Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldsnow who wrote (3010)	8/31/2001 5:39:16 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Follow-up to the Byzantine Alliance... Europeans Take Lead in Mideast From U.S. Joseph Fitchett International Herald Tribune Friday, August 31, 2001 Leaders Complain About Washington's Hands-Off Approach PARIS Concerned by what they view as the Bush administration's hands-off approach to the mounting Israeli-Palestinian conflict, European governments have taken the initiative to try to arrange cease-fires in the region several times in recent weeks. European leaders also have begun publicly complaining that Washington needs to do more to tackle the problem, with Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine of France accusing the U.S. administration Thursday of "acting like Pontius Pilate" in seeking to remain aloof from the crisis. The Europeans' stepped-up diplomatic effort was evident this week when they coordinated mediation efforts Wednesday to arrange terms for Israeli forces to pull back from Beit Jala, a Palestinian village near Jerusalem that they had occupied. The Israelis withdrew before dawn Thursday after Secretary of State Colin Powell threw his weight behind a deal brokered by top European officials including Foreign Minister Renato Ruggiero of Italy, who was visiting Israel, Mr. Vedrine and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany. In another European initiative earlier this month, Mr. Fischer persuaded Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel and the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to agree in principle to meet in Berlin, although a date for the meeting still has not been set. Mr. Vedrine's accusation - that the United States seemed to be washing its hands of responsibility for tackling the issue - appeared in an interview with the newspaper Le Figaro published to coincide with a Paris conference of France's top diplomats. France and other European Union countries, Mr. Vedrine said, expected Washington to move away from what he called a "wait-and-see" attitude and play a leading role in resolving a crisis with global implications. His comments struck many officials as a complaint about isolationist tendencies in the Bush administration, as well as an appeal to the United States to wield more clout in the Middle East. The Europeans' complaints about Washington's passivity are somewhat ironic, following years when they chafed over the U.S. monopoly in Arab-Israeli peacemaking diplomacy. But the position arises in part from a fear, shared in all European capitals, that U.S. diplomatic inaction is creating serious political risks for pro-Western Arab regimes and threatening to destabilize an oil-producing region vital to the global economy. [snip] iht.com The Europeans' worrying about the US's aloofness towards the ongoing Middle East crisis (Pres GW Bush's been vacationing in Crawford, TX, all along) is ironic indeed... However, the author misses the point: the closet reason why European leaders want the US to keep throwing its weight about is that they don't want to drop their pro-Palestinian pretence... So far, the US's unyielding support of Israel has allowed Europe to act as the pro-Arab middle-of-the-roader. Whereas, as I previously said, Europe's business lobby is rather pro-Israel (see trade data on EU-Israel economics). But for the sake of civil harmony, European politicos don't want to see the Intifada spilling over into their urban ghettoes, pitting North African youths against Europe's polity. Notwithstanding Europe's scramble to avoid being dragged into Israel's web, the "gravitational forces" at stake are too powerful: Russia, Israel and Europe are doomed to collapse into a Neo-Fascist merger... Gus

To: goldsnow who wrote (3010)	8/31/2001 10:04:51 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 23908

Footnote to my previous post.... The Green Peril --or How Islam will clinch a Neo-Fascist Nexus between Europe, Israel, and Russia. Creating a "Euroislam" Ingmar Karlsson Racism, intolerance, and narrow nationalism are currently gaining strength throughout Europe, in reaction to a level of Muslim immigration which is insignificant compared with what we are likely to encounter in the future. These problems are already so serious that they can only be solved by joint European endeavors and a consistent European immigration and refugee policy. One prerequisite for a successful integration is that we build up our knowledge of the diversity of Islam and the varied nature of Muslim immigration. Now that the red peril has disappeared, we are often urged to believe that it has been replaced by a green Muslim threat. There is clearly a risk that this image will be exploited to reinforce a feeling of European unity, something which is at a low ebb in all west European states after the europhoric years of the late 1980s. In view of the fact that there are al-ready 10-15 million immigrants with a Muslim background in the European Union --a number equal to that of the Scandinavian members-- and that immigration from the Muslim world is going to continue, we must rid ourselves of this false negative scenario as soon as possible, a scenario which is often depicted in terms of uniform, fanatical Muslim masses preparing to storm the bastions of the West's welfare system under the green banners of Islam, with scimitars in one hand and the Koran in the other. A policy designed to facilitate the integration of Muslim immigration groups must be based on the following prerequisites. There are large Muslim communities in most Western European states. These communities will not only expand but they will also demand greater political influence as increasing number of Muslims become naturalized citizens and become enfranchised in their new home countries. Muslims are not as easy to integrate and not as willing to allow themselves to be integrated as previous immigrant groups. An Islamic identity encompasses customs and traditions which are different from those which are regarded as normal in the societies in which Muslims are now living. Demands will be made for special rights and for special status, in addition to the entitlements enjoyed by the native population. In many cases, these demands will not only be difficult to satisfy but also impossible and this will lead to tension. Undesirable and undemocratic political tendencies in the countries of origin many be channeled into their new home countries by Muslim communities. Both the governments of Muslim states and the various sects and organizations will attempt to exploit the immigrants for their own purposes. In light of these factors, what is the best way to integrate Muslim immigrants? In Europe, Muslims must learn to live as a minority and to accept the fundamental pillars of modern European societies, that is to say pluralism and a secular social system characterized by tolerance of people with different political and religious viewpoints. The objective must be an integration which is as rapid as possible, taking into account and respecting those who, while respecting our val-ues, wish to maintain their own cultural and religious identity. Muslims must themselves become active in working for young people, so as to give a generation which has grown up in Europe a cultural background of their own while, at the same time, integrating socially into their new environment. The Muslim communities must cooperate with each other and avoid fighting out their theological and political disputes openly on European territory. As a result, a ?domestic? leadership will have to emerge, thus permitting the elimination of the label attached to Islam as an alien and dangerous cult. This domestic leadership will not only consist of Muslims born in Europe but perhaps also of native converts. Most Muslims consider that they must comply with the laws and regulations of their new home countries but this willingness is undermined in many quarters by external appeals from organizations which prefer a ?pure? Islam, without compromise. As a result, we must not tolerate the establishment of parallel political institutions. Furthermore, we must not be too easy-going in dealing with religious and political fanatics who use their exile in Europe for subversive activities directed against their home countries or for internal disputes. Under no circumstances should tolerance be extended to totalitarian views or ideas. While we should demonstrate sympathy for Islam as a religion and ensure that the prerequisites for the exercise of religion are as favorable as possible, we must also demonstrate firmness with regard to compliance with our own laws. At the same time, we must beware of regarding all religious expressions as signs of fundamentalism or an unwillingness to adapt and become integrated into European societies. A process of Islamization amongst immigrants is only dangerous if it comes into conflict with the norms of pluralistic society and a democratic state. For many immigrants from Muslim countries, religion and a general sense of piety are one way of counter-acting the feeling of uprootedness which they experience. Thus, religion may be a by-product of the break with their own cultural background and not necessarily a protest against the new society in which they are living. Hence, greater religiosity is not the same thing as suspicion and intolerance of a secularized European environment but may, instead, create an inner tranquillity which promotes tolerance and hence integration. Individuals who devote themselves to preaching a doctrine of hatred ag-ainst Europe and against Christianity, and who abuse our pluralistic societies, must be dealt with firmly and rejected. But at the same time, we must not regard radical Muslim groups as an expression of an overall campaign to attack the Western world from within. There is no such plan and, furthermore, there is no Muslim leadership capable of drawing up such a campaign. Antagonism and enmity between different sects are often stronger than hatred of the Western world. [snip] new-presence.cz