[Winona Online Democracy]
Response to Andrew Thompson
I doubt if any UN inspection of Israel for human rights
violations is in the cards. If Israel opposes,
the United States will almost certainly oppose also. Even without the Cold
War, Israel is considered a close ally. The focal point of the relationship
between this country and Israel is the Holocaust. The Nazis' treatment of Jews
has clearly overridden details of the 1917 British Balfour Declaration (in
relation to "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine") or Arabs'
opposition to Jewish settlement in general. Although Israel would seem to have
no problem in defending itself against an attack by its neighbors,
if it did face real trouble, I'm sure the U.S. would intervene militarily.
The Clinton administration supported Israel fairly consistently,
but expressed reservations over certain issues and angered many Israelis by
pushing for a compromise between Barak and Arafat. The Clinton administration
did make it clear that it preferred the more liberal and flexible Barak to the
hard-liner Sharon. Sharon of course won the prime ministership and doesn't
seem likely to make any concessions to Palestinians.
The Bush administration appears to be closer to Sharon than the Clinton
administration was. Last week
New Republic magazine owner and editor-in-chief Martin Peretz announced
his surprise and happiness with the Bush administration's friendliness
toward Sharon. He compared Bush to Clinton and found Bush far more
understanding of the Israeli leader's purposes. Peretz has expressed an
uncompromising line in
his support of Israel's policies over the years, so his happiness is not
surprising. Nor is his casting of Clinton in an unfavorable light;
although a strong Democrat, Peretz has had little respect for Clinton. But
his public praise of the Republican President is surprising and certainly
would not be given if he had
any doubts. Peretz has been a confidant and strong supporter of Al Gore
for many years and has been a nemesis of George W. Bush (as he had been of
Bush's father) in several areas of domestic and foreign policy.
In any case my guess is that this country may try to tone down some of the
most militant
postures of Sharon (with questionable success), but will generally
support his policies strongly.
Roy Nasstrom
>Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:55:59 -0500
>From: "Duane M. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: andrew thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-priority: Normal
>Precedence: bulk
>
>[Winona Online Democracy]
>
>Reply to Andrew Thompson,
>You are right on about the media treating the Palestinians because they are
>rebelling against Israel. Israel is our ally. Therefore, it can do no
>wrong. Palestinians are resisting the occupation of Palestine, therefore,
>they are wrong because they oppose our ally. Incidentally, the way Israel
>got elevated to ally status was back during the cold war. Russia was
>enlisting the Arab countries to ally themselves with it. The only ally in
>the near east available to the US was Israel. Israel has been diligent in
>maintaining its status, including the continuing American aid of about
>$4,000,000,000 per year. Egypt and Israel each got that amount of foreign
>aid when they made peace with each other. Each got the $4,000,000,000 .
>Each had been getting foreign aid before, but not to that extent. It is an
>interesting history. The Palestinians are simply an unimportant pawn in the
>(as Henry Kissinger used to say) game of Realpolitick.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: andrew thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 6:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>
>
>> [Winona Online Democracy]
>>
>> I do recall a short AP release about Sharon refusing to allow UN
>> human-rights inspectors into the West Bank a few months ago. I recall
>> thinking about the fact that when Saddam Hussein refused to allow
>inspectors
>> to look for weapons in Iraq, the assumption was that he had weapons and
>> wanted to hide them, and that Ariel Sharon was now opposing efforts to
>send
>> inspectors to look for human-rights violations in Israeli-controlled
>> territory, in which case objectivity and consistency would demand the
>> assumption that Sharon was trying to hide human-rights violations. No
>such
>> statements were ever inmy knowledge published, however.
>>
>>
>> >From: Roy Nasstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>> >Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:26:16 -0600 (CST)
>> >
>> >[Winona Online Democracy]
>> >
>> >
>> >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:28:48 -0500 (EST)
>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>> >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >MIME-version: 1.0
>> >Precedence: bulk
>> >
>> > In a conversation with a Saudi friend, he mentioned how sad it was
>that
>> >the UN had turned down an Arab request for UN troops on the Gaza Strip
>and
>> >the West Bank. I hadn't heard of this, but I don't follow national news.
>> >Was this on national news? What was the reason the Arabs were turned
>down?
>> >Thank you for this information.
>> >
>> >Kathleen Giebel
>> >
>> >Response:
>> >
>> >Given the inadequate coverage of foreign news in general (a subject of
>> >increasing debate among journalists, both print and electronic), it is no
>> >surprise that no information was available. A few foreign reports last
>> >week, however, did indicate the UN concern and the upcoming debate in the
>> >Security Council over UN involvement. A Reuters (Great Britain) dispatch
>> >of March 20, written by Howard Goller, reported the "Security Council
>deep
>> >in discussion on a Palestinian-initiated resolution that would "express
>> >determination to create an unarmed UN military and police observer force
>to
>> >help protect Palestinian civilians. The United States is expected to veto
>> >the measure. But Council members hoped for a compromise ahead of the Arab
>> >summit in Jordan."
>> >
>> >I haven't seen anything more on the issue. Perhaps someone with direct
>> >access to foreign news might know. Previous stands of the Security
>Council
>> >suggest that few members other than the United States, even among some of
>> >this country's closest allies, would oppose the measure. Nevertheless a
>> >U.S. veto would kill the resolution regardless of support from other
>> >members. (The United States, Great Britain, Russia, China and France have
>> >veto power.) The U.S. has supported Israel consistently since it was
>> >created and has used its veto frequently to kill resolutions that called
>> >for actions that Israel has opposed. The prime minister of Israel,
>> >Sharon, believes the uprising is an internal issue. Moreover, he clearly
>> >has little trust in the United Nations on issues concerning Israel and
>Arab
>> >states.
>> >
>> >This reply doesn't answer your question completely, but it may be
>helpful.
>> >
>> >Roy Nasstrom
>> >
>> >
>> >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:21:58 -0500 (EST)
>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >Subject: Re: [Winona] UN Peacekeeping on the Gaza and West Bank
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >MIME-version: 1.0
>> >Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >THANK YOU SO MUCH!! ;I thought it was just me being non-informed. But
>the
>> >imformation isn't being broadcast. I don't understand Why?
>> >
>> >
>> >Response:
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not report on foreign affairs?
>> >
>> >Both television and print media have given less and less attention to
>> >events in foreign countries, other than those eventsconstituting dramatic
>> >crises. Small squibs-or nothing- may be sufficient for reporting foreign
>> >affairs in many newspapers. Television is much worse. Both forms of media
>> >have been reducing their number of foreign correspondents. Even with
>> >foreign representation, reports from overseas may not be disseminated. It
>> >is not surprising that ABC had such trouble finding anyone to be its
>Moscow
>> >correspondent. Why report news if it would not be on the news program?
>Even
>> >CNN, which has given more attention to foreign news than all the other
>> >networks combined, may soon be reducing foreign news coverage as its new
>> >owner, Time Warner, cuts various services.
>> >
>> >What is the cause for the decline in attention? Sometimes neglect of news
>> >may be ideological, a deliberate attempt to keep the "bad guys" bad and
>the
>> >"good guys" good. But far more important overall seems to be economics.
>As
>> >media has become more consolidated, decisions on coverage have fallen
>more
>> >to individuals whose primary interest is profitability and who have no
>news
>> >background. For TV, advertising rates are determined by the number of
>> >viewers watching during the previous quarter. Results of studies of focus
>> >groups make it clear that many people switch away from oversea news
>quickly
>> >unless they have some direct personal interest, which often may be
>dictated
>> >by the icons of popular culture. One prominent correspondent
>sarcastically
>> >remarked that important foreign political news may be killed to make way
>> >for a report on Fergie's weight problems. Consequently, only dramatic
>> >foreign crises receive attention, and since little news on collateral
>> >events has taken place, understanding of the crises that are reported may
>> >be seriously impaired.
>> >
>> >The problem here is that the desire for greater organizational profit
>(even
>> >when there is no real loss) leads to satisfying clientele with no
>interest
>> >in foreign affairs at the same time it penalizes those people who do have
>> >an interest. Alternative information is extremely difficult to find.
>> >Perhaps there could be justification for the situation if the networks
>and
>> >large newspapers were facing imminent bankruptcy (as some small
>newspapers
>> >may be), but this does not appear to be the case. The issue is simply
>> >greater profit. Under ordinary conditions, there is certainly nothing
>wrong
>> >with the desire for profit, but the importance of an informed citizenry
>in
>> >a democracy should, in my opinion, constitute a major consideration in
>> >determining the relation of information to profit.
>> >
>> >
>> >Roy Nasstrom
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Roy Nasstrom, 1702 Edgewood Road, Winona, MN 55987 (507/452-3857)
>> >
>> >
>> >----------------
>> >This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>> >Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
>unsubscribe.
>> >Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>> >Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>> >Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>
>> ----------------
>> This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>> Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
>unsubscribe.
>> Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>> Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>> Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>----------------
>This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
ROY NASSTROM, CHAIR, ED. LEADERSHIP DEPT., WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY, WINONA,
MN 55987. (507)457-5347. FAX: (507) 457-5882
Roy Nasstrom, 1702 Edgewood Road, Winona, MN 55987 (507/452-3857)
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
