-Caveat Lector-
>From http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST041202.htm
}}}>Begin
Friday, April 12, 2002
MR. BUSH COMES OUT OF HIS NEOCON TRANCE
by Srdja Trifkovic
It seemed as if George Bush had been sleepwalking for weeks on end, mesmerized
by some neocon spell, and finally woke up on April 4, to the undisguised shock and
horror of his handlers. After weeks of kowtowing to Prime Minister Sharon’s doomed
policy of “solving” the Palestinian question by military means and doing nothing, last
Thursday Mr. Bush suddenly declared that Israel had to end its occupation of
Palestinian cities–Ramallah included, where Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has
been besieged at his headquarters for over a week–and to stop building Jewish
settlements. The President also condemned “innocent Palestinians’ daily humiliation”
and asserted the Palestinians’ right to statehood. Speaking in the Rose Garden he
further said that “the storms of violence cannot go on” and declared, “Enough is
enough!”
Mr. Bush quite properly also asserted Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, and
criticized Mr. Arafat for failing to prevent the recent wave of suicide bombers, saying
that “[t]he situation in which he finds himself today is largely of his own making… He
has missed his opportunities and thereby betrayed the hopes of his people.”
Nevertheless, after days of mounting international criticism of his apparently
immutable pro-Israeli stand as violence spread and escalated, Mr. Bush’s statement
was a breath of fresh air.
Secretary of State Colin Powell will travel to the area to pick up the pieces left
over by
General Anthony Zinni, Washington’s failed special envoy. He will have to convey to
Sharon that Israel is a small foreign country, albeit friendly and emotionally
especially
close to some 2.5 percent of Americans, and that U.S. policy in the region will be
conducted accordingly. He will have to tell Arafat that unless he stops being a would-
be statesman one day and a “freedom fighter” the next the United States will look for
his replacement among his less compromised top aides. There is no shortage of
candidates for succession, and several would be better able to strike the right
balance between defying Sharon’s irrational, self-defeating policies and imposing
discipline and authority in the Palestinian camp.
The fact that he is now criticized by both sides in the Middle East indicates that Mr.
Bush is finally doing something right. In Israel editorials expressed predictable
resentment of President Bush’s demand that the IDF incursions be reversed. The
Jerusalem Post bristled at the “rank paternalism” of his remarks about “distinguishing
between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians,” and other papers fretted that IDF
withdrawals would presage a “victory” for Arafat. The Arabs, for their part, 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.
In Europe the reaction to the President’s retreat from the neocon trance was
invariably hailed as a rare piece of good news in the gloomy Middle Eastern
landscape. “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. Bush’s speech was welcomed in Europe as a
turning point, marking a shift from what had been widely criticized as an irresponsible
wait-and-see approach. It was politely acknowledged but not over- emphasized that
European pressure contributed to Mr. Bush’s “turnaround.”
In the first few weeks after September 11 President Bush had wisely avoided
neoconservative pressure to broaden the war and to use terror as a pretext for the
final showdown with Saddam Hussein and indeed any other regional player disliked
in Israel. In the first few months in this year the pendulum apparently swung to the
other side, most notably with the President’s awful State of the Union address that
seemed to herald a new era of unrestrained, brazenly triumphalist global imperialism
of the worst neocon kind. Right now it is to be hoped that we are witnessing the re-
birth of the “real” George W. Bush, who understands the need for the United States
to reject the permanent bias in Middle Eastern affairs that breeds anti-Americanism
and Islamic fundamentalism. As an oilman he understands that it is vitally important
to the United States to have permanent access to secure and affordable sources of
energy; as a down-to-earth pragmatist he should come to see that it is not vitally
important to the U.S. who rules the Temple Mount.
The neocons now feel betrayed and may yet turn nasty, but it does not matter. They
can and should be challenged. In the past one could be forgiven for thinking that their
schizophrenia owed more to their post-national, globalist-hegemonist world outlook
than to their background. Today it appears that they do have undivided loyalties after
all; but those loyalties do not imply that they act in Israel’s best interests. What
they
demand of President Bush is exactly what deductive reasoning indicates to be
Osama bin Laden’s real objective: a cataclysmic war of civilizations that can only
benefit those who desire the destruction of the remnants of our race and culture.
That too, as per Albright, the likes of Norman Podhoretz may consider to be the price
well worth paying for the greater glory of themselves; they must be stopped.
APPENDIX: Extracts from the survey of media reaction around the world, prepared
by the U.S. Department of State
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 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 the
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 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 noticed 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."
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 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 Piqué 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
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´s 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 Høi, 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 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."
Copyright 2002, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org
928 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103
BACK TO CHRONICLES EXTRA!
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
