Why Blair's magic 'fix' is destined to end in failure
By Robert Fisk, The Independent, December 17, 2002
First, it was Secretary of State Colin Powell who announced a Middle East peace conference. That was back in the spring – nothing happened.
There was no peace conference. Now it's Tony Blair announcing a conference, along with that familiar rider about Palestinian "reform" – which means getting rid of Y Arafat Esq. But the Palestinians – now that Mr Bush has told them to ditch the corrupt Palestinian leader – will probably elect Arafat as their leader next month. So is Mr Blair planning to invite the bewhiskered old revolutionary to London? "Not expected to attend," said a source. Or one of his henchmen? Or a new squeaky-clean, unelected leader of "Palestine"? Funny how our Prime Minister is already referring to Palestine as if it's a country, rather than a bit of an occupied, colonised land, the 22 per cent of the original British mandate Palestine that is left up for grabs.

A chance for U.S. to make a difference
By Jim Mullins, Sun-Sentinel, December 16, 2002
"Slobodan Milosevic is in the dock at The Hague for ethnic cleansing, a war crime now openly anticipated in Israel." -- Now that the Bush administration's war threats are muted by a U.N. Security Council Resolution renewing U.N. inspections in Iraq, a window of opportunity is open to the U.S. to take a more active role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Ariel Sharon's two-year tenure has brought economic collapse to Israel, while Palestinian areas have seen disastrous economic conditions, massive destruction of homes, infrastructure and agriculture, and horrific loss of life. More than 500 Israelis and 2,000 Palestinians have died, with countless others injured. Although Israelis and Palestinians are experiencing fear and despair for their future -- a dangerous situation that could rocket out of control at any moment -- the American, European Union and Russian two-state proposal to be revealed on Dec. 20 was postponed at U.S. request until after the Israeli election.

All reason is about to be gassed, poxed and nuked
This week the countdown to war on Iraq may begin in earnest
By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, December 16, 2002
This will be a big week for Iraq and all those who wish to bomb it. Since last summer's heady excitements, when George Bush seemed ready to go Saddam-hunting all on his ownsome, Washington hawks and assorted birds of prey have endured a series of false dawns.
First there was their rising hope that the UN security council, challenged by Bush in September to put up or shut up, would fail to agree a common course of action. That would have left the way clear for the US, claiming prior authority, to fire at will. But resolution 1441, passed on November 8 and mandating resumed weapons inspections, frustrated beaky avian hopes of early morning glory. Next came the seven-day deadline for Iraq's full, unconditional acceptance of the UN's onerous new rules. Vultures gathering on the Potomac shore figured the terms were just too tough. Maybe Saddam could live with foreign busybodies clutching clipboards and bleeping gadgets zooming around the country like so many misguided Scuds. Maybe Iraq's famously paranoid dictator would be able, just, to ignore the humiliating media circus that followed the UN parade.

A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties
By Kathleen and Bill Christison, CounterPunch, December 13, 2002
Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department's Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who had a personal history and an educational background in the Arab world and were accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward Arab interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having limited power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped maintain some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping over totally toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by their exact opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and policymaking circles throughout government now no longer even make a pretense of exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly Palestinian, interests. In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office, occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.

Syrian engagement
Editorial, The Guardian, December 17, 2002
Blair sends a message to Bush and Sharon  -- In welcoming Syria's President Bashar Assad to Downing Street yesterday, Tony Blair sent some important signals about his view of Britain's role in the world. One message appeared addressed to the Bush administration. It concerns the desirability of talking to, rather than confronting or needlessly antagonising, governments whose policies and perspectives do not mesh neatly with the US (or British) global outlook. Syria, along with Libya and Sudan, belongs to Washington's second tier of "states of concern", the first tier being Iraq, Iran and North Korea. This classification arises in part from Damascus's weapons programmes and its unabashed support for violent Palestinian rejectionist groups. By stressing Britain's "process of engagement" with Syria as the best way to meet these concerns, Mr Blair sent a reminder that such diplomacy-based approaches remain Britain's preferred option in dealing with other problematic regimes. The prime minister has Robin Cook, displaced as foreign secretary last year, to thank for developing this policy. But he did well yesterday to reassert it.

The political wing of organized crime
By Amir Oren, Ha'aretz, December 17, 2002
The how-to guide to making an MK: Take all your relatives, friends, acquaintances and employees, have them sign on as members of the Likud, use all your clout at the local branch to be elected to the central committee, and proceed to wheel and deal. It pays off. To gain election to the central committee from the largest local branch of the party (in Tel Aviv) all it takes is about 50 registered members, and if you've covered their expenses, the NIS 3,200 you spent on their membership dues will soon be recompensed by Knesset hopefuls. To ensure the election of your own first choice, who doesn't even have to be a member of the central committee or even of the party, find him a little - but powerful - market niche in one of the geographic provinces or special-interest sectors. Out there, all it takes is a few hundred votes, and if you get 600 commitments of which only 400 of them make good, you're in.

Israel Favored Over 81,000 United Airline Employees
By William Hughes, Palestine Chronicle, December 16, 2002 
"Middle class jobs are evaporating faster than Ariel Sharon can build another illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank and Gaza." -- BALTIMORE (PC) - United has 81,000 employees and is the second largest airline in America. Recently, it asked for a $1.8 billion loan guarantee from Washington to avoid bankruptcy. The 9/11 tragedy, among other problems, had sent the company’s fortunes spiraling. Unlike Israel, however, which has never gotten turned down for any loan guarantees from Uncle Sam, the Bush-Cheney administration said “no” to United, on Dec. 4. Now, a once proud giant of the industry, is headed for Chapter 11. To add insult to injury, two of Israel’s leading sycophants, jumped on United. “This bankruptcy is just what the industry needs,” wrote the insufferable Tory, George F. Will (N.Y. Post, 12/08/02). He blamed the company’s situation on “labor costs.” William Buckley Jr., the neolithic conservative, chirped in on the same issue: “United has to cope with the market forces. It needs to be stressed, especially in moments of high confusion, what the rules are for a dynamic economy. Overhead cost have to be met by income” (Washington Times, 12/12/02).