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 : Clinton -- doomed & wagging, Japan collapses, Y2K bug, etc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
The Telegraph - 09/14/98

KENNETH Starr has failed to catch his prey. It was significant that the Dow Jones index enjoyed a "relief rally" after the impeachment referral was delivered to Congress, rising 180 points on the early verdict that Mr Starr had not established "high crimes and misdemeanours" - whatever they are supposed to be.

The politics of Washington remain just as scrambled and confused as they were a week ago. Reading through the narrative and footnotes of this grotesque report, I am forced to conclude that Mr Starr has
lost his wits. What could have possessed the Office of the Independent Counsel to include grand jury testimony from Monica Lewinsky about the failing marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

"President Clinton once confided in Ms Lewinsky that he was uncertain whether he would remain married after he left the White House. He said in essence, 'who knows what will happen four years from now when I am out of office?' Ms Lewinsky thought that 'maybe she will be his wife'."

It is hard to see how this gratuitous paragraph, up front, on page five of the 445-page report, serves to advance the indictment for perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. It gives credence to the White House counter-attack that the report is nothing but "pornography" and a "hit-and-run smear campaign" intended to humiliate the President and the First Lady.

Mr Starr knew before he issued the report that he too is on trial, that he would be judged harshly if there was any suggestion of unfairness in his methods. Yet he and his team of prosecutors have allowed their personal animus against the White House to consume them. His anger was understandable, perhaps. A White House surrogate, James Carville, had declared "war" on Mr Starr, and private investigators were employed to dig for dirt on his staff in a blackmail strategy that amounted to obstruction of justice. But provocation is no excuse.

The elder statesmen of the Democratic Party are still holding their fire, wary of defending a president who gets his kicks receiving oral sex while he is on the telephone to members of Congress. But lesser
Democrats are starting to emerge from their bunkers, gingerly experimenting with the line that Mr Clinton's actions were just "low crimes and misdemeanours". Yes, he was a naughty boy, but doesn't
everybody lie about sex? Hillary has forgiven him, so why can't the rest of the country? This is just a private matter, and it has gone on too long already. So there, Mr Starr: get a life.

This is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Starr Report has produced evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the President has committed multiple felonies and used the power of his office to thwart the law. If Mr Clinton were an ordinary citizen, and if this case were taken to trial, there is a 100 per cent certainty that he would be convicted by a jury of his peers. He would go to prison.

De facto, if not de jure, the President of the United States is now a criminal and a felon - a convict manqu‚. Yet defenders are being drawn into arguments that trivialise his offences, and by omission
justify them. As a case of "defining deviancy down", to borrow the words of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, this surely takes the biscuit.

Yet the process has still not reached its final G”tterd„mmerung. With this president there is always another shoe to drop, and another, and another. Each revelation is little worse than the last, but never
quite enough to induce a sense of universal revulsion. The apologists keep on apologising, ratcheting down the standards of accepted ethical behaviour. They do so, usually, because they cannot bear the
thought that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Right could be beneficiaries of Mr Clinton's fall. But like the proverbial frog in slowly heated water, they do not realise what is happening to them until it is too late to jump.

Bill Clinton's enormous charm, his intellectual gifts, his success as the helmsman of the Roaring Nineties - or the asset bubble, in the judgment of his critics - has made him all the more dangerous to
the American polity. President Richard Nixon exuded an air of paranoia. From 1973 to 1974 he presided over a wrenching recession and a 50 per cent fall in the stock market. It was hard to love the man. There
was no cushion of forgiveness.

But Mr Clinton is a master manipulator of mass opinion. He has been able to seduce enough of the American people into acquiescence, and by extension complicity, in his serial violations of the cultural
code, not to mention the law. Everyone knows that adultery happens all too often, though not nearly as often as Mr Clinton's allies now claim, but at least there was a generally accepted convention that such behaviour was shameful and destructive.

Everybody tells white lies from time to time, but at least there was once a very sharp divide between fibbing and outright perjury in a court of law.

There are laws on the books designed to protect young women from predatory sexual advances by their employers. Overnight, Mr Clinton has made these regulations practically unenforceable. In their pathetic efforts to shield him, American feminists can be heard blathering on television that boys will be boys. We are witnessing the great leap backwards, beyond male chauvinism to medieval standards of droit de seigneur.

As long as Americans continue defending this man, he will take them further and further down the slippery slope. Honour is losing its currency. So is the code of personal responsibility. Ultimately,
Clinton will undo the rule of law and knock away the underpinnings of the world's greatest democracy.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:19:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
EDITORIAL

This joint editorial reflects the conclusions of the editorial boards of both The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, acting separately and independently.

The American people seem doomed to a guided tour of hell in days to come, exposed against their wishes to the details of a particularly seamy presidential scandal.

Only one person can spare us that nightmare. By resigning, President Clinton would be surrendering the office he worked his entire life to achieve, and would give his enemies the reward they have long sought.
No one as proud and stubborn as the president could take such a step easily.

Yet, by making that sacrifice, Clinton would save the nation from a protracted trauma that will otherwise cripple the presidency and Congress and further discredit a political system already held in low esteem. A president more concerned with the national interest than his own self-preservation would realize that resignation is his only responsible option.

Sadly, Bill Clinton has shown himself incapable of such sacrifice. He is a complex man with many attractive qualities, but in the end his character has been defined by his crass selfishness. It is that trait--perjury and adultery are merely its symptoms--that has rendered him unfit to continue as president.

At repeated points in the progression of this scandal, Clinton has faced a critical choice: "Should I do what is best for the country, or should I do what is best for me?" If at any of those points, Clinton had chosen to do what was best for the country, we would not be in this mess. But he could not.

Look how it began: In late 1995, the Paula Jones sexual-harassment case was already hanging over Clinton's head, and his political opponents had made it clear that they thirsted for his blood. Yet, despite the danger to his presidency, Clinton decided to begin a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old intern named Monica Lewinsky.

That reckless decision--to gamble his presidency on the ability of a starry-eyed young woman to keep her silence--has been described as terrible judgment, and it is. But even more troubling, it demonstrates
that Clinton valued his own gratification too highly and took his duty as president too lightly.

That choice between his duty as president and his own self-interest presented itself again when Clinton was asked, in a sworn deposition in the Jones case, whether he had sexual relations with Lewinsky. As
a father and husband, his natural instinct was to deny the charge and commit perjury. According to the polls, most Americans do not judge Clinton harshly for that decision. They accept his explanation that
he was trying to protect himself and his family.

However, the act of committing perjury has consequences for the president of the United States that do not apply when the crime is committed by most husbands and fathers. The president takes an oath
before the entire nation to uphold the law; by committing a felony, he violates that solemn oath.

Because of the nature of his perjury, Clinton's decision to lie will not by itself generate the public anger necessary for impeachment. It is nonetheless important, because it satisfies the constitutional
requirement that impeachment involve "high crimes and misdemeanors." At some later date, it and other charges could provide the technical foundation for impeachment motivated by other, less legal
considerations.

Clinton's most cowardly and indefensible refusal to put the national interest ahead of his own well-being involves his protracted attempt to conceal his perjury and infidelity. Over the past several months, he has enlisted the full force and majesty of his office in defense of his deception, and in the process damaged the presidency both as an institution and as a national symbol.

For example, his forceful and falsely sincere denial of an affair with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky" put his Cabinet members in a tough position. They had to either publicly proclaim their confidence in the
president, or resign. He forced them to put their personal and professional credibility on the line in defense of what he knew to be a lie.

Likewise, because Clinton refused to tell the truth, Secret Service agents were compelled to testify before a grand jury, compromising what had been assumed to be a confidential relationship between a
president and the agents assigned to protect him. And when White House aides were summoned to testify about what they knew, government lawyers fought the subpoenas on a claim of executive privilege. The courts overruled that claim, a decision that will haunt future presidents who want to consult honestly with staff on legally delicate matters.

When he first looked the American people in the eye and denied his infidelity, Clinton might not have envisioned the full impact of his deception on other people. But as the consequences became clear, and
as he saw the toll his deception was taking on members of his staff and Cabinet, he had the obligation to intervene, to halt the weakening of the presidency by the simple act of telling the truth.

But to save his own hide, he remained silent.

Finally, on Aug. 17, unable any longer to maintain fiction as fact, Clinton faced the nation. Here was his last chance to put the interests of the nation above his own. By coming clean, by laying the truth on the table for all to see, Clinton had the opportunity to move the scandal to a quick resolution. And again, he failed. Even then, he could not see beyond his own narrow needs; he could not summon the courage to do what was right for the nation.

With the filing of the Starr report, the process toward impeachment will accelerate. Until the contents of that report are clear and President Clinton has had a chance to respond, final judgment on impeachment would be premature. The forced removal of a president through constitutional means is a grave matter that should not be handled hastily.

The case for resignation, on the other hand, is already clear. At the moment, Clinton's selfishness still serves as a blindfold, rendering him unable to see the seriousness of his situation. But just as time
eventually forced him to admit both his lies and his infidelity, it may eventually force him to consider resignation.

Congressional Democrats are already abandoning the nominal head of their party. At some point in the next few weeks, they may go to him and ask him to remove his blindfold and look honestly at the ugly
spectacle that he has wrought.

And maybe then he will find the courage to do what is best for his country.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Philadelphia Enquirer
09/13/98

Clinton's ability to govern is spoiled, by his deeds and others'. He should end his presidency.

Bill Clinton should resign.

He should resign because his repeated, reckless deceits have dishonored his presidency beyond repair.

He should resign because the impeachment anguish that his lies have invited will paralyze his administration, at a time when an anxious world looks to the White House for surefooted leadership.

He should resign because, if he does not, his once-glittering agenda of centrist change faces a devastating setback in November's congressional elections. And those results will reflect not the views of the American majority on the issues -- they are with him there -- but only a weary, tragic turning away from a politics turned sordid.

He should resign because that is his best hope to preserve shards of sympathy and respect from the verdict of history, to which he has devoted so much self-absorbed worry.

He should resign because that is the best hope for sorely needed national catharsis.

He should resign because it is the honorable thing.

A thousand objections can be raised to this view.

Some might object that a Clinton resignation would award an ill-gotten triumph to the partisan jackals whose unyielding pursuit of him has reduced political discourse to a new savagery. And they would be right.

Some might object that resignation would validate the excesses of an independent counsel whose work from day one has been politically tainted by a grudge-bearing obsessiveness that damaged privacy,
constitutional protections and public trust. And they would have a strong case.

Some might object that the allegations in the lengthy report Kenneth Starr sent to Congress on Wednesday flow mostly from a dismissed civil lawsuit that the Supreme Court wrongly forced a sitting president to answer. And they would receive no rebuttal here.

Some might object that this is only about the sexual misdeeds detailed too avidly in Mr. Starr's report, which are no one's business. In this, they would be wrong.

Imagine a senior business executive who did something morally dubious. Imagine he then lied about it under oath, misled colleagues into backing his lie, repeated the lie with finger-wagging emphasis to his board of directors, forced the company to spend thousands in his defense, then grudgingly admitted the lie seven months later. Would he have any hope of hanging on to his job? Why, then, should a president
of the United States?

No one can entangle as many people on the public payroll in his deceits as Mr. Clinton has, then claim an absolute shield of privacy.

At this sorrowful juncture, certain arguments no longer carry the day. Yes, the pack of the President's accusers includes some who are beneath contempt. Yes, Kenneth Starr has behaved abysmally. Yes,
even if you take its entire stew of allegations as gospel truth, Mr. Starr's report makes a less-than-resounding case for the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that is the constitutional standard for
impeachment.

All that now matters less than this highfalutin but pertinent phrase: the good of the country.

The permanent cloud of scandal over the Clinton White House has left America sick at heart. It has eroded civil discourse and public trust. It hamstrings progress on urgent concerns, from the risks faced
by millions of uninsured children to the worries of millions of retirees about Social Security.

For many, the path out once seemed to be this: End the investigations and let the President govern. An understandable wish, but not one that can be sustained -- as a matter of either hard-boiled political
reality or of constitutional honor.

Except by resignation, impeachment hearings cannot be avoided.

First, because allegations that the nation's chief executive, sworn to uphold the law, lied under oath and obstructed justice cannot be ignored by a people that takes the rule of law seriously. Second, because
his enemies will insist on it. The pace of the proceedings will be glacial, permitting Republicans to strike statesmenlike poses of grave caution while dragging out the political pain for Democrats.

As this slogs along, Bill Clinton will be immobilized -- his every word or action suspect, his staff immersed in its vindictive mode of political defense. He will be too weak to act usefully in the
international monetary crisis, the Russian meltdown, the Middle East agony, equally unable to push any piece of his once-ambitious domestic agenda. Meanwhile, Americans will grow progressively more cynical about democracy and nervous about their futures, with grim results.

It's impossible to predict confidently how a resignation would alter the political landscape. But it would unleash a swirl of potent emotions: relief, remorse, anger.

It is possible to imagine that the relief would grant Al Gore (despite phone calls and Buddhist temples, a solid and decent man) a period of grace to reinvigorate an agenda that voters twice endorsed by substantial margins. The remorse might produce a broad commitment to purge some of the venom from the national discourse. The anger should marginalize those who gloat at the national pain and stop any
bid to undermine Mr. Gore with trumped-up probes.

It is possible to imagine the cloud of scandal could lift from a Gore White House. It is not possible should Bill Clinton hunker down, wounded and combative.

Bill Clinton should resign. It is said not in glee, but in sorrow. This Editorial Board endorsed Bill Clinton twice; we saw in him the potential to reshape the nation's political conversation creatively for the better, as powerfully as Ronald Reagan changed it for the worse. That perhaps gives us some standing to tell him it is time to go, a standing denied those who despised him even when he did the right thing.

To them, let it be said that the President's disgrace does not mean you were ever right on the substance of the 1992 and 1996 elections. Presidential elections are a contest of men, but also of ideas. Bill
Clinton's ideas on health care, education and fiscal policy, on the limits of what we ought to expect either markets or government to accomplish, on healing the wounds of race and supporting the family --
these were and remain superior to those of George Bush and Bob Dole.

That is why his unmistakable defects and deceits are so maddening.

But that lament, as well as any dissection of the sins of Kenneth Starr, Linda Tripp, the media or any other player in this ugly drama, is now beside the urgent point.

America needs -- the world needs -- a president free to govern. Bill Clinton can no longer be that president. That is too much his own fault, and it is too late in the day for America to grant him his wish
to play, one more time, The Comeback Kid.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:25:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
William A. Safire
New York Times - 09/14/98

WASHINGTON -- The scope of the Independent Counsel's initial referral is too narrow: Ken Starr was hired to look into worse abuses than the cover-up of a sex scandal.

President Clinton's defense, however, is disappointingly weak: admit sin but deny crime, and beg forgiveness for lying while continuing to lie.

The central fact making a mockery of his misty-eyed "repentance" is this: he refuses to admit, even now, that he and Monica Lewinsky had a sexual relationship.

That phrase was precisely defined by a Federal judge to include oral sex and intimate touching. He denied it falsely in his Paula Jones deposition; he repeated the false denial before a Federal grand jury;
and even today he would have the nation believe that he never once touched Ms. Lewinsky's proffered bosom during their 10 Oval Office assignations.

Nobody believes him because his look-ma-no-hands assertion so patently defies common sense. Why does he persist in the lie? Two reasons:

1. If he admits lying in his January Jones deposition, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals would likely reinstate Ms. Jones's case. A jury would surely believe her now, which would cost Mr. Clinton a million dollars.

2. If he admits having repeated to the grand jury in August his false and misleading testimony, the President would be confessing to perjury. That would be an undisputed count in an impeachment, and
whenever he left office might result in his arrest and conviction -- the dread "Jail to the Chief."

Thus, his continued lying is not irrational. He runs great financial and legal risks in telling the whole truth. That's why we see his legalistic contortions and semantic evasions that turn truth on its head. Clinton's tactic is to limit potential loss. But this continued lying will expose his false contrition, erode popular support and hasten his political demise.

His defense strategy is overly cautious. He should realistically face up to the likelihood of House impeachment, and if he is to win Senate acquittal, he must risk all. That means telling the whole truth
now and gutsily facing the consequences later, which would give credence to his argument that the concealment of adultery is not the "high" crime that justifies removal.

He would win back considerable respect by pledging to reject any pardon and daring the Independent Counsel to bring him to trial for perjury on Jan. 21, 2001. (Not much of a gamble; no D.C. jury would
convict him.) And while he's at it, apologize to Paula and settle her case.

Clinton does not have it in his character to cut the present artful dodging and do this, of course; it would be the political equivalent of all-out, clothes-off intercourse. Someday he may look back and say, "If I had only dared ..."

Now to Starr's unfinished business. His referral completes less than one-fourth of his assignments.

Starr is duty-bound, after these four years, to come up with indictments or criminal informations on the Whitewater obstruction, the Clintons' abuse of Justice Department prosecution to make places for travel office patronage, and the invasion of 900 F.B.I. files by White House snoops. Or to report on those investigations if they exonerate Hillary, Bruce Lindsey, Craig Livingstone et al, which would force
calumniators like me to eat crow and thereby lessen impeachment heat.

In the sex cover-up, we see direct conflicts of grand jury testimony. Monica swears that Vernon Jordan told her at a breakfast to destroy evidence, but the President's friend insists the breakfast never
happened; on another front, Jordan's testimony conflicts with Clinton's. Is the prosecutor fearful of being trounced in jury trials, where rules of evidence and presumption of innocence apply -- as they do not in his House referral?

Surprises may be in store. "All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion," Starr promises in his report. Do they show a pattern of deceit and delay, of stonewalling and spinning, of perjury and abuse of power on heavy political matters -- Clinton habits so dramatically demonstrated in the cover-up of a sex scandal?

Many will find poetic justice in Clinton's escaping discovery of high crimes and being brought down by lower crimes. But poetic justice, or rough justice, is not real justice. If forthrightly confessed, perjury
about workplace dalliance should not be enough to force out a President.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:36:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
thewinds.org



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
he Moscow Times, John Kenyon

Saturday, September 12, 1998

'State Must Intervene in Economy'

By John Kenyon, Staff Writer

Russia's new prime minister on Friday appointed a Communist leader and former head of Gosplan as his deputy for the economy and argued the state should shelter domestic industries, while the nation's new
Central Bank chief called for "controlled" printing of more rubles.

Yevgeny Primakov, 68, was approved as prime minister soon after telling the State Duma, parliament's lower house, that "the state should interfere in the economy and regulate many economic processes,"
and announcing the appointment of Yury Maslyukov, a leading Communist Party member who will be 61 this month, as his right-hand man for the economy.

"The government should intervene in economic affairs and regulate them. This is not a return to the administrative and command system," Primakov said. "So what must we do? Repeat the wild capitalism
that we had up till now? Or use the experience of other countries?"

Primakov also called for new negotiations on the restructuring of hundreds of millions of dollars in debts owed by Russian banks to foreign lenders.

The Duma also Friday approved the Kremlin's nominee for a new Central Bank chairman: Viktor Gerashchenko, who has served in his day as head of both the Soviet and Russian central banks, and was fired in the aftermath of the 1994 "Black Tuesday" ruble devaluation.

Gerashchenko told lawmakers that some printing of money would be necessary to lift the Russian economy out of its crisis, and at his request the Duma dismissed the Central Bank's current board of
directors, clearing the way for Gerashchenko to surround himself with colleagues less opposed to additional ruble emissions.

"We cannot avoid a certain monetary emission, of course controlled," Gerashchenko said, according to Agence France Presse. "But I will not distribute money left and right." He also called for reform of the
country's banking system, including bankruptcies for banks that were no longer viable.

Before the Duma's votes confirming Primakov and Gerashchenko, the ruble made gains for the third straight day, with the official Central Bank rate climbing 12.66 percent from Thursday to 11.4281 to the
dollar, Interfax reported.

Primakov likened his proposed approach to emergency measures taken by the U.S. government during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Communist Party members, including leader Gennady Zyuganov and
Maslyukov, have also in past said their economic theories draw heavily upon Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

But it is hard to know exactly what is meant by such comparisons, and Primakov's speech was short on concrete economic measures. As a political bid for nomination, it seemed to be designed at least in part to please as many factions as possible, analysts said.

"People will take from [Primakov's] comments today what they want to hear," said Ed Butchart, an economist and equity strategist for European emerging markets at Merrill Lynch in London.

"On the one hand he says he's going to introduce some form of protectionism, which makes Zyuganov happy," Butchart said. "On the other hand, he says that the restructuring of debts to foreign banks is a priority, which should make foreign investors feel a little better."

Analysts were more disturbed by the prospect of Russia's finances in the hands of Gerashchenko and Maslyukov, whom Primakov named as first deputy prime minister in charge of the economy.

Of the two, Maslyukov is the more enigmatic. He served much of his career in the Soviet military-industrial complex, rising to head Gosplan, the government agency charged with planning the Soviet economy, from 1988 to 1991. In Zyuganov's post-Soviet Communist Party, Maslyukov has been seen as a high-ranking moderate.

Maslyukov broke with party ranks earlier this year to vote in favor of the nomination of Sergei Kiriyenko, a free market advocate, for prime minister.

Before the recent financial crisis, Maslyukov was an advocate of protecting domestic industries, in part by providing them with inexpensive raw materials and low energy prices, perhaps by regulating prices on oil and metals.

But it was Gerashchenko -- a man Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs once called "the worst central banker in the world" -- who came under particular fire as analysts feared he would try to print his way out
of the debt crisis.

"In a situation where there is absolutely no confidence in the national currency, every single ruble printed fuels inflation," said Thierry Malleret, chief economist at Alfa Capital. "I am afraid that things are only going to go from bad to worse, at least for the near future."

David Riley, an economist for the international credit ratings agency Fitch IBCA, said he would wait to judge Gerashchenko by his actions.

But he added, "I find it very hard to be positive about the appointment ... and I very much doubt it's going to be welcomed by the IMF and the G-7 either."

In his speech, Primakov said the Kiriyenko Cabinet's concentration on increasing state revenues was important, but added that privatization and development of the tax system "should serve not only fiscal
[goals] ... but also restructure the economy, restructure industry and rejuvenate fixed assets."

"Instead of destroying the financial and credit system in place, we will use it for developing industry and the national economy,'' he said.

Primakov also said that Russia would need to make use of loans from the West.

"We can and we should receive loans, especially loans at a good interest rate, cheap loans, which correspond with our interests," he said. "However, Russia cannot depend on [foreign] loans as if they are
drugs."

With Russia's ruined credit, the only likely source for foreign money now are Western governments and lending institutions such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund -- all of which are likely
to be reluctant to throw more money into a country that so quickly swallowed the billions it received a couple of months ago.

"The IMF, if it had its own way, would not lend to Russia," Butchart said. "It's worried about moral hazard, and the IMF really sticks to its market ideology.

"On the other hand, right now there's a lot of political will to prop up Russia, a recognition that it had a very close shave."

No one envied Primakov his position.

"It is the epitome of a Catch-22 situation," Malleret said. "Everything that is necessary economically is completely unfeasible politically. And everything that is feasible politically will lead to the collapse of the economy."



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:45:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Arutz-7 News Brief

Finally, the yearly ceremonies of the Institute for the Establishment of the Temple caught the eye of the Egyptian press early this week. Particularly disturbing to the papers was the fact that invitations to the event were sent from the Knesset. A headline of one article read: "They are no longer the Minority", arguing that the government's tacit support for the organization was part of Israel's overall plan to
"Judaize" Jerusalem in preparation for the building of the Third Temple.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:47:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
OneWorld News -- From A NWO Perspective

DEVELOPMENT: Consumption Gap Is Widening, Says UN Report

By Farhan Haq UNITED NATIONS, Sep 9 (IPS) - World consumption has swelled to 24 trillion dollars a year, resulting in huge disparities between North and South and widening gaps between wealthy shoppers and the hungry poor in every nation, says the new 'Human Development Report' published by the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

The total amount consumed worldwide in 1998 is six times the 1950 level and 16 times what it was at the beginning of the century, says the report, published Wednesday.

Worse, the poorest fifth of the world's population -- or more than one billion people -- have been left out of the consumption explosion, the study adds, lacking food and water even as sales of cars and televisions skyrocket.

''Abundance of consumption is no crime, but it is scandalous that the poor are unable to consume enough to meet even their most basic needs,'' UNDP Administrator James Gustave Speth says.

On the one hand, the number of radios sold in Africa has surged by more than 400 percent between 1975 and 1995, while sales of television sets in Latin America, and of cars in East Asia, have jumped by
500 percent and 1,400 percent, respectively, in that same period.

Since 1960, global fresh water consumption has doubled and the size of the marine catch has increased four-fold, while fossil fuel consumption has quintupled since 1950, the report adds.

On the other hand, it argues, most of the 4.4 billion people who live in the developing world still lack the essentials of life even as wealthy elites acquire the taste for cars and personal computers.

Three-fifths of the developing world's population lack basic sanitation, nearly a third do without safe drinking water, a quarter have inadequate or no housing, and a fifth lack modern health services, the report estimates.

The report, the latest in a series published by UNDP since 1990, sharply criticises the inequalities in consumption within and among countries.

The people living in the world's richest countries are only a fifth of its population, the report says, but account for 45 percent of all meat and fish consumption, 58 percent of total energy use, 84 percent of all paper usage and 87 percent of vehicle ownership.

Despite such riches, the report adds, the industrialised world has shocking amounts of poverty, with more than 100 million people -- or about a tenth of its inhabitants -- living below the poverty line, an
equivalent number homeless and at least 37 million people unemployed. The lesson, Speth says, is that ''more is not invariably better''.

For this report, UNDP has devised a human poverty index (called HPI-2) suited for the industrialised world -- comprising the percentage of the population likely to die before the age of 60, the percentage of functionally illiterate people, the proportion of people whose income is less than half the national median and the percentage of long-term unemployment.

Based on those standards, the report concludes that poverty in the North affects between 7 percent (in Sweden) and 17 percent (in the United States) of the population.

Along with the United States, Spain (13 percent), Britain and Ireland (both 15 percent) have large populations living in poverty, while Sweden and the Netherlands (8 percent) are the only Northern
countries whose poor comprise fewer than a tenth of their population.

If so many people in the consumption-heavy North fare so poorly, the poor in the South fare still worse. According to the report, the three richest people in the world own assets in excess of the gross domestic products (GDPs) of the world's 48 poorest countries put together.

While industrialised nations can boast 405 cars for every 1,000 people, the ratio of automobiles to people in sub-Saharan Africa is 11 per 1,000, and in South Asia and East Asia, 5 per 1,000. The United States has 600 telephone lines for every 1,000 people, while Cambodia only provides one for the same number.

Meanwhile, the expanding demand for goods in the North puts a strain on the South when it comes to providing even basic food for its people. Growing fish consumption in the industrialised countries, the
report notes, leads the South to export fish even though it is often the main source of protein for the world's poorest people.

Partly as a result of this, protein consumption can vary from as high as 115 grammes a day for a French citizen to just 32 grammes a day for a Mozambican.

''Consumers, civil society and governments must forge alliances for new patterns of consumption,'' says Richard Jolly, the report's principal author.

''The world needs patterns of consumption that share resources, not divide societies; ...that are socially responsible, not destructive of the well-being of others; that are sustainable and do not degrade the
natural resource base and environment for present and future generations,'' he says.

The report argues that consumption levels for the world's poorest people must be raised and that consumption patterns be made more equal and more environmentally sustainable.

Meanwhile, it adds, consumers must be informed better about the real costs of consumption, and about product safety and access to real needs. Currently, the world is awash in advertising -- which costs at
least 435 billion dollars worldwide.

Yet, although the average US television-watcher sees 150,000 advertisements during his or her life, consumers often lack information about the impact the things they buy have on their health, the
environment or on other people's well-being, says Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, director of the UNDP Human Development Report Office.

''Consumers need information that is strengthening,'' Fukuda- Parr argues. ''They need to be able to identify those goods and services that take minimal toll on the environment, that are produced by
labourers who are not exploited, that are not harmful to people's health. Studies have shown that European consumers are willing to pay 5 to 10 percent more for products that are environmentally
responsible.''

Like previous reports, this year's edition features a ranking of nations by theie Human Development Index (HDI), which aggregates national GDPs, life expectancy at birth and adult literacy.

Canada, for many years the leading nation in HDI, again heads the 1998 rankings, followed by France, Norway, the United States and Iceland. The fifteen nations with the worst HDIs are all from sub-Saharan
Africa, with war-ravaged Sierra Leone dead last.

When the rankings are adjusted for gender disparities, Canada still leads, but is followed by Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland. Some nations' standings drop precipitously when gender is accounted for:
Japan, eighth-best in HDI, drops to 13th in gender- related development; Chile goes from 31st to 46th; and Saudi Arabia plummets from 70th to 102nd. (end/ips/fah/kb/98)



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:54:00 AM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1151
 
SOROS NOTE: He's coming.

By Jonathan Wright

WASHINGTON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Where have all the leaders gone? Politicians and business people are asking that question as they look for someone to save them from financial crisis or resolve intractable foreign conflicts.

The U.S. and Russian presidents, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, are obviously out of the running.

Clinton has his back against the wall as Congress begins scrutinizing evidence of possibly impeachable offenses in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yeltsin, who led Russia from Marxism to democracy and a
free-market economy, has been widely discredited in the collapse of the Russian financial system.

Germany and Japan hardly present a rosier picture. Helmut Kohl, after 16 years as German chancellor, is expected to lose this month's elections. In Japan, successive prime ministers have failed to make the reforms that many economists deem essential to end years of stagnation.

Simultaneously, the challenges that require leadership seem to be mounting. Turmoil in Asian and Russian markets have started to lap the shores of the United States. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic may be taking advantage of the vacuum to advance their own agendas.

The New York Times described it as ''a perilous combination of Brobdingnagian challenges to international stability and Lilliputian authority among the leaders tackling them.''

Said an article in Canada's Financial Post: ''The world is beset by an epidemic of smaller-than-life leaders whose failings and inadequacies do not bode well for the future.''

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, lamented a decline in standards in a Senate speech on Wednesday on the Clinton scandal.

''Where are the nation's leaders, to whom children can look up? Family values and religious values are looked on as old-fashioned, unsophisticated ... The nation is inexorably sinking towards the lowest common denominator,'' he said.

But political scientists in the United States do not share this gloom about the gravity of the crises or the paucity of potential leaders. If people cannot find the leaders, they probably don't need them, they add.

''It's an age-old complaint. I don't think there's anything new about it at all,'' said Richard Semiatin, assistant professor of government at American University in Washington.

''Leaders emerge in a war or perhaps a severe economic event such as a depression. Otherwise, even if people have leadership skills, they're missed by the times. You have a pool of people and at the time of crisis people hopefully emerge,'' he added.

''It's the right person being there at a propitious moment, and this is not one of those propitious moments. The type of situation doesn't lend itself to that,'' he said.

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, agreed that strong leaders are invisible in normal times.

''A perfect example would be (U.S. president) Harry Truman, considered a hack politician put on the ticket for various reasons that had very little to do with his ability, who suddenly became president and is now recognized as a major architect of the post-World War Two world,'' he said.

''Leaders may rise to the occasion or we give them more powers and more support when we need them,'' he added.

Ronald Heifetz, a specialist on leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said: ''We frequently attribute our complex problems to problems of leadership when they have more to do with problems in our economic structures, in our cultural norms and habits.''

Heifetz, who directs a leadership education project at the university, said he saw plenty of examples of leadership, even from the politicians who are now under a cloud.

He pointed out that in almost six years in office, Clinton has helped bring peace to Bosnia and Northern Ireland. The president took the lead on reforming the U.S. health care system and failed only because he set too ambitious a target, he said.

Chancellor Kohl and other Europeans can claim credit for advancing the cause of European monetary and political union. ''It's a gigantic experiment and possibly an enormous leap forward for humankind as
people begin to redefine national identity,'' he said of their endeavors.

And nobody is talking about the discreet Chinese leadership, which, without much fanfare, has changed the face of the world's most populous country.

At least in domestic politics, democracy and instant communications may have eroded the significance of leaders.

But Heifetz says that on the international scene, they will remain significant as long as the nation state survives.

''National identity is a powerful force and the people who inhabit high positions of political authority have a key role in shaping the stories that we tell ourselves,'' he said.

''They help us explain who we are and the nature of the transition we are experiencing,'' he added.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Arabic News Report

Sudanese states affected by floods include capital, famine areas Sudan, Politics, 9/12/98

The miserable situation in Sudan was aggravated due to floods that affected nine Sudanese states and reached regions in the south that had been ravaged by drought for years resulting in a famine, especially in Bahr El-Gazal province.

Reports referred to the regions located on the white Nile in the Sudanese capital such as the districts of Kalakda, El-Lamb, El-Ezwezab as being the most badly affected, adding that one third of the houses in El-Zwezab were ruined, as the inhabitants took shelter in schools. The main road liking Khartoum with El-Awliaa mountain was covered by the Nile River, despite being set away from the Nile by more than
1,500 meters.

The rain-swollen Nile destroyed one third of houses in the provinces of El-Kalakla, El-Lamb and El-Ezwazab.

The flood also hit the areas of El-Jarif, the Yeri and Garden City. In Om Derman the water flooded El-Rivera garden, exceeding the bridge, and the region of Serwareb.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
CORNERSTONE TO BE LAID: According to a press release by the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement, "On the third day of the festival of Sukkoth this year (7th October 1998) at 9:30 am,
The Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement will lay the cornerstone for the Third Temple. We trust that this time it will be on the Temple Mount on the location of the First and Second Temples.
The stone [which weighs 4.5 tons] is currently located in the middle of a traffic circle which was especially built by the Municipality of Jerusalem for this stone. Everyone who is in Jerusalem at this time
is invited to come and take part in this event. You can meet us at the Western Wall Plaza near to the western gate of the Temple Mount (Mugrabi Gate) at 9:30 am.". For more information, see their website
at: www.templemountfaithful.org (TMF)



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
News - September 7, 1998

NSF PR 98-47 Media contact: Greg Lester (703) 306-1070 glester@nsf.gov Program contact: Terry Oswalt (703) 306-1825 toswalt@nsf.gov

'SUPERMASSIVE' BLACK HOLE FOUND IN THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY

The presence of an enormous black hole at the center of our galaxy has been detected by a researcher funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The evidence will be reported today at the
Central Parsecs Galactic Center Workshop '98 in Tucson, Arizona, by Andrea Ghez, of the University of California-Los Angeles.

"What lies in the center of the Milky Way has been one of this century's 'big' science questions," said Terry Oswalt, NSF program manager for Stellar Astronomy and Astrophysics. "Ghez's work has massive implications on our understanding of how galaxies evolve."

Black holes are formed from the remnants of collapsed stars. A black hole consists of a large mass compacted so densely that not even light can escape its force of gravity. Since Ghez could not directly
see a black hole, she inferred its presence by searching for the gravitational influence it imposes on nearby objects she could see, namely stars.

In 1995, using the Keck I Telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii, Ghez began tracking the movement of 200 stars near the galactic center. She found at least 20 stars that exhibited the telling signs of influence
by extreme gravitational forces.

These stars are spiraling around the black hole at speeds of up to three million miles per hour-about 10 times the speed at which stars typically move. In order to account for the rapid speeds of these stars, Ghez determined that an object 2.6 million times more massive than our Sun must be concentrated into a single black hole.

Just getting a clear view of the center of our galaxy is an impressive feat in itself. To overcome the distortion created by the Earth's atmosphere, Ghez made her observations using a technique called "infrared speckle interferometry." The procedure, which she helped develop, uses computers to analyze thousands of high-speed, high-resolution snapshots.

The result: an image that has at least 20 times better resolution than those made by traditional earthbound imaging techniques. "It's like putting on glasses," said Ghez.

Using this technique in 1995, Ghez witnessed the disappearance of a star that was, at the time, the closest object to the black hole. Whether the star was sucked into the black hole, or simply went behind
it, scientists may never know.

But we have little to fear about a similar fate for Earth, since the center of the Milky Way galaxy is approximately 24,000 light years away. Because of the Earth's position on an outer arm of the spiraling
Milky Way, much of our knowledge about galaxies does not come from our own. Ghez's research, however, gives us a definitive view about a part of our own galaxy that we have never seen before.

"There is an incredible amount of matter between us and the center of the Milky Way to obscure our view," said Oswalt. "Ghez has pulled the living room shades open a bit and finally given us a good look at what's going on in our own backyard."



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Pat Buchanan's Weekly Column

The Global Economy is a disaster

17 NOV 97 - Scoff if you will at the claim, but I believe this fall may rank in historic significance in our time second only to the fall of 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. Ridiculous, absurd, you say. Well, consider the three signal political events that marked this autumn.

One was the astonishing rout of the president on his highest priority, "fast track," the bill by which Congress was to give up all rights to amend trade treaties. Standing behind Bill Clinton was the
seemingly invincible phalanx: ex-Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford, all the ex-secretaries of state and trade representatives, the think tanks from Heritage to AEI to Cato and Brookings, the Big Media, all the name economists, the prestige punditocracy, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Council on Foreign Relations and so on. Yet all the king's horses and all the king's men could not
prevail.

Make no mistake: If Clinton at 60 percent approval cannot win a vote where the GOP leadership is 100 percent with him, his cause is lost. Not since the "fighting 80th Congress" of Harry Truman's time
euthanized the International Trade Organization has globalism sustained such a defeat. But that was the last hurrah of GOP protectionism. Defeat of fast track is the first triumph of a blazing new nationalism.

And when the coming tsunami of Asian exports hits America's shores, flooding our manufacturing base, and drowning our industries and factories, the day of economic nationalism will be at hand.

The second event was the stunning collapse of stock markets and currency values that began in Thailand. From Bangkok, the epidemic spread to Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong
Kong and Japan. From Asia, it leapt the Pacific to Latin America. Now, stock market crashes and currency devaluations are occurring in Russia, the Baltic republics, Eastern Europe and Greece. The
Global Economy is proving to be a high-speed transmission belt of global financial disaster. Where is our fire wall?

Nor is the end of this sickening earth-slide in sight. But already, it is clear that Asia's economies and banks are going to be devastated and their ability to repay Western creditors impaired. Thailand has
received a $17 billion bailout; Indonesia's Suharto regime is the beneficiary of a bailout that now exceeds $40 billion. If the Japanese banks start tumbling, the wreckage will be global.

What this crisis will produce is eminently predictable. Asian regimes will soon inform Western corporate and banking elites that they cannot pay their debts. The elites will then raise a great cry that the Asian
nations must be bailed out, in the name of "stability" - by having the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the U.S. Treasury lend them hundreds of billions to pay their debts. Thus, the
investments of Citibank, Goldman Sachs and all the rest can be made good with fresh loans - backed by U.S. taxpayers.

The globalist racket must be exposed, and ended, once and for all. Now is the time for populists to echo our free-trade friends who endlessly proclaim: "Let the markets work!" Let the investors who pocketed their Asian profits swallow their Asian losses. Let the big banks and their clients work out their problems without putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

When Clinton asks Congress for the $3.5 billion for the IMF that the House rejected at session's end, Congress should just say no. If it does and checkmates Robert Rubin so he cannot bailout transnational
corporations and investment banks with Treasury funds, the hollowness, fraudulence and bankruptcy of the Global Economy will be exposed for all the world to see.

The third event was the U.N. Security Council's craven response to Saddam's humiliating ouster of American members of the U.N. team searching for his hidden terror-weapons. France, China and Russia
all oppose U.S. military action, and our Arab allies have defected. With the exception of the British, the United States stands alone in the Gulf.

What does this portend? Not only is the mighty coalition George Bush assembled to win the Gulf War ancient history, his dream of a New World Order where the United States - aided by allies and sanctioned by the United Nations - would police the planet, arresting outlaws and renegades, is dead. As dead as Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, as dead as FDR's dream of the Four Policemen - America, Britian, Russia and China - patrolling the post-fascist world.

What then has autumn wrought? It has brought to an end the liberal illusion of a Global Economy of ever-soaring prosperity and exposed as risible all the neoconservative blather about a time of America's
"global hegemony." The New World Order evanesces as the old world of nation-states reappears. Multilateralism has been discredited; a new era of American unilateralism is upon us. That is the message of this historic autumn, and the look of bewilderment on the face of our one-world president says it all.



To: SOROS who wrote (268)9/14/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1151
 
MidEastRealities Report

URGING AND WAITING FOR "TERRORISM"

MER - WASHINGTON - 9/13:

In the past year far fewer Israelis have died as a result of "terrorism" than any other year since "Oslo".
Far more Israelis die yearly in traffic accidents than at the hands of Palestinians quite legitimately
fighting against their occupation, dispossession, and torture -- now through the "triple occupation" of the
Arafat regime, the Israeli army, and the American CIA. It's quite a game that's been going on over the
past year actually. The Israelis will never admit it, but they've been doing all they can to stimulate
terrorism, while at the same time badgering Arafat all they can to have him repress and terrorize his own
people. And the Hamas organization will never admit it but they've been doing all they can to hold back
the many Palestinian activists and potential martyrs, not wanting to play into Israel's hands at this time,
hoping to get the Israeli army roadblocks moved abit further away through "redeployments", even if they
understandable oppose the overall "Oslo" arrangements signed 5 long years ago today on the White
House lawn. With the recent Israeli assassinations of leading Hamas activists, coupled with Israeli
manipulation of the Arafat "Authority" to increasingly and severely repress Hamas-oriented persons and
institutions, ongoing attempts continue to be made to heat up the overall situation and provoke a
"terrorist" response. These two AP articles from yesterday and today outline quite mildly the still growing
tensions in the area.

CLASHES INTENSIFY IN WEST BANK

By LAURA KING

JERUSALEM (Associated Press - 9/12) -- U.S. envoy Dennis Ross struggled Saturday to revive the
moribund Mideast peace process while street clashes in West Bank cities injured at least 16
Palestinians and an Israeli soldier.

The latest violence was triggered by Israel's slaying of two top Hamas fugitives, which drew threats of
vengeance from the Islamic militant group and prompted some calls to scrap the peace talks altogether.

The Israeli military was on high alert and the Palestinian lands remained sealed off for a second day after
Hamas threatened to stage suicide-bomb attacks inside Israel -- something that has not happened in
more than a year.

''We are under a constant threat of terrorism,'' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as he
headed into talks with Ross, demanding that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat do everything possible to
crack down on groups that stage attacks in Israel.

As if to pre-empt that call, Palestinian police staged an extraordinary display of public force against
Hamas on Saturday. About 3,000 officers beat and dispersed a protest by about 200 Hamas activists in
Gaza City.

Palestinian police later explained the action by saying the demonstration was unauthorized -- although
such gatherings are often condoned -- and claiming the Hamas supporters had thrown stones at police.

Meanwhile, Israeli peace activists staged their biggest rally in months on Saturday to denounce the
government's failure to move the peace process ahead. A crowd estimated by police at 40,000 and
organizers at up to 100,000 gathered in a Tel Aviv square, some holding signs reading: ''Bibi is
dangerous for Israel'' - a reference to Netanyahu's nickname.

Against this tense backdrop, Ross held a three-hour meeting with Arafat in the West Bank town of
Nablus.

Neither spoke to reporters afterward, but Arafat walked the envoy to his car and they talked for another
five minutes there, with Arafat whispering insistently into Ross' ear.

While the two were meeting, about 2,000 students at a nearby university staged a rally to protest
Thursday's killings of fugitive Palestinian brothers Imad and Adel Awadallah and call for a halt to any
further peace talks.

Little progress has been reported so far in the shuttle meetings Ross has been holding daily since his
arrival on Wednesday.

On the table is a U.S. proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 13 percent of the West Bank and detailed
provisions for Palestinian cooperation with Israel and the United States on security, an issue Ross has
been try to untangle during this visit.

Israel has long said the Palestinians are not doing enough to fight Islamic militants.

A security blueprint was worked out by Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. security officials in December, but
was rejected by Netanyahu as insufficient.

In Saturday's West Bank clashes:

About 80 teen-agers, some masked and armed with slingshots, hurled stones and bottles at Israeli
troops at the Jewish enclave of Rachel's Tomb. At least four Palestinians were hit by rubber bullets, and
army radio said a soldier was injured as well.

Soldiers in and around Ramallah fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse dozens of stone throwers.
Army radio said at least 10 Palestinians were hurt.

Two Palestinians were hit by rubber bullets after a crowd stoned soldiers in the divided town of Hebron.

The Palestinian Cabinet, meeting at its customary late hour on Friday, suggested Israel's killing of the
Hamas fugitives -- who were slain in a hail of bullets in their West Bank hideout -- was timed to doom
Ross' mission.

''There is no hope for progress if Israel continues with such policies,'' the Cabinet said in a statement.

Israel sometimes targets alleged terrorists for assassination, a practice tacitly accepted by the Israeli
public but consistently condemned by human rights groups.

''Events ... prove the relentless continuation of the Israeli policy of extra-judicial executions,'' the
Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights said in a statement Saturday.

Meanwhile, in a show of defiance, the Palestinian Cabinet said it had discussed preparations for a
declaration of statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip at Friday night's meeting. Arafat has said he
would proclaim statehood on May 4, 1999, regardless of whether a final peace agreement with Israel had
been negotiated.

Netanyahu has hinted he might respond to such a declaration by annexing chunks of the West Bank,
which would likely set off an explosion of violence.

---------------------

ISRAEL BRACES FOR REVENGE ATTACKS

By LAURIE COPANS

JERUSALEM (Associated Press 9-13) -- Israel braced for threatened revenge attacks by Islamic
militants, deploying troops Sunday to guard bus stops, shopping centers and other possible targets.

Israeli media said the alert status was unprecedented.

Speaking on the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Oslo accords, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
criticized the peace process for not preventing terrorist attacks.

''The Oslo agreement was supposed to bring peace. This means that there wouldn't be terror attacks
here from the territory handed over to the Palestinians,'' Netanyahu said on Israel Radio.

Despite these misgivings, Netanyahu reaffirmed his commitment to the agreement signed by the
previous Labor government. ''We are trying to fix its damage,'' he said.

Netanyahu said he had, in recent meetings with U.S. peace envoy Dennis Ross, demanded the
Palestinians suppress terror groups like Hamas as a condition for advancing the peace process.

Hamas has promised to retaliate against Israel for its killing Thursday of two fugitives of the group's
military wing who were wanted for their alleged involvement in attacks against Israel.

Hundreds of Palestinians called for revenge bombings against Israel in pro-Hamas demonstrations
Saturday throughout the West Bank. At least 16 Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers were injured in
ensuing clashes.

In efforts to avert a possible Hamas attack, security forces canceled leaves for police and soldiers and
troops fanned out to cities throughout the country to protect shopping areas and bus stops -- targets of
previous suicide bomb attacks.

Despite the threats, Ross continued in his efforts to get Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
to agree on a U.S. proposal to end the 18-month stalemate in the peace talks.

According to the intiative, Israel would withdraw troops from 13 percent of the West Bank in tandem with
Palestinian agreement to smother anti-Israeli militants.

Neither side has reported any progress in Ross' meetings, which began Wednesday.

Sunday marked the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 13, 1993 signing of the first Oslo peace accord between
Israel and the Palestinians, which set a framework for eventual Palestinian autonomy.

Since the signing, Palestinians have assumed self-rule in the Gaza Strip and now control large towns in
the West Bank, but other major provisions of Oslo have not been implemented amid mutual
recriminations.

________________________________________________________________ MID-EAST REALITIES is
published a number of times weekly and the MERTV Program shows weekly on Cable TV. For latest
information email to INFOMER@MiddleEast.Org.