April 5, 2002

MIDEAST:  'AMERICA BACK IN THE GAME'

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

** Israeli writers unhappy that Tel Aviv must "follow orders from Washington"

** Israeli editorials fret that an IDF pullback would represent a victory for Arafat

** Moderate Arab voices welcome U.S. role, "if neutral and serious" 

** Syrian media low-key, Iran in anti-U.S. mode; neither responds to warning to "stay out"

** Some Arab, South Asian dailies charge U.S. "complicit" in "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians

** Euro/Canad. papers relieved, encouraged by Bush's "bold," albeit belated, course correction

** Western observers say Powell's success hinges on Israeli PM's receptivity to Bush demands

 

REGIONAL THEMES

 

ISRAEL:  Editorials expressed resentment of President Bush's demand that the IDF incursions be reversed.  The conservative Jerusalem Post bristled at the "rank paternalism" of his remarks about "distinguishing between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians."  Having vented, most observers acknowledged that, apart from the U.S., Israel is "isolated in the world as it has not been since the Lebanon war."  Papers fretted that IDF withdrawals would presage a "victory" for Arafat.  There was general agreement on Arafat's duplicity, with writers questioning the value of getting his signature on a Tenet-Mitchell agreement.  Despite their disdain for Arafat, mainstream secular writers found it "chilling" to contemplate what might follow his removal. 

 

ARABS:  Writers, while noting the "positive elements" in Bush's remarks, were offended by the president's heightened criticism of PA leader Arafat's passivity in fighting terrorism.  Many likewise fumed that Bush had "overlooked" the death and destruction in the territories caused by the Israeli military offensive.  Moderates declared that the Arab peace front was stymied by public hostility engendered by the U.S.' presumed pro-Israel bias.  Nevertheless, these commentators held out hope for the upcoming Powell mission, but only "if it is neutral and serious," i.e., offers "a mechanism for enforcing [Israeli] compliance."

 

SYRIA, IRAN:  Official broadcast reaction ignored the president's explicit warning to "stay out" of the conflict.  Media in each country, however, had different initial takes on the speech.  While Syrian radio provided straight news coverage, Iranian radio opened with an anti-U.S. broadside, calling the president's remarks "biased, one-sided, arrogant and...a result of America's domination of the world as the only superpower."

 

EUROPE/CANADA:  "Finally!" proclaimed a Paris daily, "Engagement at Last" headlined a London paper.  Nearly all media let out a collective sigh of relief that "America has spoken with a strong and decisive voice" and acknowledged its unique responsibility to broker an end to the violence.  Editorialists for the most part welcomed Bush's speech as a "turning point," marking a shift from what had been widely criticized as an "irresponsible" wait-and-see approach.  Echoing remarks earlier this week, papers underscored the importance of the U.S.' putting its full diplomatic weight behind a peace effort.  Some writers credited European pressure for Bush's "turnaround" and maintained that the EU must continue to use its "good offices" to influence Washington.  Despite the heartened tone, analysts cautioned that Powell's task is daunting and there is no guarantee that the parties will heed the president's words.  For European media, consistently critical of the Israeli government's "iron fist" tactics, Powell's success will depend largely on "the extent to which Sharon is sensitive to Bush's demands." 

 

ELSEWHERE:  Writers in East and South Asia, Africa and Latin America, the majority of whom filed before the president's speech, were adamant that the U.S. must "intervene" as an "unbiased mediator" to stop the bloodshed in the Middle East.  Nearly all saw the U.S.' perceived inaction as providing a "green light" for Israeli "aggression" against the Palestinians.  Pakistani, Sri Lankan and Urdu-language Indian dailies went so far as to charge that the U.S. was allowing Israel to carrying out a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" against Palestinians.  Among those commenting on Secretary Powell's trip, Brazilians suggested that he would not need to "reinvent the wheel" to bring a measure of peace to the Middle East, and that the Saudi plan would be the best starting point for a dialogue.

 

EDITORS:  Kathleen Brahney, Gail Hamer Burke, Katherine Starr, Stephen Thibeault

 

EDITORS' NOTE: This report is based on 110 reports from 56 countries, March 28 - April 5.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

MIDEAST

 

ISRAEL:  "Bush Time"

 

Senior columnist Nahum Barnea wrote in a page one article in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/5):  "One cannot avoid separating the rhetoric of President Bush from his operative demands.  Rhetorically speaking, this was a heart-warming speech....   Operatively, he demanded that Israel pull back its forces....  Sharon, who responded to Bush's statement with carefully contained fury, knows that eventually he will follow the orders from Washington.  Israel cannot afford to refuse: it is isolated in the world as it has not been since the Lebanon War.  America is its only supporter.  If America moves aside, Israel will become the world's leper.  The injustice of the situation that Israel finds itself in is irksome. The world that allowed the U.S. to bomb Afghanistan as it saw fit and allowed Russia to destroy the cities of Chechnya and transfer its citizens, is impatient and demanding when it comes to Israel....  Powell's scheduled visit here next week is not a harbinger of peace.  In terms of Arafat, the American move, despite all the rebukes, is a preface to victory....  An agreement will not come out of this." 

 

"Bush's Confusion"

 

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (4/5):  "As the leader of the free world and the war on terrorism, Bush's job is to support Israel to the hilt, not stand hovering with a stopwatch.  It is rank paternalism to suggest Israel must be lectured to about 'distinguishing between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians' and told long-term security depends on peace.  As usual, Israel will swallow such insults and be thankful the U.S., alone in the world, supported her right to self-defense for seven whole days without succumbing to international pressure to say 'stop!'...  Bush's ratcheted-up rhetoric against Arafat does not change the fact he is being given yet another last chance....  How many more Israelis and Palestinians must die on the altar of another last chance for Arafat?"

 

"A Brief History Of Time"

 

Senior columnist Hemmi Shalev commented in a page one article in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/5):  "The American initiative and the meetings with Arafat will put an end to the attempt to 'isolate' the PA Chairman, and the Palestinians will certainly see it as a victory.  And Powell's wish to hasten the diplomatic element, in the model of the Saudi initiative, is tantamount to shaking the Israeli tactics to their foundation, and already last night Sharon cried out against the American attempt to hold 'negotiations under fire.'  The Middle East pot, boiling over, forced Bush to shrug off his apathy, against his will, and do something....  This is not to say that the Americans know what they are doing, because they are acting sloppily as well with hasty, pressured, last-moment decisions.  Powell is coming to the region to get Arafat to sign the Zinni-Tenet-Mitchell trilogy, knowing very well that Arafat's word, even if he gives it, means much less today than ever, after his organizations have been crushed in the IDF offensive."

 

"Preventing An Unhappy Ending"

 

Senior columnist Zeev Schiff argued in in independent Ha'aretz (4/5):  "We cannot move toward a cease-fire when one side continues to kill citizens in suicide bombings while the other side is called upon to exercise restraint.  It's like asking the Americans to suffice with tightening U.S. immigration laws in response to the destruction of the Twin Towers.... [The U.S.] accepts the notion that Israel must defend itself forcefully against Palestinian terror, but unless Israel shows some willingness to move along the political track, it may conclude that Israel not only is having trouble solving its problems militarily, but also has no desire to seek a just political settlement.  In the end, the U.S. will resort to an imposed solution of one sort or another."

 

"The World Sheriff"

 

Washington correspondent Orly Azolai-Katz wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/5):  "Since he began his term, President Bush has not spoken to the Prime Minister of Israel so harshly and unequivocally, as though he were giving an order: 'The occupation must end.  You need to get out of the West Bank. Ramallah too.'  It's not that the President woke up in the morning looking for a target....  Bush, who said that he enjoyed eating hamburgers with Sharon in the White House, told him yesterday that in Washington there are no free lunches.  When Sharon became a landmine in the Administration's eyes, the President decided to defuse it, and quickly."

 

"No Good Being Right On One's Own"

 

Chief Economic Editor Sever Plotker wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/5): "The Americans will not let others push them into a corner and will not bend.  They are prepared to be alone when they feel they are right.  That is one of the most solid foundations of American culture.  In terms of their support for Israel, the Americans are certain that they are right.  The two large American political blocs, Democrats and Republicans, support Israel equally, as do two U.S. Presidents who are completely different and opposite to each other, Bush and Clinton.  However, it is easier to be right and alone when you are the only superpower in the world."

 

"Matzot With Jewish Blood"

 

Uri Dan noted in popular, pluralist Maariv and the conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (4/4): "Sharon, when Defense Minister, realized what a terrible enemy Arafat was, and therefore expelled him from Beirut in August 1982.  But afterwards...Rabin, Peres, Barak, and their band of blind ministers...turned Arafat in the hero of their dream of 'the path to peace.'  Arafat, in reply, demonstrated to these partners of his that he is waging a war against the Jewish nation.  Those whom the suicide bombers and the Seder night massacre did not make aware of this reality, will never become aware of it.  Therefore, to his amazement and surprise, Arafat found darkness at the end of the tunnel in Ramallah--the war waged against him by the majority of Jews who feel, justifiably, that the Arafat peace dream has brought upon them and their homes the risk of annihilation."

 

"Burning The Bridges"

 

Diplomatic correspondent Alexander Maistrovoy wrote in popular, pluralist Russian-language Novosty Nedely (4/4):  "More than eighteen months since the Al Aqsa Intifada began, the conflict has reached the level of a frontal confrontation.  Now the Palestinians are burning...bridges, and the Jewish state has no other options than to respond to this challenge....  The attack the U.S. is preparing on Iraq makes the Palestinian leader feel...like a defender of both the Iraqi regime in Iraq and almost all the Arabs against 'U.S. imperialism'....  Arafat is demonstrating complete and unconcealed disregard of General Zinni's requests....  Total terror...is Arafat's ultimate choice.  His long-term goal is to provoke an Israeli response which would lead to massive bloodshed in the PA and stir up international pressure, which Sharon and his government would not be able to take."

 

"What Will Follow This War?"

 

Liberal writer Yael Paz-Melamed wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/4): "Today, it is absolutely clear to the staunchest opponents of the use of force and the reoccupation of Area A that there is no choice....  There is no alternative to fighting, with all our might.  But Israelis should not forget the essence of the conflict with the Palestinians.  Israel should neither forget the sin of the settlements nor the greater sin that lies in the fact that no Israeli leader, be it on the Right or the Left, has dared evacuate a single settlement, even the most isolated one.  It is not for self-flogging purposes that Israelis must remember the occupation and the settlements, but to ensure that Israel has a future, not only a present."

 

WEST BANK AND GAZA:  "President's Speech Somewhat Positive"

 

Independent Al-Quds opined (4/5): "President Bush's speech has some points that can be described as positive. But it also includes points that adopt the Israeli viewpoint regarding the conflict....  To begin with, the U.S. President's campaign of words against Yasser Arafat offends all the Palestinian people, who care about the dignity of their elected leader and the symbol of their struggle.  In his speech, President Bush also overlooked the death and destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure, caused by the Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian towns and refugee camps....  We have to say, though, that the President's decision to send Secretary of State Powell to the region is one of the positive elements in the speech....  But, what is needed now is for Israel to withdraw its forces immediately and to stop its aggression against the Palestinian cities."

 

"U.S. Must Step Aside"

 

Independent Al-Quds editorialized (4/4):  ”¦In light of the statements made by President Bush and Secretary Powell, it has become clear to the whole world that the U.S. is no longer an impartial mediator....  Since Bush has been in office, he has not bothered to meet with President Arafat, while finding the time...to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon four times and become a personal friend of his....  Even stranger was Washington”¦s insistence on demanding that Arafat do more to curb violence despite the fact that he is confined to his office in Ramallah.   The U.S. has been an obstacle in the way of many international initiatives and has prevented the European role from becoming more effective in the efforts of achieving peace....  It is time for the United States to step aside and let the international community and sane and objective European effort resolve the conflict.”¦

 

"Bush, Sharon Want To Deprive Palestinians Of Legitimate, Historical Leadership"

 

Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel Television carried this report in English (4/2):  "Ironically, the U.S. President George W. Bush--in his address this evening--reiterated his recognition to the Palestinians' right to independence and living in their own state, while in the same time, blaming them for defending this right.  Bush, who knows more than anybody else, the legality of the Palestinian inalienable rights, guaranteed by UN and world legitimacy resolutions, and the illegality of the Israeli occupation for the withdrawal of which his country, the United States, sponsored a UN Security Council resolution, is the same President Bush, who accused President Arafat this evening of betraying his hopes of his own people....  It is really obvious now that Sharon and the U.S. administration are the judge and the opponent for us.   What opportunities that President Arafat--the Palestinian elected president, the symbol of all Palestinian generations--has really missed?  President Arafat has signed the peace-of-the-brave agreement with his partner in peace Yitzhaq Rabin.   President Arafat also accepted Mitchell report, Tenet's understanding, and all previous understandings and accords....  The conspiracy is crystal clear now.   The U.S. administration and Sharon want to deprive the Palestinian people from their legitimate historical leadership to have them an easy prey for Sharon's ill dreams of expansion, occupation, invasion, and imposing military solutions.   But, we again say to President Bush and all concerned parties:   Don't fool yourselves and think that President Arafat is the problem, because if you stop and think you will find for sure that he is the real solution.  Do not fool yourselves and think for one moment that you can find any Palestinian who just thinks or dares to replace President Arafat, because President Arafat has always been the leader and symbol of all generations of the Palestinian people....   We call on the U.S. administration not to fall to its bias and be fooled by Sharon's illusions of imposing a military solution and not to hide behind false, untrue accusations of President Arafat, but to stand by its responsibilities as a sponsor to the peace process and its role as the superpower of the world, and decisively order Sharon to stop his massacres and immediately withdraw his trigger-happy soldiers from Palestinian territories, before the cycle of violence and anarchy engulfs the whole region."

 

EGYPT:  "America's Responsibility"

 

Pro-American columnist Reda Helal wrote in leading pro-government Al Ahram (4/4):  "America now regards herself as Rome, and Bush, as Caesar and world leaders, princes of his municipalities.  The world is a U.S. empire.  America no longer asks why the world hates her thinking that is not important, as long as the world fears and follows her orders....  Richard Haass heard from Egyptian intellectuals and writers that...American bias towards Israel threatens American interests in the region and makes Arabs sympathize with [Saddam]....  The Cheney conservative right wing, which dominates the Bush Administration is resolved to launch a war against terrorism worldwide...to secure hegemony of the U.S. Empire.  This is a deficient view.  Arafat has become a hero; Saddam is calling for an oil boycott; the war camp voices have risen; and, moderates have come to an impasse.  All talk about freedom, democracy and economic welfare have faded.  Is this what the U.S. wants? Does it wish to destroy the values it should defend?  The responsibility of the American empire, like her call to war, is to impose peace."

 

JORDAN:  "Dispatch Of Powell A Welcome Development"

 

Semi-official, influential Al-Rai observed (4/5):  "Washington is capable of starting dialogues if it wishes to put and end to the Israeli aggression and force General Ari'el Sharon to return to the negotiation table and compel him to give up the path of adventure and recklessness, which has characterized his term in power throughout the past year.   This path brought security to nobody, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians or the region.   The U.S. president's decision to send his secretary of state to the region represents a notable development and enhances the U.S. role, which will be successful, decisive, and vital if it shows honesty, fairness, and justice; if it conforms to international legitimacy resolutions; and considers the issue within its proper framework.   This framework underlines that fact that the Israeli occupation is the cause of the conflict and that ending the occupation is the shortest way to end the conflict....  If it is neutral and serious, the countries of the region and their people, particularly the Palestinian people, will appreciate the U.S. move although it came late and after Sharon had shed a lot of Palestinian blood.  This U.S. move will be an indicator to the credibility of President Bush's Administration in his declared war against terrorism.  Arabs will rally around him after he eliminates the causes of this 'terrorism,' and not only view its results."

 

"Why Now, And Why The Distortion?"

 

The semi-official, influential among-the-elite, English-language Jordan Times stated (4/5):  "Washington could no longer ignore the alarms that have been resonating warnings against the horrific consequences of Israel's atrocities and U.S. inaction.  Bush was completely unjustified and utterly unconvincing in his attempt to blame the Palestinians for the chaos that Israel has brought to West Bank cities, towns and even mosques and churches.  But he was right to demand the end of occupation as a prerequisite for peace.  Occupation is the root cause of conflict in the Middle East.  It is the biggest evil.  Everything else is a symptom, and unless Israel withdraws its occupation army from Palestinian land, there will be no peace, and no one will enjoy security in the region.  Bush outlined the broad lines of a lasting solution to the conflict.  But he proposed no mechanism for enforcing compliance by the terms of reference he identified as requirements for progress.  Unless he does so, his speech will join many other pronouncements and resolutions which Israel has shamelessly dismissed to the detriment of the causes of peace and stability."

 

LEBANON:  ”¦No Peace Without The Man Of Peace”¦

 

Samir Qassir wrote in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (4/5):  "When catastrophe struck the U.S., we excused Bush for delivering primitive speeches.  However, he has not stopped acting and talking primitively since.  For the thousandth time...catastrophe struck an Arab land...so stop your preaching Mr. Bush!  Isn”¦t it time for you to learn some lessons?....  The first lesson the U.S. should understand is that the logic of cowboys that has been used by President Bush is exactly what is filling this world with destruction and blood....  Mr. Bush should realize that the language he used in his speech yesterday would only backfire.  We will never get a better chance for peace by isolating Arafat....  Hasn't any U.S. official notinced the fact the wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians have increased only after President Bush...adopted this nonchalant policy towards the Middle East.”¦

 

"Bush Ends His Seclusion But Does Not Change His Policy"

 

Joseph Samaha declared in Arab nationalist As-Safir (4/5):  ”¦Bush admitted yesterday that he cannot escape the Arab-Israeli conflict.  No doubt, Bill Clinton smiled when he listened to Bush announcing that he will send Secretary of Sate Powell to the region.  Bush had initially built his policy on the basis of not intervening in the region--and by that he was not only trying to undo what Clinton did but also what his father has done.  Bush has ended his seclusion just because he is worried...that he has allowed the...Israelis to lead the Middle East towards a big explosion....  As for Bush”¦s speech, ...we can conclude that there was nothing new in his speech....  Bush has ended his seclusion but he did not change his policy.”¦

 

MOROCCO:  "Colin Powell's Urgent Trip"

 

Semi-official, French-language Le Matin declared (4/5):  "In the face of the rising pressure from many capitals and from the public opinion, President Bush interrupted the silence yesterday and stated he would send Secretary Powell to the region to diffuse the crisis....  Bush, who wants to play the role of the leader, blamed Arafat and accused him of 'betraying the people's hope'.  This accusation is rejected as Arafat has been democratically elected by his people.  The world has been waiting impatiently for U.S. action.  However, Bush's statement on Arafat and Syria and Iran risk to complicate the situation at a time when the international community calls Israel to respect legitimacy and Palestinian rights in conformity with the UN resolutions."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:   "Bush Offer 'Too Little, Too Late"

 

Javid Hassan and K.S. Ramkumar, writing in the internet version of the Jeddah-based, moderate Arab News said (4/5):  "U.S. President George Bush's decision to dispatch Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East and his call on Israel to stop incursions into Palestinian-controlled territories was seen more as a public relations exercise than as a serious attempt to halt Israeli aggression against the Palestinians.  Saudis as well as Arab and other expatriates, contacted by Arab News, said the visit of Powell should have been scheduled soon after the outbreak of hostilities. His appeal to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to halt violence and come back to the negotiating table also lacks the force of conviction that one would have expected from the U.S. president, especially when Israel, its protege, has been guilty of heinous crimes against humanity.   A marketing executive in Jeddah, KA, reacted strongly to Bush's speech saying, 'What he's offering the Palestinians is too little, too late. The Bush administration should realize that the Palestinians will settle for nothing less than full rights and freedom, release of all prisoners, especially the young children who are being held and tortured in jails, and full compensation from the United States which is Israel's prime supporter in terms of aid and military equipment.    Dr. Saleh I. Al-Babear, assistant secretary-general of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and editor in chief of Muslim Youth, said the U.S. is not an honest broker. "If President Bush had been serious, he could have asked Ariel Sharon to get his troops out of Palestine. The main obstacle in the settlement of the Palestine-Israeli conflict is the United States itself.'" 

 

"Not Far Enough"

 

The internet version of the pro-government, Jeddah-based, moderate Arab News opined (4/5):  "President George Bush's intervention yesterday, ordering Secretary of Colin Powell to the Middle East and seemingly urging Ariel Sharon to end his invasion of the West Bank does not seem to be anything more than a fig leaf to disguise American inaction.  It goes nowhere near far enough to ending the conflict.  It is one-sided, holding the Palestinians to blame for the present crisis; and it allows the Israelis the right to hit out at what they want to call 'terrorism'.... It is a catastrophe for the United States which is now seen by virtually all Arab public opinion as the co-villain of events, first for having given the Israelis the green light to carry out their rampage and now for doing nothing to stop them....  It is a catastrophe for moderate Arab states who have tried to secure a just peace through negotiations based on a two-state solution but have seen it trampled by the Israelis and virtually ignored by the Americans.  Sharon's response, dangerously shortsighted though it was, came of course as no surprise. But that of the less emotionally involved and supposedly more astute Bush administration....came as a profound shock. True, the initiative was praised. But, every step of the way, in every single reaction, it looked as though Washington was taking special care to vilify, humiliate and demonize the Palestinians. The impression Washington gave was of following an Israeli script calculated to ensure that the Palestinians never got a chance to opt for peace.  There is no other explanation.  Claims that the Americans do not understand the region, that their vision does not extend beyond the United States, no longer ring true.  Their vision extended perfectly well to Afghanistan.  The Middle East is at its most explosive for years. The Bush administration had better start getting its priorities right.  It has to rein in the Israelis--and, for its own future credibility in the Muslim world, must be seen to be doing so.  Behind-the-scenes pressure will not be enough to repair the damage.  If it continues to do nothing, it will have no friends whatsoever in the region at all--and for a very long time to come."

 

SYRIA:   "Bush Breaks Silence, Blames Arafat"

 

Official Damascus Radio noted (4/4):  "After a long silence, occasionally broken with statements and hints justifying Sharon's war and brutal massacres of the Palestinian people, U.S. President George Bush called on Israel today to put an end to the ongoing military operations against Palestinian territories.   He declared that he would dispatch his Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East to carry a message, which he described as new.  News agencies cited Bush as saying in a statement he delivered at the White House Garden that what he termed the storms of violence in the Middle East cannot go on, and that enough is enough.   Bush called on Israel to stop incursions in the territories under Palestinian autonomy, halt the building of settlements in the Palestinians, and respect the dignity of the Palestinian people, in addition to opening border crossings and giving the Palestinians a larger freedom of movement.  Bush stressed that he is committed to the friendship of Israel, and that he speaks out of his concern for Israel's long-term security.  The U.S. president said PA President Yasser Arafat is largely responsible for the situation in which he finds himself today.   He charged that Arafat missed opportunities, thus betraying the hopes of the Palestinian people, as he alleged."

 

TUNISIA:  "The American Order!"

 

Editor-in-chief Mustapha Khammari wrote in independent French-language Le Temps (4/5):  "Who can doubt, after his speech yesterday, that President Bush still does not understand anything about the Middle East, let alone International relations.  Those who hoped to see the White House show compassion towards the suffering of the Palestinian people were disappointed.  Only Israeli victims count for the American president.  He even declared that 'Arafat has betrayed his people', suggesting clearly that the Palestinian people should have a better leader.  The ease with which the United States invaded Afghanistan led them to think that they can do the same thing and 'Karazaize' the Palestinian power.  It is Mr. Bush who betrayed those who are for justice and liberty in the world....  He keeps making the same amalgam by describing the legitimate Palestinian struggle as 'terrorism'.  He understands nothing about the Palestinian issue, though it is so obvious....  It is not,...by imposing a new leadership on the Palestinians that Mr. Bush will help create democracy and peace...  Palestinians should understand that  they can only rely on themselves and at the same time should give a chance to peace in order to avoid giving a pretext to Sharon the criminal to accomplish his plan for the 'Judaification' of Palestine." 

 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  ”¦Bush Has Finally Grasped Sharon Is The Problem"

 

An article in the liberal Guardian read (4/5):  ”¦The most important change is that the Bush administration has committed itself in this speech, in a manner which is close to unequivocal, to steer the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians through to a settlement. American prestige is now on the line in a way it has not been before, even during President Clinton”¦s efforts to mediate; and the most important aspect of any act of policy now becomes its success of otherwise in leading to such a settlement. That now matters more that Israeli wishes, Palestinian wishes, the influence of the Israeli lobby, or the attitudes of diaspora Jews.  Whereas the critical element used to be that the president wanted to steer a course that would keep him clear of trouble, the new critical element is that the president must not fail. That changes a great deal.”¦

 

”¦Bush Stands By Sharon”¦

 

An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph stated (4/5):  ”¦Mr Bush was much harder on the Palestinian leader than on the Israeli prime minister....  The president said the current situation was largely of Mr Arafat”¦s own making; by missing opportunities for peace, he had betrayed his own people; he should focus on Palestinians”¦ need, rather that feeding their resentments.  On the one hand, an understanding of Israel”¦s terrible predicament; on the other, the virtual writing off of Mr Arafat as a valid interlocutor. The Palestinians may at present be unable to conceive of any other leader.  But Arafat is not the man to lead them towards the promise of peace and prosperity that the president held out yesterday.”¦

 

”¦Engagement At Last”¦

 

An editorial in the liberal Guardian stated (4/5): ”¦Mr Bush”¦s intervention comes not a moment too soon. The entire region was threatening to explode with a force which could have had--indeed, could still have--quite catastrophic consequences.  It would have been inexcusable for the world”¦s only hyperpower--particularly one that funds Israel so generously--to attempt to sit this out, never mind simultaneously turning up the heat on another Arab country in the region.  There is, of course, no guarantee that Mr Powell”¦s trip will be any more fruitful that his last two trips. Neither Sharon nor Arafat is an ideal partner in any effort to build a lasting peace. It is all the more vital therefore, that America now remains seriously engaged.”¦

 

"What Blair Must Say To Bush"

 

An editorial in the independent Financial Times stated (4/5):  "Bush's decision to send the U.S. secretary of state to the Middle East in an attempt to end the escalating violence between Israel and the Palestinians is welcome."

 

FRANCE:  "Finally!"

 

Jacques Amalric opined in left-of-center Liberation (4/5):  "In the midst of despair, hope came yesterday from Washington.  President Bush's cry of 'enough is enough,' expressing almost equal feelings of compassion for two people killing each other, is probably less spontaneous than one might think, considering that the deteriorating situation in the Middle East is paralyzing the U.S. operation against Saddam Hussein....  But the cry--we are certain--marks the much-awaited end to an irresponsible wait-and-see policy, even indifference, on the part of the world's major power.  In addition to the sending of Secretary Powell to the region, the other encouraging sign is the fact that Bush has given up on the security-only approach, which doomed General Zinni's mission to failure, and has adopted the outlines for a peace solution which the two sides could never rally to if left to their bloody face-off.  This attitude required much courage.  Much courage was also required, considering the American political context, to ask Sharon to withdraw his troops.  And to recognize--after having fingered Arafat for his ambiguous attitude towards terrorism--that both parties 'had responsibilities to bear.'  While a speech does not in itself guarantee a turning point, it is a founding step.  Let us hope, while we hold our breath, that this is indeed the case.  The next few days will be crucial, because after similar remarks, any sign of prevarication is often an indication that there is a lack of determination, and therefore failure."

 

"Good For The U.S.' Image"

 

Jean-Jacques Mevel held in right-of-center Le Figaro (4/5):  "The hope of seeing some softening in the region is not the only explanation for Washington's diplomatic turning point.  In the Arab world, in Europe and even in Washington the pressure was becoming too much for both the image of the U.S. and for the reputation of its president, who was being accused of culpable passivity."

 

"Bush Bangs His Fist On The Table"

 

Fabrice Rousselot argued in left-of-center Liberation (4/5):  "In answer to the accusations of immobility, President Bush and the U.S. are back in the picture in a spectacular way, with the announcement of Secretary Powell's trip to the region....  Going beyond the notion of a simple truce, President Bush has defined a political framework for a durable solution...and for the first time clearly given his unequivocal support to the Saudi peace plan....  After a long period of inactivity, America has decided to take certain risks by getting involved in the Middle East....  With a tone of voice never heard before from a U.S. president, George Bush has warned Israel and openly asked Sharon to put an end to the construction of settlements in occupied territories....  But the contrasting reactions of both sides to the president's speech give a sense of the enormous task awaiting Secretary Powell."

 

GERMANY:  "His Word Is Valid: Enough Is Enough"

 

Washington correspondent Malte Lehming filed the following editorial for centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (4/5):  "Enough is enough.  President Bush referred to violence, oppression, terrorism and the daily humiliations of the Palestinians, but the main addressee of the U.S. president was he himself and his government.  The time of staying out of the conflict is over.  The United States has decided to bring this conflict to an end.  The U.S. president has now announced a total turnabout of his policy towards the Middle East.  America's abstinence in the region has now been punished.  Ignorance is no longer an option.  This is a courageous almost brazen insight that resulted from the accumulating chaos created by Israelis and Palestinians over the past few weeks....  Enough is enough, these are warnings, but for the first time in a long time, also promising words from the U.S. president.  If Arafat and Sharon still have a bit of reason, they should have understood the message.  If not, nobody can help them any longer."

 

"Enough Is Enough: Bush Had To Act"

 

Martina Doering had this to say in an editorial in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (4/5):  "The fact that President Bush now wants to interfere in the Middle East conflict and restore peace does not mean that all previous scenarios of horror have been ostracized.  Colin Powell will now travel to the region.  The president made very clear in his speech what Powell is to tell the Palestinian president.  And if the Israelis allow Powell to talk to Arafat, he will certainly convey Bush's words.  But the president also clearly said for what he 'asked' the Israeli premier.  But he left it open what kind of means the U.S. president is willing to use to see his views be implemented.  As clear as such requests are in diplomacy, in times of war, Sharon and Arafat often overheard such pleasant appeals before."

 

"Bush Finally Intervenes"

 

Lothar Loewe judged in mass-circulation, right-of-center tabloid Bild-Zeitung of Hamburg (4/5):  "Late but hopefully not too late, Washington is beginning to act.  President George W. Bush, a convinced friend of Israel, is now taking full advantage of the United States as a global power to halt the barbaric bloodshed in Israel and Palestine.  During his upcoming trip to the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Powell will have to use all his diplomatic talent to force Sharon and Arafat back to the negotiating table.  All previous mediation attempts, UN resolutions, and the diplomacy of the Europeans failed.  The moment of the Americans has now come.  But Washington leaves no doubt that it considers Palestinian leader Arafat to be co-responsible for the existing horrible situation.  Arafat must now prove whether he can really stop Palestinian suicide terrorists."

 

"Europe's Side Role" 

 

Christian Wernicke editorialized in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (4/5):   "No, peace in the Middle East will not come from Europe.  Everybody knows that, where Washington fails, Brussels cannot succeed either.  And Ariel Sharon is gleefully enjoying the opportunity to show the Europeans their limits....  As long as a fight for life and death is taking place in the Middle East, Europe will be doomed to play a side role, even though it has many good intentions but has no real power."

 

ITALY:  ”¦Washington”¦s Rules”¦

 

A front-page commentary by report by New York correspondent Maurizio Molinari in centrist, influential La Stampa read (4/5):  ”¦America moves ahead and the Middle East has a plan for a just, comprehensive peace, but it is still difficult to reach.  President George Bush spoke clearly and asked everyone to step back: Israel must withdraw from the Territories ”¦today”¦ and give up its settlements ”¦tomorrow;”¦ the Palestinians must stop ”¦encouraging”¦ suicide bombers and find a new leader since Arafat is compromised by terrorism; the Arab nations must follow the route of peace with Israel by accepting the Saudi plan following in Sadat”¦s and King Hussein”¦s footsteps; Iran, Iraq and Syria must stop providing weapons, money and support for terrorism, otherwise they will have to confront Bush”¦s doctrine, which doesn”¦t apply to only the Taliban and Bin Laden.  Bush surprised everybody, including defendants, doubtful allies, and inflamed Arab populations as well as bitter critics.  Washington”¦s political machine needed to take the time necessary to propose a credible solution and not a messy compromise”¦  All those holding an ideological prejudice must give it up.  The initial reactions of all interested parties confirmed that the route is uphill and human bombs are waiting to ambush.  It”¦s now Secretary of State Colin Powell”¦s turn to demonstrate that peace can become real by silencing the weapons and stopping the ”¦kamikazes”¦”¦.  On his way to the Middle East, Colin Powell will go through Europe.  It is an occasion that Europe can--and must--take to contribute to peace by concretely combining its efforts with Washington”¦s, as occurred during the Afghan war.”¦

 

”¦Mission Impossible During The Time Of The Hawks”¦

 

A different opinion from Molinari”¦s was expressed by Paolo Garimberti in left-leaning, influential La Repubblic (4/5): ”¦Cornered by Europe, the Pope and by an ever-growing bitter criticism of the U.S. ”¦liberal”¦ press due to his inertia which has been close to complicity, George Bush has finally done something by admonishing Sharon that ”¦enough is enough,”¦ and warning both the Israeli prime minister and Yasser Arafat that he is ”¦expecting better leadership and better results.”¦  However, Europe ”¦did even more”¦ yesterday when its Ambassadors Solana and Piqu”¦refused to meet Sharon, who had denied them a meeting with Arafat, and they left Israel in protest.  Both the U.S. and European actions were late, which probably won”¦t change the tragic scenario in the field....  Sharons reply was disdainfully eloquent: ”¦we haven”¦t yet finished (our job)”¦.  And the lack of replies from those who maneuver the kamikazes”¦was even more eloquent, especially in the wake of the triumphant declarations coming from four Hamas leaders boasting about the efficiency of human bombs, as published by The New York Times just yesterday morning.”¦

 

”¦Bush Enters The Arena: ”¦Withdraw From The Territories”¦”¦

 

Ennio Caretto filed from Washington in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (4/5):  ”¦This is a diplomatic turning point that was expected throughout the world.  From the White House...with Colin Powell by his side, President Bush asked Sharon to ”¦stop the raids and to start withdrawing his troops”¦ from the Territories, and asked Arafat, as well as the Arab countries, ”¦to immediately adopt measures against terrorism.”¦  And not only that: in fact, he (President Bush) also warned Iraq that paying the families of the kamikazes ”¦is the same as fomenting the worst perpetrators of mass massacres.”¦  And finally, President Bush announced that Secretary of State Powell would go to Israel and the Territories next week, without giving any further timeframe or details.  The President appeared quite upset: ”¦All these bursts of violence must not continue.”¦”¦

 

"Finally Bush Had To Step In"

 

Stephen Mavi commented in Rome's center-right Il Tempo (4/5): ”¦And finally President Bush had to step in.  Urged from all sides, accused by both the ”¦hawks”¦ and the ”¦doves,”¦ pushed by Arab moderate countries, and called by Europe and the Vatican to take an active role, he had to force himself to get out of the corner....  Iraq is still the top priority on his agenda.  However, in order to be able to attack Saddam, the consensus of the Arab countries is necessary and, in order to obtain their approval, it is necessary to disappoint U.S. ally Sharon.  What did Bush, then, decide?  He again opted for a middle course.  He asked for Israel”¦s withdrawal...while also condemning Arafat."

 

RUSSIA:  "U.S. To Pitch In"

 

Gennadiy Sysoyev pointed out on page one of reformist business-oriented Kommersant (4/5): "The U.S. President not only announced his decision to come to grips with the issue of a Middle East settlement but, in effect, claimed a key role in these efforts.  He is sending Secretary of State Colin Powell on a special mission to the Middle East next week to explain the details to local leaders."

 

"Israeli Response Improper"

 

Vadim Markushin contended on page one of centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (4/5): "The international community insists that the use of force by the Israelis in response to terrorist acts is improper.  A negotiation process can go on, parallel to efforts to bring about a cease-fire.  Even the United States has come around.  Earlier the Americans said that implementation of security measures, that is, the cessation of terrorist acts and violence must precede consultations on a final settlement."

 

AUSTRIA:  "Isolated Israel"

 

Foreign affairs writer Christian Ultsch commented in liberal Der Standard (4/5):  "It is quite revealing, how ruthlessly Israel's Premier can cold-shoulder the EU without even having to worry about possible consequences....  Bush is the only one who can still stop Sharon....  But the only strategy the U.S. president could come up with initially was to give Israel the green light for their military operation....  Now, finally, Bush is trying to call a stop to Israel's actions....  There's only one way for Israel to gain the upper hand again on the diplomatic stage.  It has to withdraw from the occupied territories--if necessary even without a peace agreement. Everyone in their right minds would consider this an act of strength, not of weakness."

 

BELGIUM:  "The Americans Take Up The Initiative Again"

 

Sabine Verhest in a front page article of independent La Libre Belgique noted (4/5): "At the moment when the United States is trying to rally the Arab world to its anti-terrorist campaign and to mobilize against Iraq, the outburst of violence in the Middle East and its support of Israel are hampering its efforts, according to American analysts.  Therefore, the need to get Arab support for their plans is forcing the Americans to get involved in trying to find a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Which will not be superfluous, given the fact that the Europeans are clearly not welcome in Israel, as demonstrated by their latest lightning visit in that country."

 

"Bush, The European"

 

Christophe Lamfaluss wrote in independent La Libre Belgique (4/5): "George W. Bush has finally yielded to the insistence of the Europeans, of the Arab countries, and also of the media of his own country which consider that the United States is the only one capable of convincing the Israeli Prime Minister.  The contempt with which the former Sabra and Chatila General handled the European delegation illustrates the credit which the Israeli Government lends to the European Union....he Israeli Prime Minister only respects force and it is therefore from the United States--from the Republican Administration of his friend Bush--that he is expecting understanding, or even a solution.  However, the Europeans should not be down in the dumps as far as the future of their foreign policy is concerned. Although George Bush and his special envoy Colin Powell are now the ones in whom the international community is hoping, it is to European positions that the U.S. President finally rallied."

 

CZECH REPUBLIC:  "Bush”¦ Uneasy Choice"

 

Milan Slezak opined in business Hospodarske noviny (4/4):  "The U.S. should intervene [in the Middle East conflict]....  If Bush focuses on 'improving the virtuousness' of the Israelis, he will estrange his strategic ally.  If he sacrifices Yasir Arafat for the benefit of Israel he will further disrupt the already disintegrating anti-terrorist coalition, which cannot do without the Arab states."

 

DENMARK:  "Our Hopes Rest With Powell And U.S."

 

Sensationalist tabloid BT stressed (4/5):  "The fact that the EU countries cannot agree, means that it is a weak player [on the international scene.]  Our hopes for peace rest therefore with Colin Powell and the U.S." 

 

"Bush Changes Horses"

 

Center-right Berlingske Tidende's Washington D.C. correspondent, Poul H”¦, commented (4/5):  "During the last fourteen days, a open war has been raging in the Bush administration between the hawks who want to back Israel to the last and Colin Powell who favors negotiation.  President Bush does not appear able to defend his hard-line policies any longer and has chosen to change horses." 

 

FINLAND:  "Psychosis Of Violence"

 

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat had this op-ed (4/4):  "The only way to reach agreement [in the Middle East] is peace enforcement....  It could be carried  out only through extensive international cooperation, but there is no hope as long as the United States supports Israeli action as Bush did on Monday.  The EU is powerless, split and passive."

 

GREECE:   "After The Maneuver"

 

The lead editorial in popular, influential and anti-American Eleftherotypia claimed (4/5):  "George Bush intervenes in the Mideast tragedy after he let Ariel Sharon sweep the Palestinian territories and spread terror in the name of fighting terrorism.  The American president asked the Israelis to withdraw but gave them sufficient time to 'complete their work' until next week when Secretary Powell arrives.  After supporting war and barbarity, President Bush appears as a peacemaker instead of helping the UN assume this role by implementing SC Resolution 1402.  Bush wants the UN aside and weakened so as to be able to play by alone according to his interests."

 

"Proof Of European Weakness"

 

The lead editorial in large-circulation pro-government Ethnos declared (4/5):  "Europe's failure to intervene in important events instead of standing aside as an observer of initiatives and/or decisions undertaken by the overseas superpower is neither unprecedented or inexplicable.  It is, however, unprecedented to have its right to intervene refused or to be told to what point and in which manner its intervention is acceptable.  Once more it is proven that the EU not only lacks, but does not even claim the role it can play in international affairs for the simple reason that it lacks a common foreign policy."

 

HUNGARY:  "A Quiet American In The Middle East"

 

Former Washington correspondent Gabor Lambert argued in influential business/political Vilaggazdasag (4/4):  "The United States is the only external power that could ease the drama in the Middle East....  But it is quite doubtful that the two sides to this decades long conflict would quit fighting just now.  Gershom Gorenberg in the Washington Post reminds us that 'every successful Israeli offensive is followed by not less but even more Palestinian terrorist attacks.'"

 

IRELAND:  "Storm Of Violence Cannot Go On"

 

The liberal Irish Times ran this editorial (4/5):  "In his speech yesterday President Bush accurately described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the danger that it could threaten the entire Middle East region.  As an exercise in political leadership his intervention came none too soon, after the appalling events of recent days.  U.S. passivity up to now has drawn unprecedented criticism at home and abroad.  His call yesterday for an end to violence, an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian areas...and a return to political dialogue brokered by...Colin Powell, is welcome and altogether necessary.  But it must be conducted in cooperation with the UN and the EU if it is to be balanced and politically credible....  If Israel continues the operation for the next few days before Powell arrives much of the goodwill generated by Mr Bush's speech could be dissipated....  The fundamental significance of this welcome return to full engagement by the U.S. is that it came in response to a widespread international demand for political and diplomatic action."

 

"America's Acutely Embarrassed At International Condemnation"

 

The centrist Irish Examiner held (4/5):  "The failure of America, Israel's most powerful ally, to condemn the armed occupation of Palestine displays a cynical disregard for the most basic principles of justice. The silence of the Bush regime in the face of these atrocities by the Israeli army is deplorable.  It remains to be seen how Israel will respond to the belated call by Bush for a withdrawal of its forces from occupied cities. The decision to send Powell to the region reflects America's acute embarrassment at the chorus of international condemnation of its inaction to date....  If he hopes to measure up to his role as the world's most powerful leader, Bush should now take a bold initiative aimed at resolving this crisis.  The immediate aim must be to bring about the withdrawal of the Israeli army....  There is growing unease in Ireland about the tactics being employed by Israel against Arabs in the living hell of Palestine."

 

LATVIA:  "Deadlock"

 

Columnist Aivars Ozolins wrote in centrist, largest-circulation Diena (4/3):  "Unfortunately, U.S. leadership, which inescapably will have to use its weight and influence to stop the escalation of violence, lacked consequence in preventing the crisis last week....  The United States has the possibility to encourage Israel to carry out such a resolution and mobilize the international community for an attempt to restart the process of peace talks.  The soulution to the crisis will not be possible without evident progress in termination of the Israeli occupation."

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "Diplomatic Offensive"

 

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad has this editorial (4/2): "The U.S.,significantly absent during the recent escalation, will have to take the lead so that a truce can be reached....  Without delay, Washington together with the UN and the European Union will have to work on a proposal for a political solution for the Israeli-Palestinian war.  This will have to be done soon and at the highest level."

 

NORWAY:  "Bush Has Had Enough"

 

In independent VG (4/5), editorial page editor Svein A. Roehne commented:  "'Enough is enough,' declared Bush yesterday....  With that the American president has given in to the massive pressure that the world's only superpower must use its influence in the Middle East to stop the madness there....  President Bush does not have responsibility for the war in the Middle East.  But as long as he has not done anything to stop an aggressive Sharon, it is considered an approval of the Israelis' brutal action. This is the truth that now obviously has also sunk in in Washington."

 

"A Weak Warning To Sharon"

 

Independent Dagbladet commented (4/5):  "President Bush came yesterday with a weak warning to Ariel Sharon....   The pressure on the superpower is growing, since the crisis in the Middle East now is about the stability of a whole region with importance for world peace....  For several months we have witnessed American inability to act.  The United States has for a long time accepted Sharon's demand for an end to all violence before political talks could start.  [It] thus blessed the spiral of death by giving extremists the right of veto over a dying peace process....  If Bush really will pressure Sharon, world peace must mean more to him than domestic public opinion."

 

POLAND:   "America Back In Game"

 

Ryszard Malik wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (4/5):  "After weeks of waiting, America has spoken with a strong and decisive voice.  George W. Bush, the leader of the global empire, stands again in the role of world leader. After September 11, since which time the eyes of the entire world have turned to Washington, the United States has been conducting the war on terror in a very reasonable and commendable way.  The U.S. has won the confidence and support of the international community for the actions in Afghanistan. These successes had been seriously undermined, however, by waiting too long in the face of the dramatically changing situation in the Middle East.  Now the United States is back in the game.... Bush announced that Colin Powell would go to the Middle East next week on a mediation mission.  Thus actions will follow words.  After all, there is reason to hope that the situation in the Middle East will calm down."

 

PORTUGAL:  "America Has To Act"

 

Influential center-left P”¦lico's editor-in-chief Jos”¦Manuel Fernandes editorialized (4/4):  "The United States has lacked a clear line of conduct or an involvement commensurate with the recognition made by its vice president that only they can resolve the conflict....  None of the great problems that American policy faces in its fight against terrorism has a solution without Washington getting involved in a real and balanced effort at mediation....  It is necessary that the United States, with all its weight, rebalance the scales that have tilted too far to the Israeli side.  If Bush does not want to just go down in history as someone who impassively watched the unfolding of a foretold disaster,  then he must hurry to put out the fire.  He is the only one who can do it."

 

SLOVENIA:  "Favorite Enemies"

 

Left-of-center Delo offered this view by U.S. correspondent Ervin Hladnik Milharcic (4/4):  "Constant repeating of the demand that Arafat must put an end to the terrorist attacks, and support for Israel's operations in the occupied territories have deprived America of [its reputation] as neutral intermediary."

 

SPAIN:  "Europe, Bush And Sharon"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia analyzed (4/5):  "The U.S. continues to be the only actor with the capacity to successfully put pressure on both parties.  However, where there is a will, there is not always a way, as President Bush said yesterday....  There is now reason to be pleased that Bush has rectified his position and announced a more active (mediation) between Israelis and Palestinians....  In such circumstances the EU, which has suffered an affront by Sharon, must insist on its good offices.  And the Bush administration, which considers itself now to be ready to intervene, must demonstrate with actions that its words can be listened to by Arafat, but also by Sharon."

 

"Bush Finally Puts an End To Sharon's Excesses"

 

 Independent El Mundo noted (4/5):  "It will be necessary to wait for Powell's visit to see to what extent Sharon is sensitive to Bush's demands.  But the step taken yesterday by Bush makes it compulsory to involve himself more directly into solving such a complicated conflict."

 

TURKEY:   "For How Long?"

 

Sami Kohen wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (4/4): "Theoretically speaking, the war will come to end when Israel withdraws and goes for a cease-fire.  It is unlikely that Sharon will concur with such a plan before 'the job is finished.'  Well, is the whole world going to wait for that?  The U.S. is seeking a magical formula that will be acceptable to both sides.  Unless this is achieved, the war situation will continue." 

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Time To Act On Conflict In Mideast"

 

An editorial in the liberal Canberra Times observed (4/4):  "Logic has only a very small part to play in a conflict which has erupted from time to time over the past 3000 years.... Nothing about the current trouble is new except for its capacity to disrupt the international order with the gravest consequences.  Already there are clear danger signals that much of the world is fracturing along religious lines....  President George W. Bush is caught in his obsession with a vengeful 'war on terror' against the fundamentalist Muslims of Al-Qaeda--together with their state sponsors--and their association with the Palestinian cause.  Add to that the aggressive Jewish lobby in Washington and New York and the mix becomes potentially lethal....  A speedy initiative is vital, if not from the Americans then from some third party unattached to either side.  The alternative--of drifting into chaos--is simply unacceptable."

 

CHINA/HONG KONG S.A.R.:   "Moment Of Truth"

 

The independent, English-language South China Morning Post judged (4/4):  "Hundreds of lives have been lost in 18 months of tit-for-tat terror.  The human toll soars, yet diplomatic efforts lack urgency.  Envoys have come and gone, while the people who could make a difference--U.S. President George W. Bush, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--have stayed away....  Mr. Bush's war on global terrorism is inextricably tied up in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It was one of the reasons for the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington and it is why the word 'terrorist' has become so misused by both sides.  Arabs and Jews have been at war for centuries.  Their problems will not be solved by warnings, threats or condemnations.  Only with tough international mediation and the use of peacekeepers can the powder keg be prevented from exploding."

 

INDONESIA:  "Looking At Palestine With Common Sense"

 

Independent Media Indonesia noted (4/5):  "Whether we realize it or not, we are making the Israel-Palestine conflict our domestic affair.  Moreover, we oppose the United States and the West in such a way that Indonesia is put in a difficult position in many respects....  The Israeli-Palestinian issue must be seen with a cool head.  Our sympathy should build upon humanitarian instead of religious reasons, or we would lack clarity and explanation [about our defense of the Palestinians]."

 

"Israel's Repression Confirms Diversity Of Definition Of Terrorism"

 

Leading, independent Kompas judged (4/3):  "The violence [between Israelis and Palestinians]...will continue to escalate.  It does not make sense at all that the calls by the UN, the Arab, European and Asian nations--and even by the United States--have not changed Israel's policy....  The attention to preventing and fighting terrorism, which gained tremendous momentum after September 11, has also been affected....  We wonder to what extent Israel and the United States realize this....  It would be more advantageous to the United States to be more proactive in finding a flexible and fair solution."

 

JAPAN:  "U.S. Should Be More Responsible For Mideast Peace"

 

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun pointed out (4/5):  "The Palestinians have been in panic and confusion since the Israeli military's invasion of their cities and towns.  It is the 'conflicting' policy of the United States--the only major influence in the Middle East--that actually gives a tacit 'green light' to Israel's military action against the Palestinians.  The Bush administration can no longer waste time in urging Israel and the Palestinians to stop hostilities and in calling for the Israeli military's withdrawal from the Palestinian autonomous region.  The world has become skeptical that the Bush administration is unable to exercise its enormous influence on Israel because of pressure from the Jewish community in the United States.  Anti-U.S. demonstrations are already shaking the foundation of pro-U.S. governments in the Arab world."

 

MALAYSIA:  "Where Is The U.S.?" 

 

The government-influenced, English-language News Straits Times judged (4/5):  "Nothing in recent history has done more to focus the world's mind on worst-case scenarios than the present crisis in the Middle East.  Across the world, people are making their own resolutions known through flaming protests.  Concomitant with this firestorm of protest, however, is the glaring realization that nothing and no one in the world is better placed to make a difference to this conflict than the United States.  What is Bush administration trying to achieve with this incomprehensible reluctant to intervene?...  Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, bunkered in the ruins of his Ramallah headquarters, is convinced the United States had to have given the go-ahead to Israel for this assault.  What is incontrovertible is that the United States could stop this if it wanted to....  Is it waiting for another Bosnia or Kosovo to happen?  This is a question for its European allies, and indeed the rest of the world, to ponder."

 

PHILIPPINES:  "Difficult Situation For George W. Bush"

 

Publisher Max Soliven opined in the third leading Philippine Star (4/5):  "Dan Rather of CBS, a veteran analyst of world affairs, was quite accurate in his assessment, made from Jerusalem the other day, that what the Israelis worry about is not European opinion, or Arab opinion, or anybody else's opinion, but what Americans are thinking.  By the same token, the United States cannot get away from [the Middle East issue]: the Americans are classified as Israel's only friends.  Perhaps the reason Washington, D.C....is waffling over the question of forcing Israel to withdraw its IDF and agree to a 'cease-fire' is because, deep down, the global 'anti-terrorist' George W. Bush knows that--when the chips are down--only the Israelis will side with him in the Middle East.  It's not a happy situation for Dubya Bush and his crew, but that's the way--to use that hackneyed expression--the cookie crumbles."

 

"Good Move"

 

Independent, liberal Today's editorial remarked (4/4):  "President George W. Bush on Monday took the first real step toward restoring some sense and order in the Middle East, and it all began with an admission that he was wrong:  The world is not, apparently, so cleanly and conveniently divided between terrorists and America's allies.  The with-us-or-against-us 'Bush doctrine' on terrorism has effectively been recalled....  Until the weekend...Arafat was officially a terrorist in America's eyes....  Israel, meanwhile, as a traditional ally and prot”¦”¦of the United States, was sheltered snugly under America's wings as an unquestionable companion in a new global war against terrorism....  [But now] the world...has been pulled from Bush's simple dichotomy of good and evil, and thrown back into the chaos and complications that make foreign policy such a tangle.  And this is a good thing.  Only within this mess can America and every nation learn to deal with each other and each other's special problems on a case-by-case basis.  Within this mess there is hope for a yet realistic, if still elusive, order."

 

SINGAPORE:  "Descent Into Madness"

 

The pro-government Straits Times stressed (4/4):  "The Middle East conflict is not about terrorism, but about a people yearning to be free....  How the political-military establishment of Israel cannot, or would not, comprehend the Palestinians' craving is a modern tragedy....  Going by Mr. Bush's stunning clarity, Palestinian suicide attacks are acts of terrorism, whereas Israeli force of arms is self-defense.  Palestinians may wait in vain for this president to rise above narrow (electoral) self-interest and American Jewry's clique of industrialist-financiers, media owners and congressional champions.  Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, noted in an editorial that Mr. Sharon 'offered no hope to the Palestinian people and their leaders' in his post-Passover remarks justifying the strikes. The Palestinians have never been lonelier and in greater need of help." 

 

SOUTH KOREA:  ”¦Palestine In Flames”¦

 

Conservative Chosun Ilbo emphasized (4/4):  ”¦Israel should immediately withdraw from all Palestinian cities as called for by the recent UN Security Council resolution...  The Palestinians...should halt suicide bombings against civilians.  In particular, the United States should abandon its hands-off stance, actively engage in mediation activities between the two sides, and come up with a concrete vision for a peaceful solution.”¦

 

”¦Worsening Middle East Situation And U.S. Responsibility”¦

 

Pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun offered this view (4/4):  ”¦The primary responsibility for the current Middle East crisis lies in hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.  However, President Bush should also assume heavy responsibility.  This is because, unlike his predecessor Clinton, he has avoided acting as a mediator in the region despite the stark reality that the United States is the only country that can control Israel”¦s unilateral actions....  If the United States maintains its current hands-off stance, it will inevitably fail to enlist the support of moderate Arab nations in its war on terror.”¦

 

THAILAND:  "Mad Cycle Of Mideast Violence"

 

The lead editorial in the independent, English-language Nation noted (4/4):  "In the cut-throat world of Middle Eastern politics it is important to be strong but by itself that is never enough.  Israel needs to be right as well, and there is nothing the small Jewish state has done in the last week to suggest that it is acting with the moral upper hand."

 

"American-Style World Cop"

 

Trairat Soontornprapas commented in mass-appeal, Thai-language Daily News (4/4):  "President Bush came out to express his sympathy (on the attack of the Palestinian leadership's headquarters) simply as a formality,  since those who hold the reins of the U.S. economy and politics are Jewish world-class businessmen in New York who have given support for his presidency."

 

VIETNAM:  "Repetition Of A Historic Mistake?"

 

The commentary in Quoc Te, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam weekly, contended (4/5):  "What is happening in the Middle East...is just like what happened in Yugoslavia during the presidency of George Bush, Sr.  At that time, a lack of attention and action of the Untied States to the dangerous situation sent Yugoslavia into a catastrophe....  Mr. Bush has not put pressure on Mr. Sharon; he has ignored, and even given the green light to the Israeli prime minister's genocidal actions.  Even Mr. Sharon's large-scale offensive last weekend has not incited any clear reaction from the United States...  The decision of Mr. Bush to stand 'outside' of the Middle East issue is seen as the repetition of a historic mistake."

 

"End Immediately The Dangerous Military Escalation In The Middle East!"

 

Minh Tam wrote in Quan Doi Nhan Dan, the daily of Vietnam People's Army, (4/3):  "The United States should be held accountable for the terrible collapse of the Middle East peace process."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Rudderless George Bush"

 

An editorial in Calcutta's independent, Bengali-language Ananda Bazar Patrika emphasized (4/5):  "Third party involvement will certainly be necessary. America, at least for the time being must shoulder that role impartially without playing a second fiddle to Israel....  The OIC conference has sent out a signal that both the results of America's super-activism relating to Iraq and an extreme lack of initiative regarding Palestine would be disastrous."

 

"Palestine Vs. Israel"

 

According to an editorial in Urdu-language Milap (4/5):  "The escalating tension in the Middle East is alarming for the whole world. The Israel-Palestine impasse is not easy to resolve, but it must be prevented from further complication.... However, the United States has thus far failed to make any breakthrough.  Whether it is due to inability of the United States or its unwillingness to resolve the crisis, the end result is that West Asia is boiling with tension with the danger of further aggravation of the situation."

 

"Playing With Fire"

 

An editorial in Urdu-langugage Qaumi Tanzeem argued (4/4):  "It remains to be seen how the United States will manage to overcome the impasse in the Middle East, because it is impossible for America to justify to the world the death of Palestinians as part of a war against terrorism....  The U.S. policy in the Middle East is anything but fair.  The Bush administration is working as a military back-up for Israel." 

 

"Inaction Harmful, But Biased Action Is Devastating"

 

Urdu-language Nadeem stressed (4/4):  "If the United States really wants to resolve the current impasse, the Bush administration has to change its biased policy and act fairly.  Inaction is harmful but biased action, justifying the aggressor is devastating, as is evident from the current situation."

 

IRAN:  "Bush Remarks Arrogant, One-Sided"

 

Tehran's official Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated (4/5):  "Last night's remarks of the American president on the Middle East situation and the issue of Palestine in particular must be described as biased, one-sided, arrogant and, to put it in one word, misconception as a result of America's domination of the world as the only superpower.  The American president, in his remarks, said that Washington was a true friend of Tel Aviv.  At the same time he described the Palestinian people's defence in the face of the Zionist enemy's occupation as terrorism.  He called on the Middle Eastern states to condemn the martyrdom-seeking operations [suicide bombings] of the Palestinian Muslims, which is the only option left to them to defend themselves.   The remarks of America's president once again proved that Washington can never act as a mediator and unbiased observer in the Middle East region, because it is not qualified to do so."

 

PAKISTAN:  "Israel And Foreign Media"

 

Karachi-based, independent, English-language Dawn emphasized (4/5):  "Considering the nature of the atrocities his troops are committing in Ramallah and the other reoccupied Palestinian towns, Ariel Sharon knows that the best way to hide his criminal conduct is to declare the area a 'military zone' and order all journalists out of it.  This is in clear breach of a time-honored practice: Journalists have always considered it their right to report from the frontlines....  Sharon was a war criminal then; he is one today.  It is he, as the real villain in the bloody Middle East drama, who needs not only to be reined in, but also brought to justice for war crimes."

 

"U.S. Must Learn From History"

 

Saleem Yazdani argued in leading, mass-circulation Jang (4/5):  "The United States' unwarranted support of  Israel is primarily to be blamed for taking the Palestinian intifada to this extreme of suicidal attacks.  Had the U.S. attitude been unbiased and based on justice and fair play, then the law and order situation in the Middle East would have been different.  The United States has rapidly begun losing the support that it had won in the wake of September 11."

 

"Does America Want Palestinian Genocide?"

 

Popular Din held (4/5):  "Israel has turned Palestine into Bosnia and is engaged in the same kind of ethnic cleansing that the Serbs carried out against the Muslims there....  It is not possible for Israel to act with such belligerence without U.S. backing.  U.S. silence over Israeli military operations is not without reason--[that silence] is open support of the Israeli plan, despite the fact that the United States is now alone in its unconditional support for Israel.  Even its Western allies have abandoned it....  In the latest Security Council meeting, France proposed the deployment of UN troops in Palestine to monitor the cease-fire.  However, it is quite possible that the United States will not support this proposal.  Such an attitude justifies the Muslim world's question to the United States: Is it a party to the Israeli plan of...ethnic cleansing?"

 

"U.S. Guilt On Palestine"

 

Nasim Zehra commented in the centrist, national English language News (4/5):  "Washington's mediation has repeatedly been on the side of the Israelis.  The Tenet Plan was also in line with the Israeli demands....  Washington's 'parenting' of Israel has been disastrous....  The world looks on as the very people that have kept...the memory of the holocaust alive, are refusing to understand the pain and the injustice inflicted upon the wronged Palestinians.  Such is the blinding power of convoluted reasoning that Washington has locked itself into.  However, only more concrete political action by the Arab states, in support of the Palestinians, will force a rethink in Washington.  Only then will Washington understand that the era of interim agreements is dead.  It is time to start with the Abdullah Plan; with Israelis conceding a Palestinian homeland and the Arabs recognition and engagement to the Israeli state."

 

SRI LANKA:  "Herod And The Holocaust"

 

An op-ed page by Ameen Izzadeen in the independent, popular Daily Mirror asserted (4/5):  "Blaming Arafat was part of a U.S.-Israeli ploy to trigger a fratricidal war between Arafat loyalists and radical resistance groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-aqsa Brigade, which is an off-shoot of Arafat's Fatah movement.  Failing that, the hawkish lobby, probably linking Sharon with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, activated another option in its armoury--to bring about a situation where Israeli genocidal action could be justified....   To stop the Sharon terror, the rest of the world can only do what the United States will allow it to do--and no more....  As long as the United States' power remains unchecked, there is little that others could do.  The United States knows this.  So do Sharon and his Israeli right-wingers.  Thus there will be no end to violence in West Asia.  All the talk about a Palestinian state is political bunkem.  The Palestinian state will be a reality only when there is a paradigm shift in U.S. policy.  But this is unlikely, given the influence of the right-wing Jewish lobby.  So [the Middle East] is doomed to remain a powder keg."

 

AFRICA

 

SOUTH AFRICA:  "U.S. Must Be Unbiased Mediator In World's Most Dangerous Conflict"

 

The liberal Mail & Guardian stated (3/28):  "The United States may have finally grasped the obvious truth that Sharon's attempt to crush the Palestinian uprising by military means has led to en ever-worsening spiral of terror and retaliation.  But it appears to have another, more ominous motive--to win Arab support for the planned second phase of its war on terror, by unleashing its forces against Iraq....  The two initiatives pull in diametrically opposed directions.  There can be no doubt that a strike on Iraq...would fuel the force of extremism....  In its approach to terrorism, the United States is prey to the same delusion as Sharon:  that political problems can be resolved by brute force....  But neither the Israelis nor the United States can duck the ultimate issue:  There will be no peace while Israel holds a separate people in subjection,  and refuses to allow the six million diaspora Palestinians...to come home....  America's responsibility is to act as a mediator in the world's most dangerous conflict, rather than treating Israel purely as an ally and bulwark against terrorism.  Until this happens, envoys like Zinni can only come away empty-handed."

 

TANZANIA:  "Israel Must Withdraw"

 

The independent, English-language African opined (4/2):  "Even though Israel, together with its patron, the United States, always evade the root cause of the crisis that is over 50 years old, the truth remains the same:  It is the Israeli occupation.  Many people agree that this negative policy by the two governments is a long-time stumbling block in the attainment of comprehensive peace in the area.  For example, all this talk by Washington of portraying Iraq as the biggest menace in the area, Arabs do not see it that way and insist that the bad boy in the area is Sharon and not Saddam....  So the United States' continued policy of portraying Iraq as the enemy of the Arabs and not Israel seems to be falling on its own sword....  Washington and Tel Aviv still view the Palestinian suicide bombings...as nothing but acts of terrorism that have to be fought vigorously....  It appears that the Bush administration has not fully appreciated the degree to which the war on terrorism is a diplomatic and political issue, and not a purely military one.  Once it realizes this then the world will enjoy real peace."

 

ZIMBABWE:  "Sharon Fails To Understand"

 

The government-controlled Herald opined (4/2):  "Mr. Sharon...fails to understand that using armed force against Palestine will not work.  He is not fighting a foreign enemy.  It is far more a case of fighting an internal rebellion, and where right is on the side of those being oppressed, armed force is counter-productive and can only work if genocide is the objective.  The tragedy is that there is a solution....  Even the United States has stated that the obvious solution is for an Israeli state and Palestinian state existing together, side-by-side, in harmony....  Palestinians no longer trust anyone.  But if there is a real deal on the table [the Saudi peace proposal], then there is a chance that peace can be implemented."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:   "Healing The Holy Land"

 

The liberal Toronto Star opined (4/5):  "Roused from torpor by a Holy Land in flames, President George Bush has finally acknowledged that the Middle East crisis demands a political solution, not a military one, and that only he can broker it.  It's about time.  Bush had to swallow hard before dispatching...Colin Powell to push for a ceasefire and peace talks.  Until now he has let Sharon try to beat down Arafat, with disastrous results....  The Bush plan demands that Arafat cooperate with Sharon on a cease-fire, but lacks a guarantee that Sharon will rapidly accept a Palestinian state with political sovereignty over Arab East Jerusalem, on most of the occupied areas.  Without that, no ceasefire can hold for very long.  It was the Palestinians' frustration with occupation that prepared the ground for this crisis, and 1,700 deaths. Powell will be asked about that the minute he arrives.  Bush's work has barely begun."

 

"Israel's Just Campaign"

 

The conservative National Post commented (4/5): "Despite an embarrassingly rich trove of evidence that Mr. Arafat supports and controls terrorist squads that attack Israel, Mr. Bush has declared Mr. Arafat neither terrorist nor enemy.  Mr. Bush clarified his policy in a speech yesterday, and by and large said the right things....  But Mr. Bush's comments were seriously flawed in two respects.  First, he continued to pretend that Mr. Arafat was merely inconsistent in his opposition to terrorism, rather than recognizing that he is actually consistent in his support of it.  Worse, from an immediate practical standpoint, the president also added to the global chorus of disapproval of Israel....  Israel should not withdraw until it has completed the task of uprooting the terrorist network in the West Bank and Gaza.  Many of the Palestinian Authority's terrorists are encircled.  If Israel were to let Mr. Arafat and his murderous underlings off the hook yet again, the suicide bombings would resume with renewed fervour and triumphalism....  Mr. Sharon is implementing the Bush doctrine; no one, least of all Mr. Bush, should try to stop him."

 

"Mr. Bush's Doctrine"

 

Under the sub-heading, "The U.S. plan for Mideast peace deserves support," the nationalist Ottawa Citizen remarked (4/5):  "Yesterday's speech raises the U.S. engagement in the search for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an unprecedented level....  Obviously, Mr. Bush would prefer a diplomatic solution, which is why he's sending his secretary of state to the region next week.  But it's clear the United States is considering other options if diplomacy fails.  Those who might find themselves the target of these other options should consider Mr. Bush's words carefully, and govern themselves accordingly."

 

"Crude Calculations"

 

The leading Globe and Mail opined (4/4):  "Beyond the moral and strategic arguments for the United States to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, there is a pressing economic reason for it to end its complacency.  It is spelled O-I-L. The United States is by far the world's biggest importer of crude.  It has long understood that, to fuel its economic machine, it must have a steady, affordable supply of energy from the Middle East....  Consider that Iraq, the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the United States--yes, the United States--is already making noises about cutting off its exports as a sign of solidarity with the Palestinians.  Washington is considering military action to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, who it considers a disruptive element in the region.... If the United States were to attack Iraq, it would count on its good friends the Saudis to use their vast production capacity to make up for any interruptions in Iraqi supply, thus keeping prices stable.... Should Mideast tensions reach a boiling point, Saudi Arabia might have to break with its U.S. solidarity on oil, or risk an insurrection.  All of this adds up to a mess of uncertainty, one that appears to oil traders as an enormous black hole.  Uncertainty breeds fear and, in the absence of any soothing words from the White House or elsewhere, fear is gripping the market.  Unless the United States takes some clear steps to calm tensions and offer some solutions to the Mideast problems, it can add $30-plus oil prices and a stagnating domestic economy to its list of things to worry about."

 

"The Madness"

 

Editorialist Serge Truffaut judged in Montreal's liberal Le Devoir (4/4):  "If nothing is done to end the all-out repression ordered by Ariel Sharon, the conflict will sweep across the borders to the great satisfaction of Hamas, Hezbollah and other fundamentalists....  As for Arafat, voices in the past weeks have asked him to rein in the terrorist groups behind the suicide bombings.  Not once did he do so. American Secretary of State Colin Powell hinted that a TV appeal in Arabic asking that the suicide bombings be stopped would be appreciated.  Arafat was not being asked much. But what did he do?  Nothing....  By supporting the strategies of Hamas--which, like Sharon, has always wanted to kill the Oslo agreement--the leader of the Palestinian Authority has silenced the moderates in his camp....  The Europeans bear a heavy responsibility for what is going on right now.  When President Clinton conducted his peace initiative, those dear Europeans kept silent or criticized the Americans accusing them of being interventionists.  When Bush arrived and showed some indifference they accused him of being an isolationist.  Today they talk and talk....  The bottom line is that all the means that could force Sharon to respect UN resolutions must not only be envisioned but applied."

 

ARGENTINA:  "War Reaches Streets Of Bethlehem"

 

Elisabetta Pique, on special assignment in Jerusalem for daily-of-record La Nacion, observed (4/3):  "The Mideast crisis is getting increasingly serious and it is like a dead-end alley.  With all the West Bank practically in hands of the Israeli army, the Jewish forces...have put the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem under siege....  Despite a strong protest from the Vatican...international diplomacy is still failing in its attempt to stop the implacable military escalation of the Israeli army, something of unpredictable consequences for the world."

 

"Where Is Sharon Headed?"

 

International analyst Claudio Uriarte had this to say in left-of-center Pagina 12 (4/3):  "Is there a possible return to peace negotiations?  Yes, but it is increasingly further away, and a long period of Israeli war against the Palestinians is likely to take place before negotiations can be resumed.  The EU or Vatican missions and the negotiations of the UN Security Council will lead nowhere because none of them has a decisive influence in the area.  The United States is the only one that could act, but it does not have reasons to do it after three mediation delegations...that ended in nine broken cease-fire declarations."

 

"State Of War In The Middle East"

 

An editorial in leading Clarin contended (4/3):  "Israel's declaration of war, its attack on Palestinian territories and the purpose of flying Arafat into exile dramatically deepen the violence spiral in the Middle East and precludes  any prospects for peace....  Equally important are the domestic policies of contenders and the U.S. government's misleading attitude. Sharon is pressured...by an even harder right wing wanting to deepen war....  The United States, for its part, seems to have conditioned its strategy in the Middle East on some search of support for its attack on Iraq, which would explain the feeble support granted to the Arab summit."

 

BRAZIL:  "Powell Does Not Have To Reinvent The Wheel"

 

Conservative O Globo's editorial stressed (4/5):  "At this point it seems clear...that only a energetic diplomatic action from the United States will calm down the Middle East.  That's why Colin Powell's trip to Israel next week...is not really a surprise....  Had the White House taken this decision long ago much suffering had been prevented and many lives had been saved....  Bush's demands to Israel are encouraging.  One only hopes that this is not just rhetoric....  To achieve peace and security for the long term, Powell does not have to reinvent the wheel: He can start by rescuing the Saudi proposal, supported by the Arab League in Beirut, that was lost in the recent sea of blood."

 

"Bush Decides To Act"

 

The lead editorial in center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo remarked (4/5):  "To stop Sharon and restore Arafat's power and dignity, and at the same time refrain the terrorist wave, there would need to be American troops, under a UN mandate, in the 'green line' separating the West Bank from Israel.  The starting point for the U.S.-Arab League dialogue would unquestionably be Saudi Prince Abdullah's plan....  For the Sharon government, the plan is unacceptable....  But since 1947 no better idea has emerged to stop the Middle East tragedy."

 

"The Powell Mission"

 

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo's editorial stated (4/5):  "Between gestures and words, one should take some time to decode what is emerging from the new U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Middle East....  Bush's decision to send Secretary Powell may be taken as the first measure of a less passive U.S. stance... To send a first echelon representative to the Middle East is a signal the United States is devoting more attention to the subject.  But the context does not permit a final conclusion about the meaning of Bush's attitude.  In his remarks announcing Powell's mission, the president almost said that Yasser Arafat has lost his legitimacy as a negotiator.  It was not what Powell said last week in  reaction to the Israeli military's siege of the PA headquarters....  Bush's words and gestures have been calculated to respond to conflicting demands in the U.S. political scene....  A concrete proposal to make the Palestinian state feasible is the only way of bringing hope to the end of the conflict.  But such a decision cannot be taken under the aegis of the Bush Doctrine's simplistic formula: 'Everyone has to choose: either you are with the civilized world or with the terrorists.'"

 

"Dangerous Precedent"

 

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political commentator Clovis Rossi filed from Jerusalem (4/5):  "President Bush has bought into Ariel Sharon's thesis, which considers Yasser Arafat disposable.  Bush's speech yesterday repeated the same criticism the Israelis have made against Arafat....  There is a serious problem of international relations in Bush's interference in Palestinian domestic affairs.  International observers considered Arafat's election in 1996 fair and free....  Who gives Bush the right to decide which chiefs of governments are or are not disposable?...  If Israel has not arrested Arafat it is because it does not have sufficient evidence to incriminate him as a terrorist or it fears the reaction of Arab and European nations.  Bush's green light gives super hawk Sharon the green light to go beyond the absurd acts his government has already committed in the occupied territories.  With what right?"

 

MEXICO:  "Impotence In The Middle East"

 

Stephan Sberro intoned in nationalist El Universal (4/4):  "The terrible situation in the Middle East is due to the convergence of powerless actors.  The first aspect, which has been acknowledged by Arafat, is his inability to accept a solution to the Palestine problem that would force him to renounce violence.  On the other hand, Sharon does not understand...that it will be impossible to crush the Palestinian movement to obtain peace on his terms. The rest of the world has also remained quiet...  It condemns the atrocities caused by suicide bombs, but does not condemn those who arm, finance, train and morally support Arafat and his administration."

 

"Blind Alley"

 

Gabriela de la Paz observed in Monterrey”¦s independent El Norte (4/3):  ”¦No one can deny Israel”¦s right to defend its citizens...[but] with this war, Sharon is falling in the trap set by the Palestinian terrorists, who are trying to kill two birds with one stone: to discredit the Israeli government [internationally]...and to show that Arafat is no longer a good Arab representative and should be replaced by somebody more radical.  The United States cannot stand aside thinking that what is happening...has no repercussions in its fight against terrorism....  The United States is in the position of imposing solutions: force them to accept intermediaries, return territories, establish formally a Palestine State, in return for delivering terrorists and keeping Jerusalem.  Probably this is not the best answer, but anything is better than the death of more innocent civilians.”¦

 

"Mideast Conflict As Seen From Monterrey"

 

Monterrey's independent El Norte featured these remarks (4/2) by editorialist Gabriela de la Paz:  "What we've seen is nothing else but a succession of wars, where the Arab states of the region have supported the Palestinians, while Israel has always counted upon U.S. support.  This new outbreak is very serious....  It is as if someone came to Mexico, conducted a war and captured the president, which is what Israel is doing to Palestine."

 

CHILE:  "Mideast Heading Toward The Abyss"

 

Top-circulation, popular La Tercera's editorial pointed out (4/2):  "The conflict in the Middle East is going through its most critical period in the last decade...everything seems to indicate that the hardening of the Israeli position with the Palestinian National Authority is because Sharon considers that Arafat an obstacle to peace because he is not willing to give in to territorial concessions....  Sharon must withdraw his troops from the autonomous territories, and Arafat must regain his freedom of action in Ramallah.  It is also imperative that the United States intervenes decisively in the conflict, since it is the only political actor capable of influencing Israel."

 

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:  "Hell In The Holy Land"

 

Dominican economist Raul Tejada noted in conservative El Caribe (4/3):  "The United States is maintaining its ambivalence as always, thinking about its own benefit before all, and in its opinion, its benefits remain on the side of Israel, its principal crony in the region.  Unfortunately and although there was hope, the sad events of September of last year did not contribute to the United States' reformulating its conception of the role it plays as the principal economic, political, and military power in the world today."

 

"Ariel Sharon, Excessive"

 

Ubi Rivas, long-time leftist critic of the United States, wrote in second-largest circulation Hoy (4/1):  "The ball is in the United States' court to decide to do something about this pariah of humanity [Sharon.]

 

ECUADOR:  "Spiral Of Offensives And Resistance"

 

Quito's leading, centrist El Comercio declared (4/2):  "(Recent events in the Middle East) give the impression that the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban have precipitated unprecedented military violence by Israelis and suicidal terrorism by Palestinians, with a high toll in innocent lives in both cases.   The degree of violence reached in nations accustomed to the illusion of peace is alarming.  In contrast with other equally tense periods in the history of both peoples, at present an unpredictable and terrible development is foreshadowed....  [The Arab League's proposal] is a good start, and in international affairs it is important to discover that there are doors to be opened with rationality and perseverance, which might be a more effective solution to achieve peace than the offensive that led to the assault of Yasser Arafat's headquarters."

 

JAMAICA:  "Quelling Mideast Tensions"

 

The lead editorial in the moderate, influential Daily Gleaner argued (4/4):  "While this conflict is about terror and the need to eradicate it, Mr. Sharon is wrong to suggest that is the only issue....  U.S. President George W. Bush is misguided if he accepts that as sufficient explanation...this conflict is also about the right of all people to live in peace and dignity.  Israelis are fighting for that right.  But so too are the Palestinians.  If their suffering is not sufficiently addressed by American diplomacy, in the way it is being done by European diplomacy, this conflict is unlikely to ever end....  As the world's sole superpower and Israel's most important patron, the United States has a responsibility to involve itself more actively, and constructively, in the region.  The Bush administration must widen its focus beyond terrorism and pressure both sides to reduce the hostilities."

 

"A Danger Called Sharon"

 

The editor-in-chief of the centrist, business-oriented Jamaica Observer argued (4/3):  "The Israeli prime minister...is a man with a consistent approach to any very complex problem.  Whether it is a Palestinian village in Jordan, refugee camps in Lebanon, bludgeon it with military might....  What...perplexes us is the seemingly naive and myopic response of the United States to General Sharon's behavior and the United States' apparent assumption that it is Mr Arafat who holds in his hands all the cards to Israeli/Palestinian peace.  In fact, the U.S.  approach at this is like the man who is down and out, and with a heavy boot crushing his neck that he should end his bullying of the man who is doing the crushing....  In today's world, only one country has the strength and power to keep [a peace] process on track--the United States."

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO:  "Jewish Aggression"

 

Newsday's editorial stressed (4/3):  "It should now be clear to everybody, particularly the Israelis, that peace in the Middle East will never be achieved until the Palestinians are able to establish a nation state in their traditional homeland.... The Israelis, are badly mistaken if they believe they can stop the suicide bomb attacks by their military onslaught on terrorists and the isolating of Arafat.  The truth is, the Palestinians can produce any number of suicide bombers who are willing to give their lives as the only means they have of retaliating against the continuing occupation of their homeland which, by the way, is the subject of UN resolutions.  The campaign undertaken by the Jewish state will not achieve its purpose; indeed if Arafat is harmed in any way it could well lead to another Middle East conflagration. The Israelis have gone too far, and the world must tell them so."

 

##

Europe

Middle East

East Asia

South Asia

Western Hemisphere