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 : Middle East Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StormRider who wrote (1906)	7/3/2002 5:10:31 PM
From: StormRider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

ANTHRAX? THE F.B.I. YAWNS Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, 7/2/02 nytimes.com The F.B.I.'s bumbling before 9/11 is water under the bridge. But the bureau's lackadaisical ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer continues to threaten America's national security by permitting him to strike again or, more likely, to flee to Iran or North Korea. Almost everyone who has encountered the F.B.I. anthrax investigation is aghast at the bureau's lethargy. Some in the biodefense community think they know a likely culprit, whom I'll call Mr. Z. Although the bureau has polygraphed Mr. Z, searched his home twice and interviewed him four times, it has not placed him under surveillance or asked its outside handwriting expert to compare his writing to that on the anthrax letters. This is part of a larger pattern. Astonishingly, the F.B.I. allowed the destruction of anthrax stocks at Iowa State University, losing what might have been valuable genetic clues. Then it waited until December to open the intact anthrax envelope it found. The F.B.I. didn't obtain anthrax strains from various labs for comparison until March, and the testing is still not complete. The bureau did not systematically polygraph scientists at two suspect labs, Fort Detrick, Md., and Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, until a month ago... If Mr. Z were an Arab national, he would have been imprisoned long ago. But he is a true-blue American with close ties to the U.S. Defense Department, the C.I.A. and the American biodefense program...

To: StormRider who wrote (1906)	7/5/2002 4:57:41 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

In the eyes of the Israeli far right, Bush came out unequivocally on Sharon's side. According to Sharon's official spokesman, the American administration has, "by bringing Arafat's era to an end, underscored that Israel is the winner". One Israeli observer claimed that, as he followed the speech, he noticed the many carrots offered to the Israeli side. He braced himself for the stick he believed was bound to come before the end of the speech, but it never came. However, other observers question whether in fact the American and Israeli positions are identical. True, the Bush administration and the Sharon government agree on the need to remove Arafat; true, neither believes a peaceful settlement is possible in the foreseeable future. But that does not mean that Sharon's vision of the future based on a long interim stage before any final status agreement can be reached on the issue of the Palestinian refugees, on Jerusalem and on the Israeli settlements, is exactly what Bush has in mind when he talks of the "provisional Palestinian state". Sharon does not want a Palestinian state at all and knows that once it is established, even as a provisional state, it will be difficult, not to say impossible, to change the fait accompli. That is obviously a point of contention between Bush and Sharon. Moreover, senior administration officials have said that provisional statehood could be reached within 18 months and full permanent statehood in as soon as three years. In other words, by 2005 the issue of the final borders of the Palestinian state and of its capital, Al-Quds, should be finally settled. It is doubtful that this is the span of time Sharon had in mind when he spoke of a 'long interim stage'. Still, he can take comfort from the fact that Bush's speech laid most of the burden for ending the confrontation on the Palestinians, who are required to take immediate steps (such as ending terrorism) before the negotiation process can resume, while the obligations Israel will have to assume (such as freezing construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas) are only required to be implemented later on down the road. The Palestinians are bound by a strict time-limit when it comes to performing their obligations; the Israelis are not committed to observe any timetable. There is an obvious discrepancy here that cannot be explained away and that clearly operates to Israel's advantage. The Arabs will have to work hard to eradicate the negative consequences of the lack of parity between the two sets of obligations. ahram.org.eg