Help us to stop the war
By Scott Ritter, The Guardian, October 7, 2002
As a US Republican, I reject George Bush's illegal and unconstitutional plan to attack Iraq: As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation and uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the massive anti-war rally in London on September 28. In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left, and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred on that day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair government that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion: UK support for an American unilateral war on Iraq would not be tolerated. That message met a response a few days later from the Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy in action is a wonderful thing.

Analysis: Quartet’s statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
By Farid Jaber, co-director, Alternative Information Center, October 7, 2002   
The joint statement of the Middle East Quartet (UN, EU, Russia and US) from 17 September 2002 is based on President Bush’s speech from 24 June 2002. In our view, this statement did not bring any thing new and retained the serious imbalance and vague positions the Bush speech demonstrated. From our analysis, the Bush speech and Quartet statement can be summarized as follows:

Class, economy, and the second Intifada 
By Adam Hanieh, Alternative Information Center, October 7, 2002   
The current Palestinian Intifada and Israel’s brutal response has been the subject of countless articles over the last two years. There is however a disappointing vacuum within left analysis, with much of this writing attempting to explain the character of Israeli policy through the right-wing views of Ariel Sharon. Within this framework, Israeli strategy is presented as a racist extension of colonialist designs on the Occupied Territories sometimes including the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip (hereafter referred to as WB/GS). What is strikingly absent from virtually all left analysis is any discussion of class and political economy in both Israel and the Occupied Territories. While this may seem a strange accusation to make of left-wing writing, I believe the absence of class-based analysis is in itself indicative of the confusion with which much of the left views the Israeli state. For much of the left, Israeli politics is simply understood as the binary opposites of the right-wing Likud and the more peace-inclined Labor Party. I aim to show below that such a view stems from a mistaken approach to understanding class formation in Israel and that without placing class at the center of our analysis, it is difficult to develop an adequate understanding of what is actually occurring on the ground.

Anniversary of the 1973 War: The Battle of the Crossing
Arabic News Analysis, October 7, 2002
The October War is an outstanding landmark in contemporary military thought. This war has reversed many military theories, which have remained rigid for long years. The war has proved it was possible to make a surprise attack, cross the most difficult water barriers, represented in the Suez Canal and cut through the strongest defense fortifications, such as the Barlev line. Most important, the October War proved that the combatant is the most significant element in the battle field, given that the Egyptian soldier successfully managed to overcome what was called "the technological gap between armies".

The transfer legacy
Editorial, Ha'aretz, October 7, 2002
A year ago, when terrorists killed minister Rehavam Ze'evi, many people - including Ze'evi's most ardent opponents - were shocked. The murder of an Israeli minister, even if he believed in living by the sword and expelling Arabs, is a horrifying achievement for terrorism. Feelings of sorrow and mourning blurred the profile of the deceased, who preached a foul, condemnable political doctrine. A year later, it turns out that despite all the efforts, it has become impossible to distinguish between Ze'evi the man and his political doctrine. Education Minister Limor Livnat's decision to require school principals to devote an hour of homeroom studies to mark "milestones in the Zionist enterprise interspersed with the activities and contributions of Ze'evi (may his memory be blessed)" is problematic and dangerous. From the educational perspective, it is impossible to distinguish the man from his legacy. Putting Ze'evi in the curriculum is the same as teaching his doctrine to Israeli pupils.

Anti-Islam Campaign Continues in U.S. As Scene Is Set For Iraq Invasion
By Ayman Qenawi & Angy Ghannam, Islam Online, October 7, 2002
CAIRO, October 7 (IslamOnline) - As the U.S. sets the scene for an “unavoidable” war on Iraq which has accepted the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors and agreed to give them access to “all” sites, an organized anti-Islam campaign in the western media continues to defame Muslim scholars and deliberately misinterpret Islamic regulations. The latest episode of the anti-Muslim campaign was an article published October 2 in U.S. newspaper, the Washington Times, by two members of a Jewish organization who used the events of 9/11 as a tool to attack Muslim scholars accusing them of preaching hate and of terrorizing Arab and Muslim moderates into staying silent. The two writers are connected to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish organization. Abraham Cooper is the associate dean of the organization, and Harold Brackman is a historical consultant to the center. Although the two authors of the article admitted that the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches and dozens of Protestant and Orthodox religious leaders stand firmly against U.S. President George Bush’s war threats to Iraq and that they exhorted world countries not to bow to American pressures to join hands in the campaign against Iraq “under the pretext of the war on terrorism,” they branded Muslim religious scholars who oppose the war on Iraq as “preachers of hate.”

Westward the course of Empire
By Philip S. Golub, Le MOnde Diplomatique, September 2002
The aftermath of the terrorist attacks has revived imperialist ideology in the United States, rather than caused it to query its world role. Writers do not hesitate to draw parallels between their nation and ancient Rome, which they hold to be a model for world domination in the 21st century: A WHILE before 11 September the American historian, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, suggested that despite the "absence of international checks and balances" in the modern unipolar world, the United States would not "stroll too far down the perilous highway to hubris . . . No one nation is going to be able to assume the role of world arbitrator and policeman". Like many American intellectuals, he remained confident about US democracy and the rationality of decision making. And Charles William Maynes, an influential voice in US foreign policy, asserted: "America is a country with imperial capabilities but without an imperial mind". But now we must face facts: a new imperial doctrine is taking shape under George Bush. Now is reminiscent of the late 19th century, when the US began its colonial expansion into the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, the first steps to world power. Then the US was seized by great imperialist fervour. Journalists, businessmen, bankers and politicians vied to promote policies of world conquest.