SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11889)10/11/2003 10:43:50 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793640
 
As opposed to Nixon's suave charm?


He started Pre-TV. Wouldn't get elected Dog-catcher today.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11889)10/11/2003 11:20:37 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793640
 
John Burns gives us a travelog from Israel. Guess he is on vacation from Iraq.
_________________________
October 12, 2003
BLOCK BY BLOCK
A War-Weary People Reach Out in Pain — and Hope
By JOHN F. BURNS NEW YORK TIMES

JERUSALEM — The grim vigil lengthened into the night of a sparkling, breezy autumn day: people watching as the latest victims of the Palestinians' intifada, 20 killed and nearly 60 hurt, were taken away from Maxim, the beachside restaurant in Haifa that was the destination of a female suicide bomber on Oct. 4. In an instant, a place to lunch with families and friends, Arabs and Jews intermingling, had become a charnel house. Of the more than 100 suicide bombings of Israeli targets in the past three years, with 430 people killed, the location seemed particularly grotesque, and redolent of how violence for political ends quickly reaches extents that defy humanity's every code.

To go from that place to the home of the suicide bomber in Jenin, 30 miles away up in the stony hills of the West Bank, is, many might say, to travel into the heart of darkness, to dignify the killing by seeking some comprehension of an outrage that deserves no understanding. This, at least, has been the common experience of Western reporters, who have come to expect the angry e-mails of the many who believe the evil done is such that any article about the real or perceived miseries that helped drive the killers to the killing is, in itself, a form of exoneration.

"What this brutal, barbaric human being wanted, you have given her," one reader of The New York Times wrote in a letter to the newspaper's editors about this reporter's account of interviews with the family of Hanadi Jaradat, the 27-year-old apprentice lawyer who carried out the restaurant attack. "She wanted notoriety, and your actions not only aided her in her quest but by featuring her life and family you are an active participant in encouraging more barbaric men to send more young people to slaughter innocent civilians."

He added: "You need to highlight the horror, the waste. The name of the terrorist and her background should never be mentioned so as not to encourage the next youth who wants to achieve what his or her warped mind sees as immortality."

Others, though, offered a different perspective. One man who sent an e-mail to this reporter saw the value of putting the Haifa attack into "context" with an account that chronicled the Jaradat family's experiences during the intifada and Israel's response — the father's loss of his job in Haifa when Israel blocked 300,000 Palestinians from working inside Israel; the 23-year-old son shot dead by Israeli troops hunting down Islamic Jihad militants as he drank coffee under a tree outside the family home one morning this past June; the refusal by the Israeli military to allow the father to go to the Ramban hospital in Haifa for treatment of a debilitating liver disease; the bomber's nightmares in the weeks before the end, as described by her mother.

To sojourn in the Holy Land these days is to be pitched into a miasma of mutual political recriminations, of action and reprisal, of a spiral of mutual dehumanization and cruelty, of violence and counterviolence, all to a point that sanity and compassion seem at risk of being lost. Yet traveling around Israel and the West Bank, there is every day the feeling that little of this proceeds from what ordinary people on both sides believe or want. It is as if many of the nine million people directly involved in the conflict, Jew and Arab, Israeli and Palestinian, are trapped in a moral and political maze that assures deepening misery for both, as if they are bound to a journey without comprehensible purpose, without expectable end.

To listen to the most powerful politicians on both sides is to get a different view, one that is commonly infused with warnings about fresh reprisals, of terms like "enough is enough," a sort of doomsday lexicon that seems to narrow the future, not open it up. But out where the miseries are felt most keenly, among people trying somehow to build lives that resemble the normality they knew before, the mood is different.

Out there, there is still a wealth of kindness, of unstrained courtesy, of consideration for the other that transcends the historical divide. In this, a visitor may think, as much as in any road map for peace drawn up in distant capitals, there is surely the hope that one day the killing and the indignities will yield to a common life, if in separate Israeli and Palestinian states.

Consider, for example, the scene a few days after the bombing along the route of Israel's new 370-mile security barrier, which failed to prevent the Haifa bomber from passing through an Israeli checkpoint. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government reacted by ordering an indefinite closure of all entry points to Palestinians along the 90 miles of fence so far completed.

Palestinian children were prevented from reaching school, and farmers barred from their greenhouses, orchards and olive groves. Protests sprang up all along the fence. But Israeli soldiers sent down the road that runs beside the fence to disperse the protesters and arrest some of them seemed to an outsider's eye to be almost apologetic, even as they acted against the protesters.

Citizen soldiers, many of them — young men and women on reserve duty or call-up — they appeared, at least in the presence of reporters, to act with reluctance. Did this mean they opposed the building of a permanent barrier between Israelis and Palestinians, much of it on land that runs well inside the West Bank, alienating Palestinians from lands that fell under Israeli occupation in 1967? The soldiers didn't say. A visitor could only wonder.

And what of Ramallah, the West Bank city that is Yasir Arafat's headquarters? After the Haifa bombing, and the Israeli air attacks on terrorist camps in Syria that followed within 24 hours, a visitor indistinguishable in his car from many Israelis could still drive down Rubak Street in the city center, park a vehicle with Israeli license plates in plain view on the street, and go for dinner in one of Ramallah's favorite meat-on-a-spit restaurants. Far from recrimination, or anything that occasioned fear, Palestinians in the restaurant reached their hands out in friendship and spoke, those who had any English, of their yearning for peace. "Bombing not good, bombing not good," a young man said, offering a cigarette. Haifa or Syria? the visitor asked. "Haifa and Syria," he said.

In the week after the Haifa attack, with right-wing newspapers in Israel calling still for the arrest, deportation or killing of Mr. Arafat, and political voices among militants in the West Bank answering in kind, it was the same almost everywhere. In the streets of Jenin, at night, a Westerner passing by in an armored Land Rover uncomfortably similar to the ones used by some Israeli intelligence units, with its wind-and-weather torn "TV" signs barely visible on the sides, drew cheery waves from unquestioning young men gathered under street lamps, the generation from which Islamic Jihad recruits the suicide bombers. At Mr. Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, Israeli reporters mingled freely with others. In Israeli homes, if not among West Bank settlers, families spoke wistfully of their exhaustion with the violence, with even the many who endorsed the latest Israeli attacks saying they wished fervently that a way could be found to end the cycle, return the Palestinian lands and move forward along the path to peace.

Possibly, it would have been the same at any time in the decades of conflict here. Perhaps, after all, it is the politicians and their formulas that matter, not the common person's voice, at least as expressed to an outsider judged eager to hear expressions of good will.

Still, at a time when all plans for peace seem to be in ruins, when each new day is at risk of being punctuated by new suicide bombings and new reprisals by Israeli helicopters and tanks, the experience on the streets of Israeli cities and the dusty byways of Palestinian towns cannot mean nothing. At society's foundations, among Israelis and Palestinians, the possibilities for peace, however improbably, seem yet to be within grasp.
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11889)10/12/2003 1:01:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793640
 
We are drifting along, waiting for Arafat to die. A little "benign neglect" is not a bad idea.
__________________________________________

October 12, 2003
DIPLOMATIC MEMO
Sharon Acts Tough, Sensing U.S. Assent
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — At times, even those who say they are close friends and allies acknowledge that President Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel try each other's patience.

It happens when Mr. Sharon, reading from index cards, lectures an irritated Mr. Bush about the dangers of terrorism. Or when Mr. Bush pushes hard to ease conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israeli prime minister pushes back, warning that his governing coalition would rebel against such steps.

"What if our government falls?" the Israeli leader was quoted by an aide as telling the American president earlier this year. "Who else would lead the country and make peace?"

But whether Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush are closer than any Israeli and American leaders in history, as some say, or whether they have respect for each other but little personal chemistry, as others say, the Bush administration's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, and its willingness to push either side, is at a low ebb.

Administration aides say a kind of hiatus has settled in, primarily because the Palestinian leadership is in disarray and the Bush administration has declined to talk with the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat. Some administration officials say Israel would ignore American pressure anyway.

"On the Palestinian side, there is no one to talk to," one official said. "On the Israeli side, there is no one who is listening."

While the Palestinians squabble over their leadership, Mr. Sharon is responding to the latest attacks on Israelis by carrying out the most aggressive steps in a year and a half, including the airstrike a week ago on what Israeli officials said was a terrorist training camp inside Syria.

Though there was pressure on Mr. Bush to criticize Israel both from within his administration and from European partners in the peace efforts, he did no such thing. Instead, he declared that Israel "must not feel constrained" in defending itself.

Except for Mr. Sharon's acceding to the American request not to expel Yasir Arafat, Israel does not appear to feel constrained in other areas either.

The United States has stated publicly that it opposes Israel's expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and construction of parts of a barrier to separate Jewish settlers from nearby Palestinian communities. But Israel proclaims its determination to go ahead with both actions.

A week ago, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the Bush administration was having "intense discussions" with Israel about these issues and weighing such options as a reduction in loan guarantees enacted earlier this year by Congress. But there is no sign that such a step is in the offing.

Arab, European and United Nations diplomats who have been drawn into the peace efforts through drafting a peace plan known as the road map say they fear that Mr. Sharon has assumed that, for whatever reason, Mr. Bush is not in a position to ask for a halt to Israeli actions.

Indeed, they say they doubt that Mr. Bush will re-engage in the peace efforts before the American election next year, out of fear that whatever he does will draw criticism, especially among the conservative Christian and Jewish supporters of Israel who form a part of his political base.

"The word you hear a lot of is `disengaged,' " said a diplomat involved in the peace plan. "Sharon figured out long ago that all he has to do is the absolute minimum to keep Bush off his back and at his side. If the United States is disengaged, that's exactly what Sharon wants."

The construction of a barrier by Israel has drawn fire from critics who regarded it as an intended marker for the boundaries of a future, shrunken Palestinian state. Mr. Bush has said that, in principle, there should not be a barrier that snakes its way through the West Bank.

Despite these warnings, the Israeli cabinet last month approved construction of separate barriers around Palestinian settlements in the West Bank, leaving open the possibility that they would be connected to the larger wall around the entire area next year.

It was not lost on anyone in the Bush administration that completion of the most contested parts of the barrier could become an issue in the middle of the American presidential election, when Mr. Bush might feel even more reluctant to criticize it.

American officials say that, if completed in the way Israel envisions, the barrier could end up creating an Israeli-dominated West Bank with "cantonments" set aside for Palestinians, precluding the contiguous Palestinian state envisioned by the peace plan.

Some administration officials say they feel that Mr. Bush, in his most private conversations with Mr. Sharon, has not expressed American opposition to the barrier forcefully enough. Others say Mr. Sharon did not choose to hear what Mr. Bush said.

"The Israelis sometimes think that a red light is a yellow light," said an administration official. "And they think a yellow light is a green light."

Despite these assessments, people who have watched Mr. Bush up close dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issues say that he has grown in confidence and that he speaks passionately without notes about what has to happen to create a Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel in peace.

The president is also said to regard Mr. Sharon as a shrewd, tough and determined political warrior ready to make peace with his former enemies.

But it is unclear whether Mr. Bush has pressed Mr. Sharon to discuss in detail what the borders of a Palestinian state would look like, or what his final intentions are for the barrier.

Whereas Mr. Sharon is what one American called "a complete map freak" who loves to point out the security problems posed by every village, hill, ravine, tree and rivulet in the West Bank, Mr. Bush is said to have little interest in such details.

While sympathetic to Mr. Sharon's problems and anxiety about terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush also established a warm personal connection with Mahmoud Abbas, the first Palestinian prime minister, and wanted to give him some latitude to make a deal with Israel, administration officials said.

In that phase, some aides said, he was frustrated that Israel was not moving more quickly to take steps that would give Mr. Abbas enough credit in Palestinian eyes to crack down on Palestinian militant groups.

But in the end, Mr. Sharon knows that whether for political reasons or personal convictions — probably a mixture of both — Mr. Bush does not wish to stand up to Israel right now, many in the administration say.

Israel's citing of a terrorist link to the base in Syria that it bombed — a link that posed a threat to American troops in Iraq, Israelis explained — seemed likely to persuade Mr. Bush not to criticize. To some diplomats, it was almost as if Israel tailored the attack to suit Mr. Bush's well-known concerns.

"Both the Israelis and Palestinians could have done a lot more, a lot sooner," said an administration official of the peace efforts over the last few months. But for now, American officials say, there is nothing to be gained from pressing Israel, as long as there is no united Palestinian leadership to respond.

nytimes.com