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: LindyBill who wrote (99422)	5/29/2003 12:45:06 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Jeff Jacoby writes a good op-ed on the 'bigotry of soft expectations' as applied to the Palestinians - everybody knows they are incapable of reform, so let's all give them an A for the flimsiest pretence. It disgusts me to see how all the American news media have leapt on the 'let's pretend' bandwagon, referring to Mr. Prime Minister Abbas, as if he were a real Prime Minister with a political base or a history of opposition to Arafat. Nothing could be further from the truth. The New York Times helpfully called Abbas "The Top Palestinian" in a front-page headline today - just as Abbas himself (whom I prefer to call by his long used nom de guerre, Abu Mazen) was telling the Egyptian press not to worry, Arafat is still in charge. Bigotry and the Mideast road map By Jeff Jacoby, 5/29/2003 A HOLE WAS torn last week in the international ''road map'' to Israeli-Palestinian peace when Mahmoud Abbas insisted that Yasser Arafat remains the unchallenged ruler of the Palestinian Authority. ''Arafat is at the top,'' Abbas, the Palestinian Authority's prime minister, told Egypt's al-Mussawar weekly, according to Reuters. ''He's the man to whom we refer, regardless of the American or Israeli view of him. . . . We do not do anything without his approval.'' Abbas's words should have ignited a firestorm. After all, a prerequisite of US support for the road map, spelled out clearly by President Bush last June, was an overhaul of Palestinian civil society, beginning with ''new leaders . . . not compromised by terror'' and committed to building ''a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.'' Abbas, an Arafat henchman of 40 years' standing, was scarcely such a leader. Nonetheless, the White House hailed his appointment as a harbinger of Palestinian democracy -- and as proof that its policy of freezing Arafat out was having the desired effect. But now Abbas has made it clear that Arafat is as influential as ever. The Palestinians are no nearer to democracy today than they were a year ago -- and never will be so long as Arafat retains his grip on power. Does anyone care? If Bush truly believed that Abbas was the key to a democratic, tolerant, and Arafat-free Palestinian Authority, he ought to be fuming now. If he didn't believe it, or if he didn't really mean what he said about Palestinian democracy being essential, the media should be lambasting him for having pretended otherwise. Either way, it should be clear to all that the road map, which is predicated on top-to-bottom Palestinian reform, is already at a dead end. And yet the road map isn't being written off as a nonstarter. The absence of Palestinian democracy -- the lack of even the first stirrings of a democratic awakening -- is getting little if any press attention. No spotlight shines on the long list of measures the Palestinians are expected to undertake in the road map's first phase -- from drafting a democratic constitution to holding ''free, open, and fair elections.'' It is as if nobody really believes that the Palestinian Authority will become ''a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty,'' so why waste time and breath talking about it? And what is that attitude if not a kind of bigotry? Let us be honest. How many Western journalists or politicians or diplomats could care less whether or not Palestinian society becomes a democracy? How many of them think Palestinians are capable of replacing Arafat's corrupt and brutal despotism with enlightened self-rule? How many lose any sleep when Palestinians are deprived of civil rights -- not by Israelis but by their fellow Arabs? In another context, Bush has spoken of ''the soft bigotry of low expectations.'' Isn't that a fair description of his own administration's attitude toward the Palestinians? True, his remarks last summer conditioned peace on democracy and tolerance. But has he done anything to make it clear that he meant it -- really meant it, the way he meant it when he said the Iraqi people would be liberated from tyranny? Bush was quick to embrace Abbas, a man with a long record of supporting terror and few credentials as a democrat. He has several times repeated his ''vision'' of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. But where are Bush's strong words emphasizing that tolerance and democracy must come first? Where is his embrace of the few brave and beleaguered Palestinians who dare to criticize the corruption and ruthlessness of the Palestinian Authority? Where is his demand that the Palestinian Authority begin cleansing its public institutions -- that it stop broadcasting hate videos on its television stations, for example, and rewrite the schoolbooks that extol suicide bombers? Much attention was devoted in recent days to whether Israel would accept the road map. Israelis, for their part, are focused on how the Palestinians will fulfill the road map's very first proviso -- crushing the terror groups that have murdered and maimed so many innocents. Both attitudes are understandable. But in the long run, nothing is as indispensable to the rooting of peace than the transformation of Palestinian society into something more decent than the violent and backward thugocracy it is today. That will not happen without a lot of interest -- and pressure -- from outside. For anyone who cares about peace, for anyone who cares about the Palestinians, nothing in the road map is more important. boston.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (99422)	5/29/2003 3:24:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>countries such as Vietnam, Australia and several nations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe are openly seeking a U.S. military presence<< Wow. Wow is my first reaction. "All your base are belong to us" is my second reaction. (Which you may not "get" unless your kids are into anime.) planettribes.com Funny parody videos: planettribes.com planettribes.com After the hahahaha on the video, the following dialogue is omitted from the parody videos: Captain: Take off every 'zig' Captain: You know what you doing Captain: Move 'zig' Captain: For great justice

To: LindyBill who wrote (99422)	5/29/2003 8:00:34 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

The Pentagon is shifting to smaller, more mobile forces... it may seek to base ships off Vietnam. countries such as Vietnam... are openly seeking a U.S. military presence LB, Like the NY Times the LA Times is a left wing rag IMHO. This article proves their incompetency. The very notion that Vietnam wants a US troop presence is pure nonsense and utter BS. But just in case they are right, I will be cleaning my guns tonight. My best guess is this is all cover for Kerry's refusal to address the Human Rights Issues in Vietnam in his committee. Do you suppose Kerry will run on the campaign slogan, "Peace in Vietnam"? uw