An Iraq government that needs Iraqis
By Amir Taheri, Arab News, December 6, 2002
In an earlier column I modestly suggested that the Iraqi opposition should abandon plans for forming a government or a parliament in exile. It now seems that the advice, which also came from other quarters, has been taken. Thus the conference that Iraqi opposition groups are scheduled to hold in London next week will not be distributing seats in an imaginary government. The question is: what will it do? The United States, whose ultimate military action against the present regime might be the crucial factor in ensuring change in Iraq, has already sent a letter to the participants to tell them what to do. The Iraqis gathering in London should read the letter, take its recommendations into account, but take their own decisions.

Declaration day: Don't jump the gun, Mr President
Editorial, The Guardian, December 7, 2002
There is legitimate pressure. There is calculated sabre-rattling. And then there is downright irresponsible, threatening behaviour. On the vexed question of Iraq and efforts to ensure its compliance with UN resolution 1441, George Bush is guilty, not for the first time in this crisis, of the last of these. The task now being undertaken by the UN's weapons inspectors is already difficult enough without a running commentary, full of negative assertions, questionable claims and outright provocations, from the US president. Since the inspections resumed, says UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, Iraq's record of collaboration has been good. He sensibly counsels patience, saying it is early days, while stressing that Saddam Hussein's regime must "sustain the cooperation and the effort". In similar vein, chief inspector Hans Blix urges a gradualist approach. But he has not by any means been pulling his punches in launching unannounced, go-anywhere spot checks on Iraqi factories, military sites and, symbolically perhaps, on one of Saddam's presidential palaces. This firm but measured tone finds an echo in Moscow, in London and in Europe's foreign ministries. It reflects a degree of relief that, so far at least, the UN process upon which they expended so much diplomatic capital appears to be working.

The Israelization of America
By James Brooks, Media Monitors Network, December 6, 2002
US officials recently announced the somewhat jarring news that Israeli security forces will be training American soldiers in the techniques of urban warfare. Apparently Israel's illegal thirty-five year occupation of Palestine has enabled it to perfect tactics that our troops will need in a 'possible' war on Iraq. Most informed Americans will receive this news with a sense of both foreboding and dislocation. The brutal tactics of the Israeli "Defense" Forces have been denounced for decades by human rights groups, the United Nations, and scores of foreign governments. Is this how we want our own troops to fight? Our sense of dislocation (even "topsy-turvy") in greeting this news traces to something else; the fact that Israel has always been our client, not the other way around. Why are the Israelis now teaching us? Is this really something new, or is it merely an unusually explicit lesson in the continuing education of American power by the Israeli vanguard? Who has been learning from whom in this "special relationship"?

Back to square one: The derailed "war on terror" after the Mombasa attacks
By Hasan Abu Nimah, The Electronic Intifada, December 6, 2002
The recent attacks on an Israeli hotel and the firing of missiles on an Israeli plane taking off from Mombassa, Kenya, indicate again that terrorism has neither been defeated, exhausted nor even intimidated by the loudly acclaimed American-led "war on terror." On the contrary, terrorist activities seem to be gathering strength, spreading faster and hitting harder than the most cynical assessments predicted. The accelerated frequency of terrorist attacks, their varied choice of remote and unexpected targets, their success in accomplishing many of their destructive missions and, in most cases, the safe escape of the perpetrators, are indeed alarming. More staggering is the fact that terrorists still have the ability to continue to reach the media, declare their contentment with the fulfilment of their missions, and issue threats of new outrages to come.

Unnecessary friction
By Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, December 7, 2002
Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon's criticism of American policy regarding Yasser Arafat, expressed at a closed session of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has drawn the most attention, but the harshest exchanges actually took place at the meeting between Ya'alon and Secretary of State Colin Powell. When Powell said that Israel didn't understand the consequences of the most recent siege of the Muqata, Ya'alon replied, according to the Americans: "You're the one who doesn't understand!" The incident could have been chalked up to a nondiplomatic style of speaking, but something similar was happening in Israel at the same time. When Undersecretary of State for Middle East Affairs David Satterfield was visiting the region, he met with the general staff for a talk at which U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer was also present. At a certain point in the discussion, the deputy head of intelligence, Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, told the Americans that Washington was harming Israel's security interests.

Time to ReTH!NK, America
By Bill Moore, YellowTimes.org, December 5, 2002
(YellowTimes.org) – Several weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. in diametrically opposing ways. Its first account stated that the turnout for the rally opposing war with Iraq was "light" and that organizers were "disappointed." It estimated the crowd of protesters in the "hundreds". Then by mid-week, it printed a second account of the rally, this one buried deep in the paper, reporting that more than a 100,000 people had turned out. Estimates from the U.S. Park Service and event organizers ranged as high as a quarter million, making it one of the largest peaceful