The twisted language of war that is used to justify the unjustifiable
By Robert Fisk, The Independent, April 7, 2003
Why do we aid and abet the lies and propaganda of this filthy war? How come, for example, it's now BBC "style" to describe the Anglo-American invaders as the "coalition". This is a lie. The "coalition" that we're obviously supposed to remember is the one forged to drive Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait in 1991, an alliance involving dozens of countries – almost all of whom now condemn President Bush Junior's adventure in Iraq. There are a few Australian special forces swanning about in the desert, courtesy of the country's eccentric Prime Minister, John Howard, but that's it. So, who at the BBC decreed this dishonest word "coalition"? True, there's a "coalition of the willing", to use Mr Bush's weird phrase, but this is a reference to those nations that have given overflying rights to the United States or have given political but not military support. So the phrase "coalition forces" remains a lie. Then there's the historical slippage to justify the unjustifiable. When Jonathan Charles, an "embedded" journalist, reported in the early days of the invasion that the British army outside Basra was keeping a watchful eye on the Iranian border because the Iranians had "stirred up" an insurrection in the city in 1991, his dispatch was based on a falsehood. The Iranians never stirred up an insurrection in Basra. President Bush Senior did that by calling for just such a rebellion – and then betraying the Shia Muslims who followed his appeal. The Iranians did everything they could to avoid involvement in the uprising.

U.S. Fumbling Postwar Plan
By Hussein Ibish, Palestine Media Center/The Times, April 7, 2003
If concern is growing that ideological convictions at the Defense Department resulted in costly miscalculations regarding the war in Iraq, even greater alarm is warranted by glaring missteps in the preparation for what comes after the war. Take, for instance, the political profile of the man tapped to lead the occupation, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner. Garner's stated opinions on Middle Eastern politics make him singularly unsuitable for the indescribably sensitive task of being the first U.S. administrator of a large Arab country. In 2000, Garner signed a statement backing Israel's hard-line tactics in enforcing the occupation of the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This statement, which was organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank close to the Israeli far right, praised the Israel Defense Forces' "remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority" and advised the strongest possible American support. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Arab politics knows that any association between an American occupation of Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands poses great danger. It is guaranteed to breed deep resentment and bitter opposition, especially as U.S. checkpoints in Iraq begin to look increasingly like those in the West Bank.

Is Zionism Racist?
By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Media Monitors Network, August 3, 2001
U.S. Manipulation of the UN Conference Against Racism  -- I. Introduction: The United States is threatening to pull out of the planned United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance from 31st August to 7th September to be held in South Africa, on the pretext that discussions on whether ‘Zionism equals racism’ will derail the conference. As usual, Israel’s leading donor remains unwilling to allow any criticism of the Zionist State of Israel, nor scrutiny of its policies that are perceived to be racist. This is not the first time the U.S. has intervened to save Israel’s ideological skin. The U.S. has already boycotted the two previous annual UN Conferences Against Racism due to the inclusion of discussions of the role of Zionism in Israel’s racial policies. Indeed, the current President’s father, President Bush Snr., while in his term at the White House told the UN General Assembly at its opening session on 23rd September 1991 that to equate Zionism with racism is to “forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history.” The former President, whose son appears to be following meticulously in his footsteps, chose not to elaborate on why the historic suffering of the Jews in Europe somehow places the Zionist State of Israel beyond criticism with regards to its racial policies.

Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism
By Joachim Martillo, VTJP/New Jersey Solidarity, October 3, 2002
The Failure of Jewish Studies in America -- Introduction: Zionism is the movement to make Palestine the site of a nation-state for Jews. It can also be the ideology associated with the movement. A Zionist supports the goals of Zionism. The preceding definitions represent a plethora of questions far more than they provide any sort of explanation, for one must ask in response the following. · Who are the Jews?  · What is a nation-state?  · Why Palestine?  · Why is there a need?  The academic field of Jewish Studies or Judaica should provide answers, reasonable analysis or the tools by which an educated person might be able to address the questions himself. Unfortunately, this field supplies only propaganda or poor scholarship from the study of the ancient Middle East to the history of Zionism and the State of Israel. The state of the academic disciplines associated with Judaica can be compared with the situation Eastern European historians faced after the fall of the Soviet Union when they suddenly had to write genuine history, and noone really knew how. While Judaicists are not ready to provide genuine scholarship, Eric Hobsbawm’s Budapest 1993 lecture to Eastern European students on the question of proper historiography indentifies a large part of the problem of Jewish Studies today....It is hard for an educated American citizen even to notice the recourse of Israeli Jews to outmoded and failed strategies. Because of laziness of textbook writers or because of Zionist manipulation, in the USA the historiography of the ME at least at the high school and to a large extent at university level conforms to Zionist ideology, has little factual basis and even less interpretive value. One could say that the discourse on the ME in the USA is Zionist through and through. It is a serious problem in a republic that must depend on an informed public. As long as US strategic foreign policy is hitched to Israel, whether an American citizen supports the alliance between the USA and Israel or opposes it, he must be distressed by the inadequacy of Jewish studies in America because he must have a good background in Judaica in order to make an informed judgment on this policy. Jewish studies dominated by racists, tribalists and Zionists have simply failed the obligation to educate Americans.[4] The wrong questions are debated while important questions are not posed.

Exclusive: War ‘Against Iraqi People’
Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News, April 8, 2003
NAJAF, 8 April 2003 — This is no longer a war against Saddam and his regime, if it ever was. It has become a war against the Iraqi people. The number of civilians killed since the invasion began is massive, and is rising dramatically as American and British forces continue to make their way north through densely populated areas. Each Iraqi city has lost many civilians, at times entire families, to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Sami Osama, a truck driver, was delivering 5,000 kg of tomatoes through the small town of Sanawa when he approached an American checkpoint. According to witnesses who spoke to Arab News yesterday, he did not understand the orders in English and approached the checkpoint as normal. The US forces opened fire, killing him instantly and injuring two of his passengers. A friend of the deceased told Arab News: “Had there been a translator at the checkpoint, he would be alive now.” His friend who was driving with him said that before he was executed he was slowing down and asking what the US troops could be shooting at. While Arab News was interviewing witnesses to the death of Sami Osama, a woman approached and asked to use a satellite phone belonging to this correspondent. She wanted to call the United States for, as she put it, “a humanitarian reason”. She explained that her brother had arrived from the United States, where he was living with his wife and 10 children before the war began. He had been on a visit to his own family in Nassiriyah and Sanawa, and was killed there as the US troops advanced. In Sanawa, witnesses described how American troops were firing at suspected Iraqi positions, some located in residential areas. Huge holes could be seen in virtually every building along the heavily traveled highway to Sanawa, and there was also a burned-out high school. Saleh Mohammed, a local, told Arab News: “One Iraqi soldier will enter a neighborhood and fire a few shots at the fighter plane, and they will respond with a barrage of shots killing as many as 50 civilians in the effort to get him.”

The Brian Avery shooting: When will we realise that there can't be this many "accidents"?
Nigel Parry, The Electronic Intifada, April 5, 2003
On 5 April 2003, Israeli troops shot International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist Brian Avery in Jenin. Avery, a 24-year-old American citizen from Albuquerque, New Mexico, experienced serious wounds to his face after Israeli troops shot at him with heavy machine gun fire from an armoured personnel carrier (APC). Following the event, wire service organisations transmitted photo captions and text reports that failed to note key details, including: -- that there were no clashes on the street where the shooting took place, nor indeed were there many people on the streets at all. As such, there was no reason for any weapons firing and there was no secondary target that the activists could be said to have been standing in front of or nearby, where they might have been hit in "crossfire". -- that the ISM members were clearly marked as observers and were standing still with their hands in the air from the moment they heard the APC until the moment that Israeli troops opened fire.  -- that the two Israeli APCs present, including the one from which the shooting originated, did not offer any assistance after the incident, and in fact drove past the wounded activist without stopping.  The failure to report all three of these facts left the impression that this could have been a "crossfire" accident, a conclusion which the facts known even at this early stage do not support.

The Evil of Cluster Bombs
By Essam Al-Ghalib, Arab News, April 8, 2003
NAJAF, 9 April 2003 — Six days after the “liberation” of Najaf, Iraqis of all ages continue to pack 1the corridors of Saddam Hussein General Hospital. They are mostly victims of unexploded munitions that are strewn throughout various residential neighborhoods — along streets, in family homes, in school playgrounds, in the fields belonging to farms... US forces have been using cluster bombs against Iraqi soldiers. But the majority of the victims are civilians, mostly children curious about the small shiny objects which are the same size as a child’s hand. Cluster bombs, as explained by an administrator at the hospital, have been dropped by the hundred. They are supposed to explode on impact. However, many do not, and lie on the street exposed to the elements. A young Iraqi in Najaf told Arab News yesterday: “They are everywhere, and they are going off periodically. We don’t even have to touch them — they just go off by themselves, especially as the temperature rises throughout the day.” In a residential neighborhood where nine civilians were killed by heavy US shelling last week, a sudden explosion sent this correspondent and civilians running for cover. Arab News’ Iraqi minder said: “That’s what I keep warning you about. You shouldn’t be walking around these streets as if you were in Hyde Park.” Dozens of these unexploded cluster bombs were lying around. The US military had been along the street and cordoned off areas with plastic tape marked “Mines” — but only in English.

The War That May End the Age of Superpower
By Henry C K Liu, Palestine Chronicle, April 7, 2003
The United States, like ancient Rome, is beginning to be plagued by the limits of power. This fact is tactically acknowledged by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard B Myers that the war plan should not be criticized by the press because it has been framed in a diplomatic and political context, not merely pure military considerations in a vacuum. They say that it is the best possible war plan politically, though it may be far from full utilization of US military potential. America's top soldier has criticized the uniformed officer corps for expressing dissent that seriously undermines the war effort. Such criticism is characterized by Myers as "bearing no resemblance to the truth", counterproductive and harmful to US troops in the field. Only time will tell who will have the last laugh. The US Central Command (Centcom) has announced that the next phase with an additional 120,000 reinforcements will not begin until the end of April. That is three times the duration of the war so far. In Vietnam, the refrain of all is going as planned was heard every few weeks with self-comforting announcements that another 50,000 more troops would finish the job quickly. There is no doubt the US will prevail over Iraq in the long run. It is merely a question of at what cost in lives, money and time. Thus far, a lot of pre-war estimates have had to be readjusted and a lot of pre-war myths about popular support for US "liberation" within Iraq have had to be re-evaluated. Time is not on America's side, and the cost is not merely financial. America's superpower status is at stake.

Israel’s Roadmap à la Carte
MIFTAH, April 6, 2003
While the shameless military aggression against Iraq continues, so far claiming hundreds of innocent lives, and while the world (to a large extent) is outraged at this blatant US-British attempt to secure their strategic and economic interests in the region at all cost (under the pretext of “liberating” the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s undemocratic regime), Israel is actively (and successfully it seems) attempting to impose its will on the US administration’s efforts to find a possible solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The state of Israel, the US Congress, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) are coordinating a political campaign to influence US President George W. Bush to take an even more favourable stance towards Israel and a position that more closely resembles Ariel Sharon’s own agenda. The Roadmap is being tailored to fit Israel’s exclusive “vision of peace;” namely to sustain its military occupation of the Palestinian territories, in new ways, shapes and forms! Ostentatious remarks by Ariel Sharon’s aid Dov Weisglass earlier this week clearly indicate that Israel will pursue its traditional policy of arrogance, threats and arm-twisting regarding the Roadmap: “We will submit 15 remarks on the roadmap to the United States and if we find that a refusal of our proposed changes could jeopardize Israel’s security, we will not accept it.” Commenting on Israel’s demands concerning “…the dismantlement and disarmament of terrorist organizations, and the creation of new Palestinian security services which are not implicated in terrorism” Weisglass said “…on these issues we will not make any concessions and, if we have to, we will leave the negotiating table and come home.”