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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (21643)	3/18/2002 5:44:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Debka thinks that Rajoub's days are numbered The case of Jibril Rajoub, is different. DEBKAfile reports from its Palestinian and intelligence sources that Arafat has decided to get rid of the West Bank security chief. His choice of a replacement is revealing: Bashir Nafi, Fatah-Tanzim commander in the al Amari refugee camp between Ramallah and Jerusalem, a notoriously prolific enabler of major terror strikes, including several multi-casualty hits in Jerusalem’s Mahane Yehuda market. The most recent was the blast at the ultra-religious district of Jerusalem on March 18, killing ten Israelis and injuring dozens more. Rajoub, aware of the axe over his head, has tried ingratiation. Monday, March 18, he praised suicide bombers as bringing the Palestinian struggle against Israel to its noblest heights. This is unlikely to do him much good. Although he commands a fairly substantial militia and intelligence unit on the West Bank, Rajoub’s uncertain situation in the Palestinian hierarchy diminishes the value of his commitment to control terrorist activity on his turf after Israeli troops move out. It is unlikely that he will be able to rein in the gunmen and racketeers firing on Jerusalem’s Gilo and Tunnel Road after Israel troops move out of Bethlehem and Beit Jala – particularly since Arafat will not doubt send his Tanzim into action to embarrass the out of favor security chief, whom he accuses of being too close to the Israelis and Americans. Naturally, anybody rational, like Rajoub, is out of step with the current extremist policy. Cheney also seemed to make a point of snubbing Arafat today. He refused to meet him and gave the general impression that the US forsees Palestine without him. So the terror attacks should redouble shortly.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (21643)	3/18/2002 6:11:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What a surprise, the Jerusalem Post agrees with me about The New York Times' Mideast coverage: EYE ON THE MEDIA: More Times Tomfoolery By Andrea Levin (March 18) The New York Times' Tom Friedman, like his paper, has had a decidedly ambivalent relationship with the State of Israel. The Times editorialized against the creation of Israel, then regularly urged Israel to risk its national well-being in trusting Arab intentions and avoiding self-defense measures. When, for example, Israel acted in 1981 to remove the Iraqi nuclear threat by surgically bombing the Osirak reactor, the Times blasted the nation for its "inexcusable and shortsighted aggression." In the past decade, Times editorialists and Friedman have exhorted Israel to pursue the Oslo process, urging concessions to and accommodation with Arafat. This was so throughout the 1990s despite pervasive hatemongering in Palestinian schools, mosques and media (which the Times has consistently neglected to report), intensifying violence against Israeli civilians and wanton Palestinian violation of both the letter and spirit of the agreements. Only as the political and human wreckage has mounted has Friedman taken some notice of the true obstacles to peace. In a half-turnabout, he now faults the Arab side for its self-defeating choices, while continuing in mindless even-handedness to vilify Israel for not eliminating settlements, which he deems equally the root of the present disaster. The fact that Israel under Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions on settlements at Camp David/Taba, only to have the proposals kicked aside by the Palestinians, softens Friedman's indictments not at all. Now comes the Saudi proposal, with Friedman and the Times at center-stage. The Times writer relates in a February 17 column that while dining with Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud recently, he urged the Arab leader to recognize Israel in return for "total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967 lines." Friedman advised "full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with UN Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world." To Friedman's delight, Abdullah declared he had precisely such a proposal stashed in his "drawer" in the form of a "speech." The minor matter of Friedman's falsely characterizing UN Resolution 242, which does not in fact call for Israel's "full withdrawal" to the June 4, 1967 lines, in no way inhibited the Times full-tilt campaign to promote its plan. (The Times has a chronic problem with 242, repeatedly having to correct inaccurate accounts of the text and failing to make clear that the resolution was deliberately left vague by its authors to provide for negotiated adjustments in the borders, and to avoid forcing Israel back to the indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines.) Additionally, Friedman's eagerness to imagine normalized relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors begs the question of what relations are among Middle East states. What is normal? Egypt has fought border wars with Libya and a war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Iraq fought an eight-year war with Iran, invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. Syria has invaded Jordan and presently occupies Lebanon. Nevertheless, the newspaper promptly began to editorialize and report extensively and enthusiastically on the Friedman-Saudi plan. A February 21 editorial effused that talk of "peace is again in the air" and no discussions were "more serious" than those with Abdullah, who indicated "his country is finally ready to lead the Arab world to normal relations with Israel." The Times was especially elated that Abdullah would permit Jews sovereignty at the Western Wall and in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and seemed to assume Israelis too would be supremely grateful for such permission from the potentates of Arabia. On February 28, the editors urged Prime Minister Sharon to understand that Israel would have no freedom from violence without "a clear vision of eventual peace" along the lines the Saudis were indicating. The Times advised Sharon to evacuate settlements. On March 3, a front-page story by Serge Schmemann nearly 5,000 words long traced the Friedman-Saudi plan's evolution into a subject of American and Middle East policy focus, noting incidentally that the core issue of Arab normalization of relations with Israel had been omitted in a speech by the Saudi ambassador that referred to Abdullah's plan. Friedman did not touch on the possible drift away from recognizing Israel's legitimacy in his March 10 column, but reiterated his equal blame of Hamas which has murdered hundreds of Israelis, including "settlers," and the settlers themselves. But what Friedman and the Times have been purveying entails a much broader distortion of basic truths. At Camp David and Taba, the Palestinians, in their rejection of Israeli territorial concessions involving virtually all the West Bank and Gaza, with compensation for the rest, and in their insistence on a Palestinian right of return, merely confirmed the messages of their schools, mosques and media - that their goal is not boundaries with Israel but replacement of Israel. To ignore that message, to pretend that peace is near if only Israel adjusts its borders in return for Arab "guarantees," is entirely and deplorably consistent with the newspaper's record of editorial disregard for fact - and Israel's safety. jpost.com