Yearning for World War IV: The Israel-Iraq connection
By Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, October 3, 2002
The irony of Israel's position between Iraq and the United States, is that the more Israel wants the US to attack Iraq, the quieter Israel will have to stay about it and the lower the profile it will have to keep. The paradox was most clear right after the September 11 attacks when Sharon was the first to volunteer to join the "war on terrorism," only to find himself coldly rebuffed by the Bush administration. Israel soon learned that sometimes discretion is the better than an open alliance, and by working on the US administration behind the scenes, Israel's lobby was able to convince the Americans that it would be hypocritical to condemn Israel's "war on terrorism" while conducting its own.

Israel's arms inspector
By Hilary Wainwright, The Guardian, October 4, 2002
Sixteen years ago this week, an agent of the Israeli secret police, Mossad, enticed the Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, to Rome. The holiday ended abruptly when Mordechai was kidnapped and taken to Israel, where he was charged with espionage and treason and given a prison sentence of 18 years. His crime? In 1986 he had blown the whistle on Israel's nuclear weapons. In the absence of any international inspection of Israel's nuclear capacity, Vanunu was our unofficial, DIY arms inspector. He is now held in Israel's highest security prison, having spent 12 of his last 16 years in solitary confinement. Neither the UN nor any individual member of the security council has questioned his imprisonment or demanded that Israel's nuclear capacity be opened to international inspection.

Good news from the rubble
By David Landau, Ha'aretz, October 4, 2002
The media frenzy surrounding the lifting of the siege on Arafat and the mutual accusations being traded on the Israeli side of the fence have drowned out other sounds, no less important, accompanying this bizarre theatrical event. The sound of the great sigh heaved by the whole country, for one, which may not have been heard with sufficient clarity by the outside world. In perfect unison, a silent prayer went up from the hearts of millions of Israelis: Blessed art Thou, who unravels Gordian knots - meaning the president of the United States, of course.

The main point in the Blair vision
Editorial, Ha'aretz, October 4, 2002 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said this week at his Labour Party conference in Blackpool that Israel - just like Iraq - must obey UN Security Council decisions. Blair called for a renewal of the negotiations for a final status permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians by the end of 2002. The declared purpose of those negotiations, said Blair, should be a state of Israel free of terror and recognized by the entire Arab world and a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Blair's declaration outraged the hardline half of the government of Israel, the half that sets policy and is identified with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and those to the right of him, as opposed to the Labor Party and the left wing that is out of power. Blair's critics had reservations about the timing of his statement, while Palestinian terror continues and while the Palestinian public is deep in soul-searching, with regrets about the violence of the last two years. They were also critical, naturally, of his mention of the 1967 lines as the basis for the negotiations.

Riding the back of the American tiger
By Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon, Ha'aretz, October 4, 2002 
The identification of the state of Israel with the salient interests of American foreign and defense policy and with the theory of the "clash of civilizations" that underlies it has become second nature among politicians, businessmen, ranking army officers and the intelligence community in Israel, right across the political spectrum. The speech delivered by President George Bush at the United Nations General Assembly on September 12 exposed the main points of his administration's policy. Special attention should be paid to his assertion that the United States will seek to repulse any future military competitor. Administration spokesman declare that the United States is thus assuming the right to decide on its own when a foreign army constitutes a threat and how to deal with that threat. What underlies this unprecedented approach by Washington?