The Chain of Command: Responsibility for the Murder in Rafah
By Uri Avnery, Palestine Chronicle, October 20, 2002
"The Palestinians speak about a “massacre”. Israeli spokespersons say they regret the deaths of the children. The Americans asked Israel to exercise restraint. “The world” was silently reproachful. Who is to blame? Let’s try to compose a list ..": (PINA) - There is little controversy about the facts: last Thursday, in an IDF action in Rafah, at least eight Palestinians were killed (the number will probably climb, since some of the wounded were severely hurt). Five of those killed were woman and children. Almost fifty people were wounded - many of them children who had just left their school after lessons. The event took place on the “Philadelphi” axis, a narrow strip of land designed to separate the Gaza area from neighboring Egypt. The Palestinians dig tunnels under the strip in order to move people, weapons and goods. The IDF endeavors to prevent it. Thursday, the IDF sent a bulldozer, guarded by tanks and armored troop-carriers, to block the tunnels. According to the army version, fire was opened on the bulldozer and the force. The brigade commander gave a tank commander permission to fire shells at the “sources of fire”. All in all, five shells were fired at the densely populated refugee camp, including “flanchette” shells which spread thousands of deadly steel arrows, an especially inhuman weapon the use of which is forbidden by international law. The IDF suffered no casualties.

Bad diplomacy, bad foreign policy and bad for Britain
By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, October 21, 2002
Blair's support for Bush on Iraq alienates our allies and brings war closer: Americans have, for the most part, a good opinion of Tony Blair. They think him a sensible man. So it is with a sense of puzzlement, if not dismay, that many of the 76% of Americans who did not vote for George Bush and oppose his Iraq war plans observe Blair's apparently unquestioning support for US policy. Blair's backing, they worry, makes Bush appear more credible. This bewilderment at Blair's policy is felt in Britain, too. But it also extends across a once anglophile Arab world and is even shared, despite their 12-year battering, by many ordinary Iraqis. It is to be found, too, among the citizens and governments of most of Britain's European partners, in Commonwealth countries and the non-aligned movement, as last week's UN debate on Iraq showed. Is everybody wrong or should Blair pause and think again? Is it really in the British national interest to alienate and antagonise so many influential and valuable allies? Would not a more independent, less uncritically pro-Bush approach be wiser?

The '48 Nakba & The Zionist Quest for its Completion
By Ilan Pappe, Between The Lines, October, 2002
This article is based upon the transcript of a lecture presented by Dr. Pappe to the Right To Return Coalition - Al Awda UK, held at the School for Oriental and African Studies in London Monday 16th September 2002. It is hereby published after receiving Dr. Pappe's consent and editorial remarks: I have come here to present the comprehensive story of the history of the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 and its relevance to the present and future agenda to peace in Palestine. For Israelis, 1948 is a year in which two things happened which contradict each other: On the one hand, it was the climax of Jewish aspirations to have a state or to fulfill a long dream of returning to a homeland after what they regarded as 2000 years of exile. In other words, it was considered a miraculous event that only positive adjectives could be attached to, and that you could only talk about and remember as a very elated kind of event. On the other hand, it was the worst chapter in Jewish history. Jews did in 1948 in Palestine what Jews had not done anywhere for 2000 years prior. The most evil and most glorious moment converged into one. What Israeli collective memory did was to erase one side of the story in order to co-exist or to live with only the glorious chapter. It was a mechanism for solving an impossible tension between two collective memories.

How to shut up your critics with a single word
By Robert Fisk, The Independent, October 21, 2002
Thank God, I often say, for the Israeli press. For where else will you find the sort of courageous condemnation of Israel's cruel and brutal treatment of the Palestinians? Where else can we read that Moshe Ya'alon, Ariel Sharon's new chief of staff, described the "Palestinian threat" as "like a cancer – there are all sorts of solutions to cancerous manifestations. For the time being, I am applying chemotherapy." Where else can we read that the Israeli Herut Party chairman, Michael Kleiner, said that "for every victim of ours there must be 1,000 dead Palestinians". Where else can we read that Eitan Ben Eliahu, the former Israeli Air Force commander, said that "eventually we will have to thin out the number of Palestinians living in the territories". Where else can we read that the new head of Mossad, General Meir Dagan – a close personal friend of Mr Sharon – believes in "liquidation units", that other Mossad men regard him as a threat because "if Dagan brings his morality to the Mossad, Israel could become a country in which no normal Jew would want to live".

Why the U.S. Supports Israel
By Stephen Zunes, Independent Media Center Jerusalem, October 3, 2002
In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why, despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong bipartisan support for Israel's right-wing prime minister Ariel Sharon's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories? The close relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been one of the most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress, even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western countries share the United States' strong support for Israel's legitimate right to exist in peace and security, yet these same nations have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level of diplomatic support provided by Washington--with the United States often standing alone with Israel at the United Nations and other international forums when objections are raised over ongoing Israeli violations of international law and related concerns.

The Challenge of Arab Journalism
By Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, October 20, 2002 
There is so much anger in the Middle East; anger that manifests itself in many ways; anger that spills in the form of blood, and often ink. These days are no different than others. It’s a time of high emotions for everyone, even for those with the slightest link to the Middle East. Needless to say, its a particularly emotional times for writers who face such realities daily. In recent days, the renowned British Independent newspaper actualized the relationship between journalism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, by publishing a study based on a question presented to 35 leading British writers: “Who has most justice on their side?”