Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
|
|
Media observers saw two world views emerging on
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Washington and PM Sharon on one side,
and, "a rather mixed coalition of the EU, China and the Arab League"
on the other. But for many, the Bush
administration's "open" support for PM Sharon's anti-terror tactics
and its criticism for PA leader Arafat constituted a watershed moment. The majority in Europe, Asia, Africa and
Latin America endorsed the Arabs' long-standing grievance that the U.S.
"bias" in favor of Israel has undercut Washington's effectiveness as
a mediator. Many urged the U.S. to
specifically address the perception that it is "aligned with Israel's
hard-liners" and make it clear that the U.S. is also interested in a
peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They also argued that the U.S. needed to
dispel the view that the war against terrorism is directed at Arabs. These were salient points: ARAFAT AND THE ARAB DILEMMA: Arab writers contended that while the U.S.
has never been neutral regarding Israel and the Palestinians, the current
administration's bias in favor of Israel is unprecedented. All attacked Washington's
"anti-Arafat," "anti-peace" request that the PA leader
uproot terrorism while under "virtual house arrest" by Israel. Many took the U.S. position as proof that,
from the superpower's vantage point, "maintaining the American-Israeli
partnership" is paramount, even above achieving a just solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Writers
urged Arab leaders to move beyond the usual anti-Israel denunciations to
express the extent of Arab anger, not only at Israel but also at its arms
merchant and co-aggressor of the Palestinians, the U.S. Some posited that if the Bush anti-terrorism
doctrine is transplanted from Afghanistan to the Middle East, Arab regimes face
a stark choice: Either accept "the
American-Israeli viewpoint" on terrorism or join the U.S.' list of
enemies. INTROSPECTION IN ISRAEL: Only the conservative spectrum of the media
exhorted Israel--and the U.S.--to "pull the plug" on Arafat's
political career. Centrist and leftist
dailies, on the other hand, offered a glimpse of the public's hesitance to
abandon Israel's main interlocutor for, perhaps, a more violent, extremist
alternative. Many challenged Sharon, as
the more powerful negotiating partner, to make some gesture toward the
Palestinians that will motivate them to begin a dialogue. EUROPE SEES FEW OPTIONS: Arafat's considerable supporters in the
European media applauded the EU's endorsement of the PA leader as Israel's
peace partner. Many were quick to
question, however, how much EU support matters if Israel and the U.S. decide
that Arafat's era is over. Most
regretted Washington's recent criticism of Arafat, arguing that while
"endorsing" Israel may be understandable from a military point of
view, "it won't help to stabilize the region" or offer a
"perspective for the future."
Some suggested that among the few remaining diplomatic options left for
ending the violence was Washington's reiteration of its support for Palestinian
statehood and its support for a UN force in Israel. EDITOR:
Gail Hamer Burke EDITOR'S NOTE:
This report is based on 63 reports from 35 countries, January
25-30. Editorial excerpts from each
country are listed from the most recent date. MIDDLE EAST ISRAEL:
"War Zone" Chief economic editor Sever Plotker wrote in the
editorial of mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (1/29): "Terrorism has taken over the
Palestinians'...life culture and is dictating their fate. Terrorism is poisoning the Palestinian
discourse and repressing any independent Palestinian thought of accepting, and
conciliating with, Israel. It would be
wrong to say that Israelis are eager to annex the West Bank and Gaza to Israel,
whatever the hidden intentions of various [Israeli] governments. The opposite is true. The 'territories' are currently perceived as
a heavy, painful burden on the Israelis' shoulders.... Land for peace, settlements in exchange for
[the abandonment of] the right of return--this is the yearned-for compromise
most Israeli Jews are prepared for....
Unfortunately, as it appears today, the great majority of the
Palestinian people is not willing to accept such a concession. The Palestinians adhere to their own
artificial 'justice' which stands for the dismantling and the end of the Jewish
state. " "Occupation And Disobedience" Veteran journalist Dan Margalit wrote in
popular, pluralist Maariv (1/29): "For the very reason that Ariel
Sharon enjoys the rare supports of the United States, which understands what
the far left refuses to see: that Yasser Arafat is the driving force behind
terrorist activity, he should not be blinded by diplomatic victory, Sharon beat
Arafat in the fight at the outskirts of Ramallah and in the battle for
Washington's heart, but Winston Churchill's saying: 'The problems of victory
are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult' still
applies to Sharon." "Time To Pull The Plug" Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post
editorialized: "So what is the
United States waiting for before closing down the PLO offices in Washington and
cutting off all contact with Arafat?
The answer seems to be that, as much as Washington wants to see Arafat
go, there is concern over what comes next.
This concern--and confusion--is greatly compounded because Israel has
not sent unambiguous signals in this regard.... The United States and Israel have nothing to lose by jointly
pulling the plug on Arafat.... Arafat's
likely successors will be no friends of Israel, but they will not inherit
Arafat's aura of indispensability." "Extending A Hand To Arafat" Liberal columnist Gideon Levy wrote in
independent Ha'aretz: "In Arafat's most difficult hour, it is in
Israel's best interests to extend him a helping hand. No less relevant than Sharon, Arafat is Israel's only partner,
period." "Conciliatory Gestures Would Help" Independent Ha'aretz editorialized
(1/25): "It is not clear what
Sharon meant when he said that a speech by the speaker of the Knesset in
Ramallah would 'cause Israel political damage.' On the contrary, any effort to sabotage an initiative for
reconciliation by Israeli leaders would portray Israel in the world as the
party that is not interested in a political solution for the conflict. Opposition to initiatives that are only
aimed at calling on the Palestinians to cease violence, raise suspicions that
the government is not interested in peace, preferring to evict Arafat and erase
the last remaining chances for a compromise based on the Oslo framework and the
agreements reached in its wake." "An Intentionally Missed Opportunity" Diplomatic correspondent Ben Caspit wrote in
popular, pluralist Maariv (1/ 25):
"Not long ago, before the assassination of Raed Karmi, there was
relative quiet. Israel could have taken
advantage of it to declare its entrance into the Tenet-Mitchell track,
encourage the moderates, continue to calm the situation and hope the momentum
will gain speed. This is what Shimon
Peres wanted. This is what the United
States hoped. This is what the
Palestinians wanted. But Israel, in a
thought-out decision, gave up the opportunity--Israel, i.e., Ariel
Sharon.... So what happened? The story is simple: Sharon is no new Shimon Peres; he is not
even a new Sharon. He is the same
Sharon, with the same attitude toward Arafat." "The Bulldozer's Last Chance" Senior columnist and long-time peace campaigner
Yoel Marcus noted in independent Haaretz (1/25): "Arafat is not
alone in this siege. All of Israel is
with him. No tourists are coming, the
economy has taken a mighty blow and people go out less for fear of terrorist
attacks.... Israel may be a member of
the Five Strongest Armies Club and the Eight Nuclear Nations Club, but it has
reached the point where it has no military solution for the dispute with the
Palestinians. In this reality, Sharon,
as the head of a military power and the leader of the stronger side, can, and
should, break the stalemate. This can
be done by initiating a political compromise that will give the Palestinians
hope and the motivation to begin a dialogue.... True, all Israeli prime
ministers have had miserable ends, but a few of them have gone down in history
for the great things they have done for this country. This is the Bulldozer's last chance to wind up his career in the
ranks of the bold and the brave." WEST BANK:
"EU Statement: A Glimpse of
Hope"
Independent, moderate Al-Quds
editorialized (1/29): "The EU statement clearly supports the Palestinian
Authority and President Arafat and refers to him as an essential partner in the
peace process. This statement comes as
a bold reaction to the American position, which reiterates Israeli claims and
blindly adopts the position of Sharon's government towards Arafat. The European foreign ministers dared to
demand that Israel end its attacks against EU-funded Palestinian infrastructure
projects and warned that it will make Israel pay for the destruction of those
projects. The question to be asked here
is: Will this EU position affect the
biased American position towards Israel, or will Washington carry on with its
slanted and unjustified campaign against the Palestinian Authority and President
Arafat?" "Yasser Arafat And PA One Entity" Hani Al-Masri opined in independent,
pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (1/29): "White House officials have been talking about breaking
relations with the Palestinian president while maintaining contacts with [other
officials in] the Palestinian Authority. This can never happen. No one can ever separate Yasser Arafat from
his authority, people, or Palestinian rights.
Arafat is the historical, legitimate, national, and elected symbol of
the Palestinian Authority and people. The Palestinian response to this new
American idea will probably be that all Palestinian officials will break
contacts with the U.S. administration if it does decide to render Arafat irrelevant." Media Treatment--"Anti-Arafat, Anti-PA
Statements" Palestinian dailies ran banner headlines across
the front pages (1/26-27) highlighting "anti-Arafat" and
"anti-Palestinian Authority" statements by U.S. officials. Independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam
led with a report titled, "Bush Exerts Political Pressure On
Arafat." Another headline quoted
Secretary Powell as saying that "we are reviewing our policies toward the
Palestinian Authority and Arafat." Independent, moderate Al-Quds
reported that the administration was considering taking measures against Arafat
in light of the Karine-A ship incident. "Washington Threatens Palestinian
Authority" Independent, moderate Al-Quds
editorialized (1/27): "The recent
statements by American administration officials, including President Bush,
Secretary Powell and spokespersons for the White House and State Department,
can only be characterized as extremist towards the Palestinian cause in general
and the Palestinian Authority in particular.
The recent statement by Powell, in which he stated that Arafat was
facing his 'moment of truth,' was a declared threat against the Palestinian
Authority. Adding to previous [biased]
American positions, it confirmed that the American administration chose to align
itself with the Israeli extremist parties and coalitions, thus weakening its
credibility as a sponsor of the peace process, and placing it on the verge of
destruction." "Arabs' Failure" Independent, moderate Al-Quds
editorialized (1/25): "The statement of the Qatar Foreign Minister, Hamad Al-Thani,
regarding the weakness of the Arabs exposes a bitter fact.... After the September 11 attacks, the United
States adopted positive positions.
President Bush talked about Palestine as a fact, and later on, he
reiterated the U.S. vision of a final solution based on a Palestinian state
beside Israel. This idea was also
emphasized by his secretary of state, Colin Powell, and other American
officials. Nevertheless, Arabs failed
to follow up on this American position, which seems to be vanishing by the day
after the American massive military victory in Afghanistan, the collapse of the
Taliban regime, and the dismantling of Al-QaIda without any major losses among
the American forces." EGYPT:
"U.S. Benefits From Macabre Death Game Between Cousins" Aggressive, pro-government Al Akhbar's
senior columnist Mahmoud Abdel Moneim Mourad contended (1/29): "The world
continues to watch indifferently as Arabs and Israelis kill each other still
after half a century. No one wants to
make a serious effort to stop the bloodshed, the demolition of houses, the
spoiling of arable land and the Israeli daily aggression--as if there is a
global conspiracy to annihilate Palestinians, and Israelis as well. Each Israeli terrorist operation received a
Palestinian suicide operation in response.
Even a Palestinian woman student conceded her right to life and set
herself to bomb 150 or 140 Israelis....
Israelis will certainly respond violently. The good father Sharon...will handle the liquidation of a
prominent Palestinian figure himself....
Everyone is watching the death game between these cousins. Someone is certainly benefiting from this
game.... Americans have relieved
Israelis of having to practice 'martyrdom' and sent them thousands of F-16's to
kill Palestinians.... One day we will
read news that American planes are responding to Arab suicide operations...by
planes, missiles and tanks.... The
result is that millions of dollars enter the treasuries of the spectators
[i.e., the United States], oil flows to them at the lowest prices, and peace
will never be achieved." "Arab Public Will Reject Their Leaders'
Surrender To Sharon"" Aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar's
columnist Mahmoud Abdel Moneim Mourad asked (1/28): "Why are Arabs waiting
for March to meet, while every day the press speaks about Israel's terrorist
acts in Palestine?... Sharon is
telling the world that he can do what he wants with Arabs and he and America
can choose Arafat's successor and decide the end of the Arab-Israeli dispute,
by force or by negotiation. Nothing in
the Arab horizon indicates that they will take a new action. I do not expect the new choice will be war,
which will contradict their choice of peace as a strategic option. However, everyone knows that peace can only
be done according to Israeli and U.S. demands. This means that 22 Arab
countries agreed to bow to Sharon....
However, the Arab public will reject this.... We will get harmed, but we will not surrender." JORDAN:
"Grave Consequences Of Washington’s Abandonment Of Its Peaceful
Role” Daily columnist Mahmoud Rimawi wrote on the
op-ed page of semi-official, influential Al-Ra’i (1/28): “The American sponsorship of the negotiating
process is slowly becoming a recipe for launching war and a tool for escalating
the Israeli war.… The Republican
administration is now in the same trench as Sharon.... The Americans have really and in effect
abandoned their duties and responsibilities in sponsoring the negotiating
process and have moved towards launching a military and political war against
one of the parties. It is therefore the
right and duty of the Arab world to stand up to this war with all the possible
legitimate means as part of their solidarity with the campaign against
terrorism.” LEBANON:
"Arafat And The Image Of Arab Terrorism" An editorial by Nizar Abdel-Kader in
independent, non-sectarian Ad-Diyar remarked (1/29): "During the
last few weeks, some changes took place within the Israeli political milieu and
in several media outlets. It appears
that there are new Israeli movements that are demanding a stop to Sharon's
policy, which is provoking the Palestinians and pushing them into committing
suicide operations.... Israeli
newspapers are carrying several articles that condemn Sharon's strategy and
criticize the practices of the Israeli Army.... Despite these changes in Israel, the United States is continuing
its campaign against the Palestinian Authority and Arafat himself.... This American concentration on Arafat and
disregard of the Israeli open war against the Palestinians, raises questions
about the reasons for this American position.... The United States seems to need a new terrorist image because the
stardom of Bin Laden has started to fade....
Apparently the United States wants to move its campaign against
terrorism from Afghanistan to the Middle East and is using Arafat as a
representative of 'Arab terrorism.'" "At The Edge Of The Edge" Sahar Baasiri commented in moderate, anti-Syrian
An-Nahar (1/26): "The Bush
administration also understands Israel's need to defend itself, is thinking
about severing its relations with the PLO by closing its office in Washington,
might end General Zinni's mission, and is planning to present evidence that
prove Arafat's involvement in the arms shipment to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Jordan.... The American administration
is making a big mistake because it is dealing with Arafat in the same manner it
has been dealing with Afghanistan....
Arafat is confronting an occupation and is asking for his people's
legitimate rights. Arafat is neither
the al-Qaida nor the Taliban because he is not the one who is blocking the
peace process.... If America wants to
get rid of Arafat, then it is really heading for a catastrophe." MOROCCO:
"No Signs Of Powell's Vision For The Region" Medi-1, semi-independent radio with an audience
of about 25 million, commented (1/28): "In November, 2001, Secretary
Powell said that the United States had a vision of a region where Israel and
Arabs can live together in peace, security and dignity, with recognized
borders, a region where people can worship God in a spirit of tolerance and understanding. Where is the U.S. vision in the framework of
the double-standard policy that the United States is carrying in the region in
the name of its war against terrorism?
And when will the United States engage to help the Palestinians and the
Israelis make this vision a reality?" "Israel's Friendship With U.S. Apparently
Has No Limits Or Conditions" Columnist Abdullatif Jebrou wrote in
independent, Al Ahdath Al Maghrebiya (1/28): "Israel has managed to win the friendship of Americans
without any conditions. Americans
consider themselves connected to Israel through a strategic alliance; allowing
Washington to give itself the right to use double standard in everything
concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.... The United States uses the veto at the Security Council to block
any resolution to send international forces to protect Palestinian civilians
confronted with daily aggressions by the occupying Israeli
army.... America does not say a word to
Israel and ignores all international legitimate resolutions when it comes to
Israel but intervenes in all places under the pretext of respecting that same
international legitimacy." QATAR:
"Arafat--A Mafia Godfather?" Faisal Al-Batout, columnist for semi-independent
Al-Watan argued (1/29): "American officials have never used such
rough language about Arafat before. His
credibility has been put into question due to his alleged involvement with the
seized weapons shipment. Maybe this is
why General Zinni described him as a Mafia Godfather. Zinni's choice of words shows how biased the United States is
towards Israel. At the same time,
Arafat's personal involvement with the weapons shipment may also reflect how he
perceives himself--as a revolutionary leader and not a statesman." "We Will Not Abandon The Palestinians"
Semi-independent Al-Sharq contended
(1/29): "Holding the Arab League
foreign ministers' preparation meeting in Ramallah would send a message to the
United States and Israel that Arafat is still the legitimate representative of
the Palestinian people. The
Palestinians need the Arab states to work with Washington to stop Israeli
aggression, and at the same time they need to see more Arab officials meeting
with Arafat in his 'prison.' It not
acceptable to see so many European delegations meeting with Arafat while Arab
leaders are not even telephoning him, with the exception of the Emir of Qatar a
week ago. We must show Washington and
Tel Aviv that we are not going to abandon the Palestinians." SYRIA:
"The Trap" Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned Syria
Times, editorialized (1/29):
"If Sharon's agenda is to provoke Palestinians, trap them and
destroy the peace process, what is President Bush's agenda? But how the Bush administration fell into Sharon's
trap is more disturbing.... For
particular political reasons it gave the Israeli forces all the green lights
they needed to do whatever they want in the occupied territories. Therefore, it is no surprise that retired
General Zinni's mission in the region did not yield matching results. Mr. Zinni's latest description of Sharon as
a 'good father' and Mr. Bush's latest 'disappointment' with Palestinians
incensed all Arabs and demonstrated U.S. ignorance of Middle East
realities. The Americans, as well as
the Palestinians, fell into the trap.
The only beneficiary is Sharon." "Heart Attack" Yahia Aridi, Director of Syrian TV Channel 2,
commented in government-owned Syria Times (1/29): "The Chief of Israeli police in
Jerusalem suffered a heart attack as a result of Sunday's attack [Palestinian
suicide operation]. He is not the only
one in Israel torn up by fear. Everyone
in that garrison state lives a continuous nightmare not knowing when death may
strike.... The person who is running
scared more than anyone else is Sharon.
He is doubly frightened: from those he promised--but failed--to provide
with peace and security; and from the Palestinians to whom he has left no
option but death. A third source of his
fear comes from the United States that gave him a green light to do whatever he
likes. The United States could withdraw
this favor any minute--not out of generosity nor morality but out of
international embarrassment. The fourth
source of fear (300 million Arabs) is possibly building up." SAUDI ARABIA:
"Arafat And The Arab Dilemma" Jeddah based, conservative Al-Madina
opined (1/29): "Israel has
succeeded in cornering all neighbor Arabs after the September 11 events. The
U.S. media has succeeded in portraying Muslims and Arabs as supporters of
terrorism. Those who wish to obtain a
certificate of good behavior must go first through Tel Aviv. Proof of Israel's success, was the ultimatum
issued by President Bush to the quasi-imprisoned,
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, either to uproot terrorism from the Middle
East or face war with the United States, Israel and their world allies,
willingly or unwillingly. The heavily
armed United States has been engaged in a war in Afghanistan for more than three
months without succeeding in eradicating the roots of terrorism there.
Furthermore, it has failed to capture bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, or Mulla Mohammed
Omar. While the U.S. demands that
Arafat, who is shackled by Israel and the United States, uproot what they term
as terrorism...it is most likely, that the president of the United States
understands, more than most others,
that neither Arafat nor anyone else could halt that cycle of bloody
violence." "The Benefits Of Silence" London based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat's
editorial judged (1/28): "It is
not true that Arabs are incapable of changing the path of the current
Palestinian crisis. Certainly they can
do something other than beg the United States to interfere, especially when the
American interference takes a destructive direction. Arabs should stand by their basic beliefs regarding the
Palestinian conflict and remain supportive of Palestinian's struggle so that
they can move forward, rather than collapse and surrender. This may just sound like talk, but it is the
least we can do in our current situation.
Arab silence now is the preferred alternative. It is better than getting involved in the American-Israeli
scenarios of fighting terrorism or searching for the right leadership for the
PA. Israel is taking advantage of the
American mood. Finding the right
leadership means finding someone who would accept the expanding Jewish
settlements and keeping the Palestinian resistance quiet. Fighting terrorism, according to their
definition, means destroying any legitimate Palestinian resistance against
Israel.... Silence may be a benefit
these days, otherwise we would have to sign agreements and accept
Israeli-American solutions.... We are
not defending silence nor are we encouraging it, we are only trying to prevent
Arabs from committing a deadly mistake." "What The U.S. Wants And What We Want" Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad published
this op-ed by Abdul Kader Tash (1/28):
"The voices of the U.S. administration are getting louder, calling
for getting rid of Arafat.... No
country would dare use this kind of policy except the United States.... The
United States wants Arafat to surrender to Israel...and the Palestinians to
halt their resistance.... The message
that the United States wants the Arabs and Muslims to understand is clear. 'You
have to accept what Israel is doing and stop supporting the Palestinians, or
you will not receive any of the U.S.' benefits, and you might be accused of
being terrorists.'... It is not
important to know what the United States wants, what is more important is what
we want.... How can we answer the
message from the United States? Are we
going to obey or we will take action?
We have to answer the United States' message as soon as possible." TUNISIA:
"American Alibi" Editor-in-chief Mustapha Khammari wrote in
independent French-language Le Temps (1/29):
"American officials claim, and the interview of the American
Ambassador [Rust Deming] in Le Temps, confirms and supports the idea,
that the United States is unable to impose peace on both Palestinians and on
Israelis. Based on this alibi,
Washington adopts a laissez-faire attitude, which allows the Israeli government
to undertake illegal actions, in particular to remain hostile towards any
peaceful and just rule. The American alibi might have misled the world if
Washington refrained from encouraging the Israeli State in its colonial enterprise.... President Bush is concerned about the
Palestinians receiving the alleged self-defense weapon cargo ship, while the
American cargo ships deliver tons of American weapons to Israel. These same weapons... kill Palestinian women
and children.... Everybody knows that
America could, at the very least, force its troublesome ally, to accept the
presence of an international force, which is the only one able to put an end to
the violence." UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: After 9/11, The Arab World Is Washington's
Enemy" Largest Arabic-language and pan-Arab Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej
opined (1/27): "Bush's position on
Friday...demonstrates that Washington has selected Sharon as its choice in the
region in its war against the so-called terrorism in the region, that is,
against the Palestinian people and the others listed in the American terrorism
list. The United States did well to
reveal its position, sparing the Arabs the need to wait and say where the
American position would lead in the post-September 11 era. The game is clear: The United States has
decided to wage Israel's war. The
battle will include the entire Arab world, not only the Palestinian Authority. All that is required of the Arabs is...to
await a decisive and bitter war to counter the American-Israeli scheme aimed at
changing the face of this region and turning it into an American-Israeli sphere
of interest... Will the Arabs do
anything?" EUROPE BRITAIN:
"Bush And Arafat" In the view of the independent Financial
Times (1/28): "[President Bush]
is now contemplating further measures to demonstrate disapproval of Mr. Arafat,
including the possibility of severing ties with the PA. [These actions] have been welcomed by the
Israeli government, but they are unlikely to further the prospect of peace or
stop the suicide bombers. Breaking ties
with the PA would not, however, help the path to peace. It would give Israel a free rein to destroy
what remains of Mr. Arafat's authority.
The alternative to the P.A. is a further fragmentation of Palestinian
society. The Palestinian groups that
have gained most in popularity since the outbreak of the intifada are the
radical Hamas and Islamic Jihad. A
Hamas takeover may suit Ariel Sharon, Israel's Prime Minister, since his
objective seems to be to delay any possibility of a political settlement. It surely cannot be in America's best
interest. The only option left for the
Palestinians is to end all attacks and hope the United States will then put
pressure on Mr. Sharon." GERMANY:
"The EU Is Getting Involved" Martina Doering maintained in an editorial in
left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (1/29):
"The EU's criticism of Israel is overdue.... If the United States is giving up its role
as mediator voluntarily, the EU must become active. The Europeans' formal protest is a first step, which could easily
be followed by others: There exists,
for example, an EU import ban for products from Jewish settlements. So far, it has simply never been
implemented." "Nothing Will Improve Without Arafat" Michael Stuermer observed in an editorial in
right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (1/29): "The Middle East will not become any safer without
Arafat.... Washington knows that a
compromise in Israel is necessary in order to stabilize the Middle East, the oil
markets, and the Arab regimes. The
region is riddled with conflicts that are kept under control mostly by U.S.
influence. Washington must be careful
not to end relations with the Palestinian authority. Such a breakup is exactly what Hamas and Jihad are waiting
for. There is a chance that PLO
pragmatists will rely on the United States and take up arms to control Islamists and terrorists. Such a scenario would open up new
negotiating options for Bush, and it would also help the moderate Arab
regimes." FRANCE:
"Washington Against Arafat" Alain Frachon remarked in left-of-center Le
Monde (1/29): "For the first time in many years, Washington, thanks to
President Bush, is openly advertising its partisanship. Israel is the ally, Arafat the adversary.... The United States is no longer the neutral
mediator and does not care if this is out in the open.... Arafat is being boycotted by the
Republicans: Condoleezza Rice is not even trying to hide her dislike for
Arafat, and Secretary Rumsfeld has proven how ignorant he is about the conflict when he says that
'Arafat has never done anything for his people.'... Rarely has there been a U.S. president under the influence of
advisors who so share the positions of the Israeli right." "In Europe, A Handshake For Peace" Gilles Delafon wrote in right-of-center Le
Journal du Dimanche (1/27):
"America and Europe have not often shared the same idea of a 'just
peace' for the Middle East.... That is
certainly the case today.... If Europe
continues to support Arafat, it is not out of devotion for him but out of
respect for his people. While the
Americans continue to pressure (Arafat) and think up sanctions without a
long-term strategy, Europe tries to find real solutions.... While the Europeans try to listen to peacemakers
such as Israel's Avraham Burg, the Americans prefer to listen only to Ariel
Sharon.... George W. Bush should
remember that his father's conditional support of Israel made the Madrid
Conference possible. Seeing
Washington's alignment with one of Israel's strongest hardliners is a cruel
regression." ITALY:
"Europe Warns: You Should Not Drop Arafat " Maria Maggiore filed from Brussels for Turin's
centrist, influential La Stampa (1/29): "'Israel needs the
Palestinian Authority and its President Yasser Arafat.'... The European foreign affairs ministers'
message could not have been clearer than this.... The message was issued in two
copies: One for the Israeli PM who,
since December, has been forcing Arafat to live isolated in his residence in
Ramallah. The other one is directed to
those people in the international community who decided to drop Arafat, such as
the U.S. Special Envoy, Anthony Zinni." "Arab Nations 'Rediscover' Arafat" A report from Dubai in Rome's center-right Il
Tempo remarked (1/30):
"Something is moving in the Arab world. Rich countries--those that
have not participated with their armies, but only with their finances, in
Arab-Israeli conflicts--are beginning to send out signals against Arafat's
'imprisonment.'" BELGIUM: "Welcome Support For Arafat, But Is EU Up To New
Initative" Foreign affairs writer Kristien van Haver opined
on the front page of financial De Financieel-Economische Tijd
(1/29): "The EU wants to take a
new initiative to break out of the spiral of violence in the Middle East. The EU foreign ministers reached an
agreement yesterday after a remarkable united front between Belgian Foreign
Minister Louis Michel and his Italian colleague, Silvio Berlusconi. Europe also threatens to demand compensation
from Israel for the infrastructure that it destroyed in Palestinian
territories. The EU foreign minister
expressed strong criticism yesterday against the United States. With overly clear positions against Arafat,
Washington destroys all hope for peace, they said. Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh termed George Bush's policy
dumb and mad. But now Europe threatens
to become disqualified as a partner in the peace process, her Belgian
counterpart Louis Michel said. "As
Europe(ans), we simply cannot afford not to react to what is happening.'" AUSTRIA:
"Arafat In A Vacuum" Foreign affairs editor Gudrun Harrer contended
in liberal Der Standard (1/28):
"The latest suicide attack in Jerusalem only proves that the
current U.S. approach to dealing with the Middle East conflict is nothing but
the denial of reality. Washington seems
to believe that pulling out (of the Middle East peace process) again will only
hurt the Palestinians. Endorsing
Israel's policy may be understandable from a military point of view, but it
won't help to stabilize the region, nor does it hold any perspective for
the future. In fact, Washington has also failed Israel and all its potential
victims of future attacks." BULGARIA:
"Vicious Circle" Center-left Republika held (1/29),
"The Israelis have never been so afraid.
Everyone out there is a potential victim. Everyone in the crowd is a potential suicide bomber.... Sharon and Arafat are acting childishly....
One of the two must make a compromise.
It would be appropriate for the U.S. president to encourage such a
compromise by treating each of the sides in the conflict equally. How can you claim to be a mediator when all
you do is tolerate Israeli actions and pressure the Palestinians?" HUNGARY: "New
Crisis?" Senior columnist Hanna Szalay commented in
influential, business-political Vilaggazdasag (1/29): "The world is being maneuvered into the 'hall' of a pretty big
international crisis, thanks to the 16-month long Palestinian intifada and to
leapfrogging American politics. It
seems that today official Washington and Sharon stand on one side, and a rather
mixed coalition of the EU, China and the Arab League on the other side. The
Israeli government and its supporter, the Bush team, can only think in the
simple 'victory-or-defeat' paradigm. So the global international united front
seems to be disintegrating." IRELAND:
"Cool Heads Needed To Calm Mideast Terror Spiral" According to the centrist Irish Examiner (1/29): "With President Bush sharply critical
of Mr Arafat, hopes of an early return of the U.S. envoy to the region have
evaporated.... Apparently, Israel is
hell-bent on making life impossible for the Palestinian people and it is
increasingly difficult to see how Arafat can produce positive results in the
present maelstrom.... Inherently, this
is a highly dangerous strategy.... It
is time for an early return to the negotiating table and talks between America,
Israel and the Palestinian Authority to bring the violence to an end." POLAND:
"The Palestinian Knot" Ryszard Malik wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita
(1/29): "Israel blames Arafat for
each [terrorist] attack. Maybe this is
right, maybe not.... Perhaps it is time
to make some kind of decision, such as:
We do not want to cooperate with Arafat any longer. To make this decision would be all the
easier because the Americans...are now saying that they are disappointed with
Arafat and his attitude. This, however,
would raise the question: What will
happen then? If not Arafat, then
who? It will not be possible to banish
a million Palestinians." THE NETHERLANDS: "Hellish Chain Reaction In The Middle East" Centrist Haagsche Courant had this
editorial (1/25): "The eye for an
eye, tooth for a tooth, according to Old Testament custom, continues unabated
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....
Meanwhile, the United States is an onlooker. It is uniquely able to force the two parties to the table, but
the priorities of interest of the sole remaining superpower at present are
internal. It is clear as day that
progress in resolving the current conflict can only occur if both opponents,
Sharon and Arafat, have disappeared off the stage. As long as they are at the helm, even the beginning of a solution
will prove elusive." RUSSIA:
"Talking To Arafat Is Pointless" Viktor Myasnikov commented in reformist Vremya
MN (1/29): "Both sides are driven by hunger for revenge and a desire
to make the other side stop fighting.
With such an approach, they may well start a full-blown war. Locked up in Ramallah, Arafat, it seems, has
become a hostage of his own palace guard, as well as of the Israelis. As Palestinian military leaders smuggle arms from Iran and connive with
terrorists, the head of the administration covers for them so he does not lose
face with his embattled people. Talking
to him is pointless, since he is not in control. Arafat's hopes that international peacekeepers will protect the
Authority from the Israelis' retaliatory strikes are
groundless, too. Nobody wants to be a
'live shield' for terrorists." "U.S. Helpless" Boris Petrovich noted in reformist Noviye
Izvestiya (1/29): "The U.S. administration, plainly cannot cope with
the Middle East problem. But Washington
must keep trying, even if it has to redouble its diplomatic efforts." SLOVENIA: "Wrong
Friends" Middle East correspondent Barbara Surk pointed
out in left-of-center Delo (1/29):
"Before they began the war in Afghanistan, the Americans had put
Sharon [on a sidetrack]. They needed support of the Arab countries ruled
by...'moderate regimes'.... They
ordered Sharon to erase the killing and humiliation of Arabs...from TV screens;
in exchange, [the Americans] fulfilled [Sharon's] wish: They demanded that Arafat settle accounts
with (Islamic) extremists.... Americans
are convinced that the issue of the Middle East has been [settled]. Otherwise they would not have allowed Sharon
to equate the liberation war--in which Palestinians have been using acceptable
and unacceptable means--with terrorism. But [the Americans] are wrong.
They have chosen the wrong friend for
the realization of their interests." "Drowing In A Bloody Bath" Foreign editor Boris Jausovec told readers of
left-of-center, independent Vecer (1/29): "[The] simple political arithmetic of ascribing guilt and
responsibility is the most comfortable; particularly if the world's policeman
cannot or does not want to comprehend more complicated explanations. Arafat--regardless of how sick and impotent
he looks--is not innocent either. His
cooperation with Iran...is real. But, [the fact is] that violence will
[intensify] if Israel eliminates Arafat, expels him, or disables him in another
way.... A cease-fire can be reached and
violence stopped if only the Palestinians and Sharon's Israel...sincerely
desire it." SPAIN:
"Arafat, On His Last Legs" Conservative ABC editorialized (1/29): "Yasser Arafat, cornered militarily by
Israel in Ramallah, hounder diplomatically
by the United States, parked until further order by the EU, forgotten as
usually by his Arab brothers, is perhaps--this time--on his last legs. Ariel Sharon is in luck. Not even the deaths of those buried every
week in the Jewish cemeteries undermine his popularity.... The terrible events of 9/11 could have been
used by one side or the other--with pressure from Washington and Brussels--to
relaunch the peace process in the Middle East.
At first, it seemed like it was going to be that way.... The reality is that the war against
terrorism has reached the limits for Palestine. The United States stopped being a neutral mediator a long time
ago and the EU is unable to manage the situation by itself.... Dialogue is needed urgently." "Way Out For Palestine" Leading economic La Gaceta de los Negocios concluded
(1/29): "Far from recognizing the rights of Palestinians, the United
States is on the brink of turning its
back on Arafat.... The only thing remaining is the recognition of the
EU, which continues to regard him as the legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people.... Perhaps the
international community should demand that the Security Council take action and
try to impose a solution. The United
States should not continue to prevent
the UN from (exercising) its legitimate leadership role." SWEDEN:
"Small Elephant In A Big Glass House" Conservative Stockholm morning Svenska
Dagbladet opined (1/29) "The
fact that the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has questioned Arafat's
seriousness, stresses the need for a new Palestinian leadership. Both sides need younger leaders, who are not
burdened with the weight of the old warfare, in order to bring about meaningful
talks.... The situation might grow even
more serious, since worsened Arab-U.S. relations might be the result of the
visit to the White House by King Abdullah of Jordan.... In this critical situation Sweden's Foreign
Minister, Anna Lindh, barges in and in public statements, on the radio, says
that the United States is taking an inappropriate, foolish and dangerous
approach, and 'rewarding Sharon's
violence.' This one-sided view is not
in accordance with the Swedish prime minister's understanding of Israel's
exposed position.... The situation for
the Palestinian people must be improved, but not on behalf of the security of
the state of Israel." "Arafat's Fall Must In No Way Appear The
Result Of U.S. Manipulations" Nathan Shachar commented in independent, liberal
Dagens Nyheter (1/29): "The
reason why Arafat's militia in Nablus and Gaza ignores his instructions is the
deepening ideological crisis within the popular movement that has been Arafat's
power base. However those Israeli
politicians who have fantasies about a nearby U.S. diplomatic rupture with
Arafat will soon sober up.... Although
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have lost confidence in Arafat, a
total break of relations with him is unlikely since such would unnecessarily
hurt the U.S. position in the Arab world....
Should Arafat fall, his fall must in no way appear as the result of
American manipulations." TURKEY: "Desire For
Peace" Izzet Sedes noted in mass-appeal Aksam (1/29): "The level of trust between Israel and
Palestine is less than zero. And this
fact cannot be changed with the help of others; neither Americans, Europeans,
nor the Russians.... Despite all of
these negative developments, neither side desires war. The question is still finding the way for
peace, or more specifically speaking, finding a political solution to the Middle
East problem. It is important that
political solution be sought even in the most difficult time." "History Rewritten In The Middle East" Cengiz Candar commented on the Mideast
developments in Islamist/opinion maker Yeni Safak (1/29): "It seems
the United States has pushed the button to eliminate the historic figure of the
Palestinian cause.... It has always
been a known fact that Sharon wanted to see Arafat dead. And the events of September 11 gave him a
once-in-a-lifetime chance. Sharon deliberately
used the political tactic of influencing Washington by equating the names
Arafat and Osama bin Laden with terrorism....
Things in the Middle East used to work against Sharon vis-a-vis the
Washington administration, now things are completely working for the benefit of
Sharon." EAST ASIA CHINA: "Violence
Cannot Resolve Palestinian-Israeli Disputes" Xu Ping held in the official Communist Party People's
Daily (Renmin Ribao, 1/29):
"The intensified Palestine-Israeli disputes are related to the
United States' biased policy favoring Israel.... The United States and Israel
should understand that use of force cannot resolve the problem. Nor can it bring tranquility and stability
to Israel.... Since the United States has expressed its agreement to
establishing Palestinian statehood, it should put its words into action and
make the Palestinians realize that an independent Palestine can be established
through peaceful means." "Middle East Situation Really
Dangerous" Ming Dajun insisted in Xinhua Daily Telegraph
(Xinhua Meiri Dianxun, 1/28): "The United States' biased policy
favoring Israel has boosted the right-wing Israeli forces and further fueled
the Israel-Palestinian dispute....
Analysts widely believe that if the United States cannot change its
biased policy at the earliest possible and the international community cannot
take some effective measures, the situation in the region will be out of
control, and larger-scale bloodshed may occur.
Moreover, the Palestinian National Authority may fall in the possible
conflict, and the disputes may even extend outside the Middle East
region." JAPAN:
"Arafat Seeks Japan's Contribution To Middle East Peace" Business-oriented Nihon Keizai's Ramallah
correspondent Yokota, who interviewed Palestinian leader Arafat, observed
(1/28): "Chairman Arafat asked
Japan to play a major role in mediating between the Palestinians and Israelis. Arafat's request reflected the increasingly
difficult political and diplomatic situation facing his autonomous government
following a move by the peace-broker United States to take a tough stance
toward Arafat's leadership amid a rash of Palestinian suicide bombings against
Israelis. Following the United States'
change of heart, Arafat appears to be placing high expectations on Japan, the
largest donor to the Palestinians, to play a positive role in mediating an end
to the current tit-for-tat bloodshed and restoring peace in the Middle
East." THAILAND:
"How To Douse A Burning Rage" Imtiaz Muqbil concluded in the top-circulation,
moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok Post (1/27): “What Mr. Bush has not yet done is examine
more introspectively both the reason and the cause of September 11. It is never too late to do so and take the
far easier way out. Let him repeat
after me: ‘The United States demands that Israel make a full and unconditional
withdrawal from occupied territories, as clearly stated in UN Security Council
Resolution 242 and 338. This should
begin immediately and be completed within one year. Palestinians should respond to this by ceasing, also effectively
immediately, all acts of violence so that at the end of that one year, they may
have an independent state.’... If the
Taleban were the oppressors in Afghanistan, the Israelis are the oppressors in
Palestine. Yet, just see the double
standards in the way the two forms of oppression are being treated by the
so-called ‘honest broker’ and it becomes easy to realize why the violence will
continue for years to come.” VIETNAM:
" When President Bush Turns His Back On President Arafat" Danh Duc asserted in the Vietnam Youth
Association daily Thanh Nien (1/29):
"There are some signs that the United States now completely turn
its back on Palestine.... Liberation
newspaper of France also revealed
that hawks in the Bush
administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, gave the green light for Mr. Sharon to shut out President Afrafat. Israeli missiles are now reaching very near Arafat's
compound. The question is: Will a comprehensive peace or war will come
to the Middle East once Arafat is killed?
Why is one side [ Israel] armed with modern weapons to crack down and
terrorize the other, while the other
side [ Palestine] is banned from doing that?" WESTERN HEMISPHERE CANADA:
"After Arafat" The left-of-center Winnipeg Free Press
remarked in an editorial (1/23):
"Mr. Arafat cannot or will not control Palestinian terror and so he
endangers the whole concept of Palestine.
His authority among Palestinians is doubtful, his credibility
internationally is shattered. Israel will not deal with him. Neither should Canada nor other Western
nations. His martyrdom would mean nothing.
His resignation, however, although it would create uncertainty and
danger, would at least open new opportunities for his people.
That is the sacrifice Mr. Arafat should make." BRAZIL:
"Back To Prior To September 11" Rio's conservative O Globo asked readers
(1/29): "Is Arafat's Palestine
National Authority a terrorist organization--as Prime Minister Sharon has asserted and President Bush seems to
believe?... It's easy to connect the
seized smuggled [armaments] with the series of suicidal attacks and conclude
that Arafat and the whole Palestine administration are terrorists. To include them in the list of enemies of
the United States, of the West and the world order is an irresistible
temptation. But one should take into
consideration that Arafat...has no maneuvering space to do what Sharon and Bush
demand. Israeli tanks surround his
headquarters in Ramallah and to demand drastic measures from him is absurd and
useless. The existing signs of general
political re-alignment in the region are not by chance: Iran and Hezbollah with the Palestinians;
Saudi Arabia uneasy and in a difficult situation with the American
position. An already confused situation
gets even more complicated, and returning to the negotiating table becomes even
more distant. One is back prior to
September 11." "Dizzying Rhythm" Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo opined
(1/29): "Attitudes such as those
of Ariel Sharon, of humiliating Arafat, only prolong the conflict and provoke
the Palestinians, allowing an escalation of terrorism. The Palestinians must have their own nation
to recover the right to dream. This is
the only way for the Israelis to enjoy the peace they dream about." MEXICO:
"Sharon, Israel And Barbarism" An editorial in far-left La Jornada
emphasized (1/26): "President
George W. Bush continues to try to convince the world that the terrorism
perpetrated by desperate Palestinians is the danger in the Middle East, while he
overlooks the terrorist campaign carried out by the Israeli government.... Fifty-two Israeli military personnel have
signed a newspaper add to the effect that they would defend Israel, but would
not go beyond the border line between Israel and the occupied
territories.... As long as the
Palestinians face death, destruction, discrimination every day, and the denial
of their most fundamental rights, peace will not take root in the Middle
East.... The international community
should demand the Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of an international
peace force that would prevent terrorist actions and provocations.... The European Union should speak out on this,
regardless of Sharon's or the United States' stand on the issue." AFRICA UGANDA:
"U.S. Must Be Balanced" The government-owned New Vision put forth
this view (1/25): "Israel is not
morally superior to Palestine. If
anything, it is more to blame for the renewed conflict. Yet it is striking that the United States
constantly condemns the Palestinian Authority for failing to stop terrorists yet
remains silent when Israel assassinates militants. The United States is taking
Israel's side in the conflict. This is
longstanding American foreign policy, but it is not acceptable in the
post-Taliban world. All the nations of
the world rallied behind the United States in its war against the Taliban in
the hope of a new world order free of injustice and terrorism. If the United States continues to condemn
Palestinian 'terrorism' and condone Israeli 'terrorism', this new world order
is going to unravel very fast." ## |
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. ![]() |
![]() IIP Home | Issue Focus Home |