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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (103125)	6/27/2003 4:20:12 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NEWS ANALYSIS: BUSH TEAM A Sense of Harmony Felt Within Diplomatic Circles By STEVEN R. WEISMAN - NEW YORK TIMES Another one of the Times, "unnamed sources" stories, Nadine. Lets hope they are right about Hamas. WASHINGTON, June 26 - Since the beginning of the Bush administration, hard-liners opposed to pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians have battled advocates of the view that such concessions are essential to peace in the Middle East. Generally speaking, the hard-liners reside at the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, while the advocates of concession and negotiation are at the State Department, where they draw backing from Arab and European leaders. But recently there has been an unusual degree of harmony among Mr. Bush's aides on this issue, which has been on display for several weeks, most recently since the president this week insisted on the dismantling of the militant group Hamas rather than reaching a cease-fire with it. The president's position not only echoes that of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon but also reflects what officials say is a consensus within the administration. "A cease-fire is useful only if it buys the Palestinian time to crack down on Hamas," said an administration official. "Ultimately, it will be useless because Hamas has to be destroyed. How can a group determined to wipe Israel off the face of the earth ever become a partner in the peace process?" Mr. Bush's comments, in fact, only reprised those made by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Israel and Jordan last week. What accounts for this new consensus is that the administration's Middle East policy is beginning a risky experiment in direct American involvement in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Powell, the figure in the administration seen as most sympathetic to the Arab point of view, has been in the Middle East three times in the last several weeks. Elliott Abrams, the fiercely pro-Israel and hard-line director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council , is going there this week, along with his boss, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. Administration officials say that since the end of the war with Iraq, these influential figures have made a strenuous effort to work together to convey the same message to Mr. Sharon and to Palestinian leaders, that the Palestinians must act against Hamas and that Israel must reciprocate by pulling its forces back from Gaza and Bethlehem. A longtime diplomat in the region said the other day that it was little short of amazing to see Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice, and their staffs, working in harness after two-and-a-half contentious years in office. "I think Condi Rice and Colin Powell have actually bonded," said the diplomat, who has dealt with them both. "As near as I can see, Elliott Abrams has joined in. This offers more promise than almost anything else that has happened in the last two months." Many diplomats regard this unity as temporary. The real test, they say, may come in the next several days as a cease-fire is negotiated and as Israel is pressed to turn most of the Gaza Strip over to Palestinian security forces. American, European and Arab diplomats agree that once the Gaza takeover occurs, the cease-fire will become secondary. The primary challenge will be to get those same Palestinian forces actually to arrest and disarm Hamas or other Palestinian militants and to prod Israel to follow up such actions with more concrete steps of its own. For now it is striking to many longtime experts and diplomats how deep the administration's involvement has suddenly become, especially since Mr. Bush vowed not to engage in the kind of negotiations and level of detail that ensnared former President Bill Clinton and his aides. An administration that has vowed not to micromanage the talks has begun to do just that. Mr. Powell was reported to have spent a fair amount of time poring over maps of the Gaza Strip, studying alternative ways for Israel to guard a road running the length of it. "We are seeing a little bit of déjà vu here," said a diplomat in the region. "But I would have to say it's welcome." A senior Israeli official said recently that once Gaza is turned over to the Palestinian Authority under Muhammad Dahlan, the security director, Israel would plan to alert the Palestinians to the activities of militants in Gaza and then expect the Palestinians to do something. Israeli officials acknowledge that Mr. Dahlan and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, cannot be expected to act right away, in the first hours or even days. But within several weeks, such actions will be expected. "The next critical dynamic comes not with the cease-fire, but right after it," said a diplomat involved in the process. "There has to be action against Hamas, and then there has to be what we call a `quick impact project', something that will impress the Palestinians that their lives are improving." If there is a familiarity to the current situation, it is not a comfortable one for Israel or the Bush administration because many of the steps under way now are reminiscent of the failed peace process worked out in Oslo in the early 1990's. The difference, American officials say, is that this time there will be a shortened timetable to see whether such actions can hold and whether they can be followed up by further steps. nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (103125)	6/27/2003 6:20:23 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Neither the US nor Israel targets civilians; and on the whole, Israel is rather more careful about "collateral damage". "War is politics by other means." When political negotiations fail, humans go to war. War provides solutions, but only after sufficient blood is spilt. We ain't there yet. Sometimes I think (unlike the old days) our weapons are too good, too accurate. We do not have sufficient collateral damage. War is a means to effect change...but usually only after one side has been beaten into total submission. The current reluctance to negotiate is because both sides still believe they can win in battle. When one side has that believe pounded out of them...they will quit fighting and change can begin. At best, war is horrible for the fighters and those close to the action. Unfortunately the politicians and negotiators do not get to see the blood and smell the death so they let it go on believing they can win. Our civil war is a good example. The outcome of the Battle at Gettysburg was decided in the final skirmish where perhaps 1,500 men died. But 50,000 others had to die over the days before to get to a final deciding event. 50,000 deaths were not enough. We needed that last fight up a rocky hill. Other examples are Germany (twice) and Japan. Killing a few members of a population (even repeatedly) expecting political change is nonsense. It has not and is not going to happen. The real insanity is in the way the Palestinians and Israelis keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I predict an eventual, decisive and very bloody battle or series of battles that will bring one side to their knees. I fear that America is locked in a similar skirmish with 150 million militant Muslims. The other 1.3 billion Muslims will watch. Their behaviour will be determined by the the final outcome. unclewest

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (103125)	6/27/2003 9:34:25 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>I think we killed some of Osama bin Laden's children in Afghanistan, do you think he's justified now?<< Justification in what sense? In the sense of tit-for-tat, yes. If you killed one of my kids, I'd move heaven and earth to get to you. But not your kids. That's beneath contempt.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (103125)	6/30/2003 3:36:22 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

SULLIVAN BLAIR VERSUS THE BBC: The BBC is now in a full scale war with the British government. The Beeb, having launched a Rainesian campaign to prevent Saddam's demise, has subsequently been engaged in a furious attack on the post-war management of Iraq and the alleged WMD "lies" the Blair government told to make the case for war in the first place. Finally, the Blair government is fighting back - and the charges against it are turning out to be as flimsy as those now being made against the Bush administration. A parliamentary investigation looks set to clear the Blair government of deliberately "sexing up" its dossier about Saddam's WMD capability, leaving the left-leaning Beeb seriously isolated. The Guardian has more dope . But it's somewhat remarkable to see the BBC this embattled and this politicized - with its executives in a public pissing match with the pols who appoint them. In a similar vein, Israel's government has now cut off all links with the BBC and will not cooperate with its journalism, as a protest against what Israel has justly called "demonization." In the last couple of years, the BBC has essentially thrown away the reservoir of trust it once enjoyed with the British public in order to become a left-liberal - and insistently anti-Israel - advocacy group. A Raines-like epiphany may be ahead.http://andrewsullivan.com/ HERE IS THE TELEGRAPH ARTICLE Dyke stakes all on battle with Labour By Benedict Brogan, Political Correspondent (Filed: 30/06/2003) Greg Dyke, the BBC's director-general, has staked his reputation and that of the corporation on an "all or nothing" confrontation with the Government and Tony Blair's director of communications Alastair Campbell. Mr Dyke, who was appointed by Labour, has involved himself in the increasingly bitter row between Downing Street and the BBC over who told the truth about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. MPs on the Commons foreign affairs select committee predicted yesterday that their inquiry would clear Mr Campbell of the BBC's central charge - that he forced the intelligence services to "sex up" the Government's first dossier on Iraq. If the Labour-dominated committee finds in Mr Campbell's favour, there could be dire consequences for Mr Dyke and Gavyn Davies, the BBC's chairman, who has added his weight to the fight with No 10. BBC sources said the confrontation was "the most difficult crisis" to hit the corporation. "When you get yourself in a row like this there's normally an escape route, but I don't see one," said one. Andrew Gilligan, the Radio 4 Today reporter who first disclosed what he claimed were doubts within MI6 about Mr Campbell's tactics, announced yesterday that he was preparing an action for defamation against a minister. He spent the weekend compiling a dossier for his managers which they will present to the foreign affairs committee today. It is said to provide a "sober" assessment of "inconsistencies" in Mr Campbell's evidence to the committee, in which he challenged the BBC to apologise for its "lies". As the battle between the Government and the BBC escalated, with a fresh exchange of letters and accusations, it emerged that Mr Dyke played a central role in drafting the BBC's official response to Mr Campbell. A detailed note issued last Friday by Richard Sambrook, the BBC's head of news, was prepared in the director-general's presence, with Mr Dyke taking turns at the keyboard as it was being written. Ministers warned privately that the corporation's two most senior figures, both Labour donors, were on "thin ice". One said: "This is bad for Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies. You have to ask yourself what this is doing to the reputation of the BBC." One minister said that if the BBC was found to have abused its position as a public service broadcaster it could open a debate about the renewal of its royal charter and its reliance on the licence fee. Mr Sambrook last night launched a fresh defence of the BBC's reporting. "The real question for the BBC is were we right to report what we actually said, when we said it? We believe the answer is 'Yes'," he said. The Government has admitted that the second dossier on Iraq, which it published in February - the so-called "dodgy dossier" - was plagiarised from previously published material. But it has fiercely rejected claims - originally reported by Gilligan on Today - that the first dossier, published last September, was "sexed up" on Mr Campbell's orders. He was said to have demanded the inclusion of an "unreliable" intelligence report suggesting Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. MPs complained that the impression of an imminent threat from Saddam was instrumental in persuading them to vote for war. Some have accused Mr Blair of misleading Parliament. The BBC's determination to back Gilligan was underscored by its decision to fund his legal action against Phil Woolas, the deputy leader of the Commons, who accused him of misleading the foreign affairs committee when he gave evidence. Gilligan's case inside the BBC is understood to have been bolstered by his decision to tell Mr Sambrook the identity of the single intelligence source behind his story. The dossier he is preparing for the committee will include details of other claims made by his source which have not so far been reported by the BBC. Mr Dyke and Mr Sambrook, along with Gilligan and Mark Damazer, deputy director of news, sat in Mr Sambrook's office preparing their first reply to a series of charges issued by Mr Campbell. "Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies, they're all in this," a BBC source said. "Greg is the BBC's editor-in-chief and it is inconceivable that he would not be heavily involved." portal.telegraph.co.uk