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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (3546)	4/10/2002 1:20:51 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 15516

Ariel Sharon's Costly Defiance Editorial The New York Times April 9, 2002 The announcement last night that the Israeli military was pulling out of two Palestinian cities was welcome but it was far from clear that it signaled the start of the full, immediate withdrawal from the West Bank towns and refugee camps repeatedly requested by President Bush. Earlier in the day, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, brushed off Mr. Bush's demand in a defiant speech to the Knesset, insisting that the campaign would end only when its mission had been accomplished. Perhaps Mr. Sharon does not understand. The president of the United States, speaking out of profound friendship and growing impatience, has asked him to withdraw "without delay." This was not a request made lightly. Mr. Bush has expressed sympathy with Israel's plight and made clear that its security and well-being are of the highest concern. He has sent his secretary of state to the region to try to end the bloodshed. Yet Mr. Sharon says he will remove the tanks and troops whenever it suits him. This is an insult to Mr. Bush and the United States. Mr. Sharon, who has always felt that others lacked his courage and conviction and whose career in the army was marked by defiance of Israel's leaders, has fallen into old patterns. Historians may debate whether his previous acts displayed bravery or foolishness, but there can be little doubt that he is doing his country no good by failing to heed the sincere and urgent request of Israel's closest ally. It is increasingly clear that the costs to broader Israeli interests far outweigh whatever short-term security benefits this military operation may be yielding. Mr. Sharon's actions may be netting some terrorists and some of the terrible tools they employ, but they are inflaming the fury of thousands more Palestinians and millions of Arabs whose governments are being asked by Mr. Bush to press for more responsible Palestinian leadership. The prestige of the United States is on the line in an effort to help Israel, and the Israeli government is doing nothing to make the job easier. The military operations, Israel's largest in the West Bank since it first occupied the area nearly 35 years ago, came in response to the attack by a suicide bomber on a Passover Seder in Netanya last month. Israel's declared objective is to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, but Mr. Sharon has also targeted leaders and offices of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli gunfire, curfews and military checkpoints have abused the lives, livelihood and dignity of the civilian population. Mr. Sharon says he needs more time to destroy the terrorist network. Israeli forces, however, have already badly damaged the Palestinian civilian infrastructure, with supplies of water, food and medicine disrupted, independent television shut down and residents trapped in their homes. More than 200 Palestinians have been killed and more than 1,500 wounded since Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships rolled into the West Bank on March 29. The refusal of Israeli forces to let wounded Palestinians be removed to hospitals is inexplicable. It is also true that the Arab states have reacted shamefully to Mr. Bush's efforts. The president asked them to condemn Palestinian terrorism and make clear that suicide bombers are murderers, not martyrs. There has been no response. King Mohammed VI of Morocco, greeting Mr. Powell in Casablanca yesterday, asked the American why he had not gone directly to Jerusalem, as if the Arabs had nothing to account for. In Bahrain, the American ambassador is the focus of fierce protests because at a mock United Nations session there for students, he requested that along with a moment of silence for Palestinian victims, a moment be observed for Israelis as well. Mr. Powell's Mideast mission was never going to be easy. Even before the Israeli invasion, Arab leaders refused to denounce Palestinian suicide bombings. Mr. Arafat still refuses to call on his people to give up violence. A wise Israeli leader would use the Bush initiative to show that he stands ready to talk peace with any responsible partner. Instead, Mr. Sharon embarrasses Mr. Bush and gives the Arabs easy excuses. nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (3546)	4/11/2002 3:41:24 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Moral Duty, National Interest The New York Times April 7, 2002 By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI WASHINGTON - For more than half a century the Middle East - along with Europe and Asia - has been one of the three zones strategically vital to the United States' national interest. Domination by a hostile power or the outbreak of a major conflict in any of these three zones would pose a forceful challenge to America's ability to maintain the global equilibrium on which international stability depends. America stepped into the Middle East as British and French colonial domination receded. Gradually, the United States became the principal guarantor of the region's peace and also of stable access to the region's oil resources. In recent years the centrality of that role was underscored by the American military action against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war. At the same time, the United States' commitment to assuring Israel's survival, motivated by a sense of moral obligation to a people that had suffered immeasurably, has built an ever closer American-Israeli relationship based on political and military collaboration. But given the intensity of Arab-Israeli hostility, that relationship has also inevitably collided with America's interest in preserving its influence over the Arab states. Obviously, a final peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be best. But from the American standpoint, even an absence of war, provided the situation was stable, would be tolerable. The current crisis poses a grave threat to United States interests. One can argue forever as to whether Yasir Arafat or Ariel Sharon is more responsible for its eruption. What is clear is that the two cannot reach peace together and neither can impose his version of it on the other. Ultimately, the 4.8 million Jewish Israelis cannot permanently sustain the subjugation of 4.5 million Palestinians (1.2 million of whom are second-class Israeli citizens), while Israel's own democracy and sense of moral self-respect would be jeopardized by continuing to do so. The Palestinians have neither the power nor the international support to drive the Israelis into the sea, while their terror tactics are morally indefensible. The Israeli sense of outrage at the suicide bombings is understandable. Any Israeli government would have had to react in the face of such provocation. But it is important to note that Mr. Sharon's retaliation over the last year has focused largely on undermining the existing Palestinian Authority, much in keeping with his decade-long opposition to the Oslo peace process and his promotion of colonial settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. With the Palestinian Authority in shambles, the Palestinians are likely to slide into a state of anarchy, with their leadership gravitating toward more extremist underground elements. In Israel, and especially among the Likud Party, more voices are likely to be heard advocating the expulsion of the Palestinians from the territories. Arab resentment at America's apparent partiality will rise, placing in greater jeopardy regimes that are viewed as friendly to the United States. In these circumstances, America cannot ignore world public opinion. There is a nearly unanimous global consensus that United States policy has become one-sided and morally hypocritical, with clear displays of sympathy for Israeli victims of terrorist violence and relative indifference to the (much more numerous) Palestinian civilian casualties. At risk is America's ability to maintain international support for the war on terrorism, and especially for plans to deal with Saddam Hussein. The United States response, therefore, has to be guided by a strategic awareness of all the interests involved, and not by the claims of any single party. The course followed in recent times, with its largely procedural emphasis on cease-fires and confidence-building measures while waiting for the parties to agree on their own, has become a prescription for procrastination. It is now painfully evident that left to themselves, the Israelis and the Palestinians can only make war. Their suspicion of each other's motives and mutual hatred is too great to permit the needed compromise. Moreover, each side has powerful factions even more extremist than the current leadership, with Benjamin Netanyahu poised to challenge Ariel Sharon while some unknown Islamist militant steps into Yasir Arafat's shoes if he is killed in the current offensive. President Bush's statement on the crisis on Thursday took an important step toward shedding the administration's ambiguous and, of late, somewhat incoherent posture. But it falters on three points. First, by noting that an imminent agreement on a cease-fire was aborted by the bombing of March 27, Mr. Bush risks making the peace process again a hostage to any future terrorist act. Israel would be justified in retaliating against further Palestinian acts of terrorism, but reprisals should be aimed at actual perpetrators and not at destroying the Palestinian political structure. Second, Mr. Bush's highly personal condemnation of Yasir Arafat implies that the Palestinians should select their leader in keeping with American or even Israeli preferences. Third, the president's statement should have made clear that Secretary of State Colin Powell's mission to the Middle East is not to restart a process that focuses more on procedure than on substance. Secretary Powell should seek an Arab statement that categorically condemns suicide bombing even if it reserves the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation and the settlements. Mr. Arafat could then issue such a statement without seeming to be bowing to American and Israeli dictates. The United States must also now push forward with a specific peace plan. The point of departure for such a plan - based on United Nations resolutions, earlier settlement negotiations conducted at Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 and the Saudi proposal for normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations - is already in place. The United States should also indicate its willingness to deploy, with the consent both of Israel and of Palestine, a peacekeeping force to enhance security for both parties. NATO might also choose to participate in any such deployment, given Europe's interest in containing the Middle East crisis. One should entertain no illusions that any such initiative would gain the immediate approval of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. But one should also not underestimate the leverage the United States has or the degree to which the people on both sides are eager to find a way out. Our own national interest and moral obligations demand that we do no less. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser from 1977 to 1981 and assisted President Jimmy Carter in negotiating the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt. nytimes.com