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: tekboy who wrote (27429)	4/27/2002 12:36:32 PM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 281500

durn that 15-minute window! it's only fair to mention, along with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, which is the former's Christian Democratic counterpart: kas.de Their foreign work is comparable to that of the IRI, the International Republican Institute--although really the German party foundations are much more impressive. This has to do not just with the relative weakness of the IRI, but also, and more importantly, with the greater strength and coherence of political parties in Europe, and with the seriousness that Europeans have taken democracy promotion as an activity. Those interested what kind of stuff these organizations do to "promote democracy" should turn to the work of Thomas Carothers at the Carnegie Endowment, who's the leading expert on the subject. His books are an excellent starting point, as is a very intelligent and well-written review essay that appeared recently in the journal International Security: ceip.org ksgnotes1.harvard.edu (second from the bottom, unfortunately not available online) tb@askMrWizard.com

To: tekboy who wrote (27429)	4/27/2002 3:15:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Interesting commentary on criticism of Israel serving as proxy for anti-Americanism. Thoughts? Some of Israel's critics are more equal than others By REX MURPHY Saturday, April 27, 2002 – Page A19 Is it possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic? It's a question for the sandbox and six-year-olds. The answer? Yes. It's possible to criticize Jean Chrétien and not be anti-Liberal. It's possible to criticize Svend Robinson and not be anti-NDP. And it's possible to criticize Israel, or Israeli policies, or Ariel Sharon, and not -- emphatically not -- be anti-Semitic. A slightly tougher or more honest set of questions might be: Can one scrutinize Israel with a moral microscope but put on a blindfold before turning to the Palestinians -- and claim to be fair? Is news of an Israeli atrocity seized on with great eagerness while, say, a Passover butchery of civilians is, if at all, brought into the discussion only reluctantly and with much moral throat-clearing? Do you wait up at night for the bad news about Ariel Sharon but put out a "do not disturb" sign for any bulletins of Yasser Arafat's duplicity? If the answer to these questions is "Yes," then the wonderful theoretics of criticizing Israel and anti-Semitism are, while diverting, perhaps not as much to the point as one would like to believe. Do you find it easy to call Israel a "terrorist state" and find it difficult to talk about terrorist suicides? Do you talk of Jenin as the site of a "massacre" but withhold that term from any description of the suicide-terror campaign? If you have done these things, you may not be anti-Semitic -- but you do have a problem setting up the moral context for a discussion of the Middle East. The real conundrum for those agonizing over their criticism of Israel and whether this might be construed as anti-Semitism is a question that, so far as I can tell, no one wants to ask: Is it possible to be anti-American and not criticize Israel? Professional anti-Americans really don't have much field of manoeuvre when it comes to Israel. America is Israel's sponsor, its friend and ally, so obviously Israel cannot be right, ever. If Israel is under the protection of the imperialist, globalist, capitalist hegemon, why then -- pass me the old res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself -- Israel must always be wrong. The Israeli side of the current agony in the Middle East is, unfortunately for Israel (and for any serious discussion of the problem), being forced to carry the burden of a considerable store of anti-Americanism. It hasn't been easy to be full-throttle anti-American since Sept. 11. The jingoism of the anti-capitalists has been muted. The silence has been purely tactical. In some circles -- this is a sea change -- anti-Americanism isn't even polite. But Israel is a wonderful proxy for the anti-American crowd. Israel would "behave" if only America would tell it. Mr. Sharon would rein in the army if only George W. Bush, who holds the leash on Mr. Sharon, would pull it. So here is the real dilemma for those who sense discomfort in criticizing Israel and worry out loud whether their criticism might be, or might feed, the great ugliness of anti-Semitism. It is that their position on Israel is pre-determined by their commitment, their vocation, of anti-Americanism. They are prejudiced against Israel by the logic of their movement. They are, as it were, pro-Palestinian by default. They take sides and wake up to find themselves sharing parts of the landscape with some very scary people who really are anti-Semitic. The French, who can be a very delicate bunch when it comes to "theorizing" the world, have awakened in just such a place. Jean-Marie Le Pen doesn't agonize over anti-Semitism. But he is the second-place finisher in the first round of a presidential election in the most subtle country of Europe. But there's nothing subtle about Mr. Le Pen, who has offered the observation that the Holocaust is only a "detail" of history. The French, and the left in particular, are horrified. They are protesting en masse. How did this happen? How did he get out of the box? It might be that the habit of exercising superior moral scrutiny of other nations, such as the U.S. and Israel, left some in a torpor as to conditions much closer to home. It might also be that relentless condemnation of Israel, unaccompanied by any nuance that the Middle East is much more than a story of victims and oppressors, has made it easier to lift the quarantine that has been on the very idea of anti-Semitism since the death camps of the Second World War. Is it possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-Semitic? Of course it is. Sometimes, it is necessary to criticize Israel. But not from habit or ideological reflex. Because then it's remarkably similar to an ancient and pernicious prejudice. And that quarantine on anti-Semitism that the world thought it had laid down forever is closer to breach. Rex Murphy is a commentator with CBC-TV's The National and host of CBC Radio One's Cross-Country Checkup. globeandmail.com

To: tekboy who wrote (27429)	5/5/2002 9:16:41 PM
From: spiral3	Respond to of 281500

tekboy and frankw1900 - thank you both for the generous responses and interesting observations...and my apologies for not responding sooner. My impression was that JMCC was kosher and when I saw that Khatib was part of bitterlemons I decided to post the links. that's entirely consistent with the data and conclusions Shikaki presented. That was why Shikaki concluded that for Arafat and the PA the choice was "reform or perish." that begs the question - who, besides Sharon or maybe Hamas et al is really prepared to perish him. on another note: wrt the Israeli newspapers (sorry I’m a bit behind here) and not being able to read Maariv or Yediot because they are in Hebrew - similarly for many of the popular Arab papers - the Daily Star out of Lebanon has a section where they compile and tranlate selections from the popular Arab/Israeli press into English. Their last update was yesterday - the reform issue is getting some attention from both sides. from the Arab press: The US-brokered deal prevented Sharon going all the way, but where does this leave the Palestinians? Samaha believes that while reconstruction and reform of the PA are important, they are not the Palestinians’ top “day after” priority. They have to decide “whether the two divergent Palestinian strategies can continue to coexist.” The strategy of seeking liberation via the intifada and that of putting pressure on Israel to improve its negotiating terms can be pursued simultaneously so long as there is no real prospect of negotiations. They cannot be, however, once talks and a solution become possible. “And in the wake of Israel’s US-backed military offensive, the contradiction between the two strategies must be solved if negotiations are likely (irrespective of the chances of a settlement).” This contradiction can only be solved by a “reconstructed” PA that would block the rebirth of resistance, or by the resistance factions deciding to “give Arafat a chance” and refraining from military operations. dailystar.com.lb and from the Israeli press: Yediot Ahronot Arab affairs analyst Roni Shaked looks at Arafat’s position after the Israeli military operation and sees some signs of erosion. He writes that “Arafat’s status as a symbol for the Palestinian people was strengthened by the siege. Although here and there Palestinian voices are asking where (Arafat) is leading them, this is only a thin layer of intellectuals who think about the long term and in the current situation have no influence on the Palestinian street, and no power to create a new socio-political trend.” As in the past, Shaked continues, Arafat remains without rivals, without opposition to his leadership, and with no one to challenge him and his policies, which led to disaster and destruction. “But although Arafat emerged from the Muqataa rubbing his hands in glee as the victor ready to enter the ring for another round, this time he has problems. The erosion of his position began at the beginning of the week with the ‘jailers for freedom’ agreement, on which Palestinians are saying that the moment he agreed to put Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi’s killers under international supervision, he labeled them as terrorists.” Shaked writes: “The key alliance being forged over the past few days is the troika of (Gaza Strip security chief) Mohammad Dahlan, (PLO executive committee secretary) Mahmoud Abbas and (top Arafat advisor) Mohammad Rashid. They are at the starting line for the day after Arafat, and their alliance has Arafat’s support. (PA Cabinet Minister) Hassan Asfour is also in a position to take off, while (Minister of Planning and International Cooperation) Nabil Shaath seems to have been pushed aside.” dailystar.com.lb