arab Summit in Sharm El Sheikh to the Islamic Summit in Doha, successive summits have been held in more than one place and under more than one banner, with only one topic in mind: the impending war on Iraq and ways for a peaceful resolution of the US-Iraqi crisis. Meanwhile, President Bush spelled out his “grand vision” for Iraq: a brutalized land remade by war in the American colors of democracy, prosperity and peace.

Bush's Deep Reasons For War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro Question
By Peter Dale Scott, Socrates, February 15, 2003
As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03) Nor did Bush's State of the Union Message, or Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council, once mention the word "oil." Instead the talk was (in the president's words) of "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." However our leaders are not being candid with us. Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq in internal and unpublicized documents, since the start of this Administration, and indeed earlier. As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil." But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros.

U.S. Army Documents Warn of Occupation Hazards
By Jason Vest, The Village Voice, March 19 - 25, 2003
The War After the War -- Despite the sanguine way George W. Bush and his chamberlains talk about a post-war Iraq, senior military officers are worried. According to recent unpublicized U.S. Army War College studies being read with increasing interest by some Pentagon planners, "The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious." And that's especially true if occupation force soldiers are not retrained to be "something similar to a constabulary force" and imbued with the understanding that "force is often the last resort of the occupation soldier." The War College studies explore in detail a troubling paradox: While all experts agree that stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq would be a protracted endeavor, "the longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues," one of the studies notes, "the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces." One study broaches the subject of suicide attacks against U.S. soldiers. "The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers," it says, "and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists." Yet Bush and some of his top advisers have consistently preached that laying the foundation for post-blood-and-sand Iraq really won't be that much of a chore. In a recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Dubya's tone was upbeat as he rattled off a succinct post-Saddam checklist for the U.S. Army: Deliver medicine to ailing Iraqis, hand out emergency rations, destroy weapons, secure Iraq from those who would "spread chaos" internally, and mind the oil fields—but not for "a day more" than necessary.

Senator Waxman's Letter to Bush Re Iraq Nuke Fraud
By Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Senatle Intelligence Committee, March 17, 2003
Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern.  Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation’s history.  The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax.  What’s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements.  This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.

Military Precision versus Moral Precision
By Robert Higgs, The Independent Institute, March 24, 2003
Now that the long period of peace-seeking pretense has ended and George W. Bush has unleashed his dogs of war on Iraq, many of the questions that have occupied us during the past year have been dispatched by the fait accompli of the U.S. invasion. Even in the midst of war, however, certain questions remain relevant, and one of the most important pertains to precision—to hitting, so to speak, what one aims to hit. Television viewers are being treated, if that is the right word, to much expert commentary by retired military officers and other experts on the conduct of war. A great deal of this commentary has to do with technology, and once again, as in 1991, the technology of modern warfare is receiving high praise. News people seem awe-struck by the accounts of bombs and missiles that not only hit, say, a targeted building, but enter the third window on the second floor and strike the handle of the hot-water faucet on the basin in the washroom. Golly, General Turgidson, that's fantastic! If the extreme accuracy being claimed for today’s bombs and missiles were being considered only in relation to the munitions’ purely military utility in demolishing the persons and property selected for destruction, we might let the matter pass without extended consideration, treating it as a topic of special interest only to those fascinated with the technology of death, but the people responsible for employing these instruments of war have themselves taken pains to connect their use with—of all things—morality. Thus, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently remarked on “the care . . ., the humanity that goes into” the use of so-called smart bombs and similar munitions.

The War After the War
By Jason Vest, The Village Voice, March 19 - 25, 2003
U.S. Army Documents Warn of Occupation Hazards -- Despite the sanguine way George W. Bush and his chamberlains talk about a post-war Iraq, senior military officers are worried. According to recent unpublicized U.S. Army War College studies being read with increasing interest by some Pentagon planners, "The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious." And that's especially true if occupation force soldiers are not retrained to be "something similar to a constabulary force" and imbued with the understanding that "force is often the last resort of the occupation soldier." The War College studies explore in detail a troubling paradox: While all experts agree that stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq would be a protracted endeavor, "the longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues," one of the studies notes, "the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces." One study broaches the subject of suicide attacks against U.S. soldiers. "The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers," it says, "and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists." Yet Bush and some of his top advisers have consistently preached that laying the foundation for post-blood-and-sand Iraq really won't be that much of a chore. In a recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Dubya's tone was upbeat as he rattled off a succinct post-Saddam checklist for the U.S. Army: Deliver medicine to ailing Iraqis, hand out emergency rations, destroy weapons, secure Iraq from those who would "spread chaos" internally, and mind the oil fields—but not for "a day more" than necessary.

Waiting for the Road Map
Editorial, Arab News, March 26, 2003
As the US war against Iraq enters its seventh day, the great fear is that Israel will use the war as a cover to impose its version of a settlement by force, long before the two sides return to negotiations. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expects no pressure on Israel as the Iraqi war paralyzes the international community. That is why he feels free to roam at will in Palestinian territories and continues to invade Palestinian towns and refugee camps almost nightly, destroying houses, arresting suspected militants and clashing with gunmen. The Israeli government registered a distinct lack of enthusiasm following the eve-of-war Middle East peace promises from President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. At the end of last week, the two leaders pledged to pursue with renewed vigor the road map to peace. The road map — not yet officially published and still under discussion between America, the European Union, Russia and the UN — provides for a “performance-based, goal-driven” advance toward eventual Palestinian statehood by 2005.

Bitter Rice
By Uri Avnery, AMIN, March 22, 2003
Some thoughts about the war: # Beware of the Shiites. The troubles of the occupation will start after the fighting is over. Here is a personal story and its lessons: On the forth day of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon, I crossed the border at a lone spot near Metulla and looked for the front, which had already reached the outskirts of Sidon. I was driving my private car, accompanied only by a woman photographer. We passed a dozen Shiite villages and were received everywhere with great joy. We extracted ourselves only with great difficulty from hundreds of villagers, each one insisting that we have coffee at their home. On the previous days, they had showered the soldiers with rice. A few months later I joined an army convoy going in the opposite direction, from Sidon to Metulla. The soldiers were now wearing bulletproof vests and helmets, many were on the verge of panic. What had happened? The Shiites received the Israeli soldiers as liberators. When they realized that they had come to stay as occupiers, they started to kill them. When the Israeli troops entered Lebanon, the Shiites were a downtrodden, powerless community, held in contempt by all the others. After a year of fighting the occupiers, they became a political and military power. The Shiite Hizbullah is the only military force in the Arab world that has beaten the mighty Israeli army. Sharon is the real father of the Shiite force in Lebanon. Bush may well become the father of Shiite power in Iraq. The Shiites, 60% of the Iraqi population, have been until now downtrodden and powerless. When they will realize that the Americans intend to stay, they will start a deadly guerilla. Bush does not intend to leave Iraq, as Sharon did not intend to leave Lebanon. Then what? America will argue that Iran, the great Shiite neighbor, is behind the Shiite guerilla. In Iran there is a lot of oil. That’s the next target.

The 'Palestinization' of Iraq
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, March 27, 2003 
AMMAN - American tanks are now ripping at the heart of Mesopotamia, the "land between the rivers" and the cradle of civilization; the US 5th Corps is already engaging the Medina division of the Republican Guards as B52s increase their bombing raids of the "red line" in the outer ring of defenses of Baghdad, over which hangs a surreal, dust-induced dark orange cloud. For 280 million Arabs, the symbolic effect of the tanks in the country is as devastating as a lethal sandstorm. But Saddam Hussein seems to be one step ahead. It doesn't matter that Iraqi TV was silenced by a showering of Tomahawks (although domestic broadcasts, as well as the international signal, have been restored). Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV will be on hand to record the ultimate image that Saddam knows is capable of igniting the Arab world into an ocean of fire: an American tank in the streets of Baghdad juxtaposed with an American tank in the streets of Gaza. To date, an estimated 5,200 Iraqis have crossed the Jordanian-Iraqi border, going back "to defend their homeland" as they invariably put it. In already one week of a war that was marketed by the Pentagon as "clean" and "quick" and which is revealing itself to be bloody and protracted, not a single Iraqi refugee has crossed the al-Karama border point into eastern Jordan.

Double Standards – Israel’s UN Violation
By John Austin MP, Palestine Media Center, March 25, 2003
Speaking at the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2002, George W Bush said: ‘Are Security Council Resolutions to be honoured and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? ...We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced’. George Bush and Tony Blair tell us that failure to act on UN resolutions brings the UN into disrepute. Yet neither does anything whilst Israel flouts resolution after resolution. No wonder there are accusations of double standards. Israel ignores UN resolutions calling for withdrawal of its forces from the territory under armed occupation and the US ensures that no international action is taken. The UN recognises that Israel has committed serious violations of international law; breached the Geneva Conventions; and refuses to implement Security Council Resolutions, yet the UN has taken no measures against Israel and the violations continue. ‘Israel's armed occupation of the Palestinian territories has been going on for 35 years, in spite of repeated UN calls for unconditional withdrawal' This failure has led Israel to believe that it is immune from international law, reinforcing the sense of abandonment felt by the Palestinian people. It intensifies the hopelessness and despair in Palestine and anger in the Arab world, which undoubtedly fuel acts of violent resistance. Israel's humanitarian crimes include torture, assassinations, arbitrary killings, deportations, destruction of houses and property and the systematic denial of freedom of movement.