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: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (21657)	3/18/2002 7:31:30 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I know. My french isn't good enough to regularly read Le Monde, but I read The Guardian and the BBC.

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (21657)	3/18/2002 7:37:07 PM
From: Elsewhere	Respond to of 281500

<The NYT like all US media is rabidly pro-Israel compared to the European news media.> It's not difficult to find counter examples to this statement. I went to faz.com (maybe the most influential German daily), searched for "Israel" and picked the most relevant article in the result list. It's more critical of the Palestinian than the Israel side. (Besides that it's also an anticipation of the "axis of evil" theme, in more diplomatic words.) faz.com{5269D59B-AEFC-4252-84DF-EEC813032956}&doc={85A38875-0653-474F-B920-3B1FEFB7D0AE}&width=1024&height=768&agt=netscape&ver=5&svr=5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, December 2, 2001 The Stops Along the Way Günther Nonnenmacher The hope that the groundwork for reorganizing Afghanistan after the departure of the radical Islamist Taliban regime may be laid at the talks near Bonn stands out in sharp contrast to news from the Middle East. There, the already slim prospects of reestablishing a peace process worthy of the name run the risk of being dashed by one wave of terror after another. No matter how loosely connected the two theaters may be, they do have one point in common. All the efforts to achieve a peaceful solution or, more realistically, at least to establish nonviolent coexistence, take place within a vicious circle of material barriers and political and psychological complexes that have taken shape over decades and defy attempts to achieve a breakthrough in one fell swoop. The violence in the Middle East is the result of political tactics that have become a law unto themselves, separate from their objectives. Yasser Arafat used and encouraged terrorism for decades, first, to bring about the destruction of Israel, and then, to establish a Palestinian state alongside it. But now, Mr. Arafat is no longer able to control the forces he unleashed -- even if he wanted to. Now, he is paying the price for allowing hatred of the Jewish state to be preached on the streets and at schools and universities after he started to talk about peace. In Israeli society, the impression has prevailed -- strengthened by past military triumphs and reinforced by Mr. Arafat's duplicity -- that Arabs understand only the language of force and a policy of retaliation, and that Israel can negotiate with them only from a superior position. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon owed his election victory to this position, but his campaign promise to make life safer for Israel's citizens has been proven wrong in the most dreadful way. Once again, the only hope for the Middle East is that the United States, as an intermediary both sides accept and as a power respected by all those concerned, will force Arabs and Israelis back to the negotiating table -- if not today, then tomorrow. The United States is also at the negotiating table atop the Petersberg hill, near Bonn. Nobody should be fooled by the idea that the tribes and political factions from Afghanistan, enemies for decades, could create a new domestic political order of their own volition. It is the prospect of generous material assistance to be decided soon at a donor's conference that has persuaded them to compromise now. None of the tribal leaders and regional warlords, none of the political groups and parties wants to go home without a piece of this cake. The presence of an international security force with a UN mandate will not prevent any of the Afghan leaders from consolidating their hold on territory they regard as their booty or at least from shielding it from outside influence. Only a massive commitment by the West -- led by the United States as the power exerting the pressure and the United Nations as the legitimating authority at best -- can prevent Afghanistan from falling back into a state of anarchy after the Taliban's defeat. Conflicts that have lasted for decades and are deeply rooted in the history of a country and in the minds of its people can only be defused through years of painstaking political work. The call for "peace now" otherwise has no chance of being heard. Perhaps U.S. President George W. Bush had this in mind when he said the campaign against terrorism would be long and global. It is more likely, though, that the meaning of this turn of phrase was more modest. There are many places in the world where terrorists have set up training camps or can retreat to, including countries with no central state authority or areas beyond the control of the nominal government, places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Sudan. And there are states that regard terrorists, irrespective of their place of origin or ideological makeup, as a useful factor in their own political aims. Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq are the states named more or less loudly in this context. The war against terrorism will have to be fought with various means. It will need to be fought with military means, for example, in countries where factories are being built, or have been built, to produce weapons of mass destruction, and with intelligence services and financial means where those who sponsor terrorism are at home. That includes those Persian Gulf states that have enjoyed the support of the West and, for lack of a better political alternative, will continue to do so. George Bush senior's proclamation of a "new world order" after the 1991 victory over Iraq will echo in his son's ears. Not much has come of that order. But the Sept. 11 attack on the United States has placed it back on the agenda with urgency. When the myth of the United States as an island unto itself was finally shattered, the younger Mr. Bush had to learn that achieving even only a somewhat peaceful and ordered world requires a permanent commitment by the United States -- and all of the world's civilized forces.