|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East South Asia |
| July 25, 2000 MEPP: Clinton On Israeli TV: 'Pressure'On Arafat; 'Support' For Barak |
Major news outlets in the Middle East, Europe and Asia highlighted President Clinton's interview on Israeli television Friday night, with most noting his "threat" to reconsider U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority and to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. All commentators interpreted the president's remarks as "pro-Israeli," meant "to prod" PLO Chairman Arafat into "mellowing his stance" on Jerusalem and Palestinian statehood as well as "to extract" Israeli Prime Minister Barak from a tight "political corner," given his unpopular stand at Camp David. Understandably, Israeli papers were the most upbeat and Arab publications the most downcast about the president's statements. But while an Israeli paper ventured that Mr. Clinton's remarks were initially "greeted with anger by Palestinians and cynicism by many Israelis," most other publications were hesitant to conclude how his television appearance might ultimately affect Israeli and Palestinian public opinion on the most intractable issues dividing them: the status of Jerusalem and the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, if no peace deal is in place by September 13. Practically all pundits analyzing the president's "motives" concluded that he was driven by domestic political considerations, as both his wife, Hillary, and Vice President Gore face heated electoral contests this fall. These were regional views:
ISRAEL: Mainstream dailies offered a mixture of criticism and qualified praise for Mr. Clinton's words. Some "bristled" at the president's "transparent attempt" to bolster Mr. Barak's political standing. Others applauded Mr. Clinton's "remarkable" interview which, one pundit contended, departed from the "mechanical neutrality" of peace brokering. Summing up the views of most, nationalist Hatzofe assessed, "President Clinton is a true friend of Israel. Still, his intervention in our domestic affairs is flawed."
ARAB/ISLAMIC WORLD: The president's remarks predictably drew fierce criticism throughout the Arab/Islamic world. Major Palestinian dailies charged the U.S. with "absolute bias" toward Israel and demanded "an urgent Arab summit to support the Palestinian leadership and to enhance its ability to confront American and Israeli pressure." Similarly, papers from Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and UAE slammed U.S. "partiality" toward Israel. Many maintained that Washington has declared "war" on Arab views in order to court both Israel's right-wing and American Jewish voters and called for a range of responses--from more active participation by others such as Russia and the UN in the peace process to an economic boycott of U.S. products.
EUROPE: Writers in Germany and France worried that the "new" U.S. position on Jerusalem might lead to "a hardening of positions in the Arab camp." A Bulgarian daily, however, posited that a broad agreement was already reached at Camp David on Jerusalem and is being "kept secret until each of the sides clears it with its top government circles."
ASIA: Beijing's official Youth Daily determined that Mr. Arafat is "softening in his stance" on statehood due to "President Clinton's pressure and French President Chirac's persuasion."
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 32 reports from 20 countries July 29-31. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
ISRAEL: "An American Honeymoon"
Popular, pluralist Maariv editorialized (7/30): "In his interview with Israel Television Friday evening, President Clinton made no effort to hide his sympathy for Prime Minister Barak's positions, or his rather harsh criticism of Arafat.... Clinton's praise of Israel mostly reflects his honest conviction that the Israelis have really earned it.... Clinton's remarks are meant to prod Arafat into mellowing his stance, as well as into putting off his Palestinian independence declaration.... What was surprising in the president's interview was his pledge to look into the possibility of moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem before the year was out. Obviously, Clinton is driven by considerations of American domestic politics. He is committed to two election campaigns, these of his wife and of his vice president. In both, the Jewish vote counts a lot."
"Jerusalem, Israel"
The independent Jerusalem Post opined (7/31): "President Clinton's remarkable interview with Israel Television has been greeted with anger by Palestinians and cynicism by many Israelis. The critics...are bristling at what seems to be a transparent attempt to extract Prime Minister Barak from a political corner. As a political intervention, Clinton's move may backfire. In terms of the peace process, however, being an 'honest broker' should not exclude periodic departures from mechanical neutrality.... Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem now...would signal to the Palestinians that there is a price to be paid for a refusal to make serious compromises on extremist positions. Similarly, Clinton's polite threat in case of a unilateral declaration of independence also squares well with the role of a broker trying to press both sides toward a comprehensive agreement.... Moving the embassy should be the least of the consequences for rejecting peace."
"Clinton At Barak's Side"
Nationalist Hatzofe opined (7/31): "Obviously, President Clinton's remarks on Israel TV were distinctly pro-Israeli.... Several analysts said Clinton was playing to the New York and American Jewish galleries in order to help the election campaigns of his wife and vice president.... We know that the interview was invited by the prime minister's associates, to bolster Barak's standing in the face of the very sharp criticism at home over his far-reaching concessions at Camp David, on the one hand, and his failure to produce an agreement on the other hand.... President Clinton is a true friend of Israel. Still, his intervention in our domestic affairs is flawed."
WEST BANK: "Crucial Diplomatic Battle"
Independent, moderate Al-Quds argued (7/31): "It is clear that President's Arafat visit yesterday to Saudi Arabia and the fruitful talks he had with the Saudi leaders regarding developments in the peace process, as well as his intensified communications with the Arab leaders represent a very important step along the route to an Arab summit in which the Arabs present their united word regarding Jerusalem. It will be a message not only to the United States, which has proved its bias toward Israel, but also to Israel--to make them both understand that peace and stability in the region cannot be achieved by neglecting Arab and Palestinian rights and that Jerusalem
will remain the red line for every Arab and Muslim whether Clinton and Barak like it or not." In the same editorial, Al-Quds said: "For the second time this week, Mrs. Hillary Clinton revealed her hostility toward the Palestinian people, the Arabs and the Muslims. One can only assume from her statements that she is completely biased in favor of Israel and that she supports the continuation of occupation in Jerusalem. She also accuses the Palestinians of hindering the peace process because they stand firm in accordance with international resolutions. Moreover, her support for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem contradicts international law and represents a clear attack on Palestinian, Arab and Islamic rights."
"Summit To Confront Pressure"
Mousa Abu Karsh opined in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (7/31): "The absolute bias of the American president toward Israel and the fact that he has ceased action as the sponsor for, and the mediator of, the peace process require Arab leaders to launch an urgent Arab summit to support the Palestinian leadership and to enhance its ability to confront American and Israeli pressure. This will also help to achieve the peace that the Palestinians desire and all Arabs bless."
LEBANON: "For Barak: A 'Life Line' From Clinton--And Yet Another From Arafat"
Pro-Syria, Arab nationalist As-Safir held (7/29): "In his interview which was especially directed toward Israeli public opinion, President Clinton threw a life line to his friend Barak in this stormy sea Barak has found himself in following Camp David II.... Clinton's attempt to rescue Barak might or might not be useful.... However, what is truly interesting is Arafat's deliberate effort to save Barak through calling, from Egypt, on Israeli public opinion to stand on Barak's side.... What was Arafat doing? Was he trying to say to the Israelis and the Americans that he is sorry, or was he trying to shift the blame on Muslims and Christians for refusing to compromise over Jerusalem?... Whatever the truth might be, there is no doubt that each leader, in his own way, is defending the progress that was reached during Camp David II.... Clinton has his own interests at stake when he talks about moving the embassy to Jerusalem. He wants to guarantee the success of his deputy, Al Gore, in the forthcoming presidential elections and to guarantee the success of his wife's efforts to become a senator. Most importantly, he wants to achieve a historic success before he leaves the White House."
EGYPT: "Camp David Revived Arab Solidarity"
Ibrahim Nafie wrote in pro-government Al Ahram (7/31): "While Barak chose to remind the world...of Israel's military power...Arafat chose to visit Egypt, the capital of Arab power and dreams and the protector of Palestinian rights and peace in the region.... There is a general state of relief among Arabs, as if Camp David blockaded them...and now they were saved from drowning.... If Camp David has positive results, it is that it revealed to the world the importance of Jerusalem, the strong Palestinian negotiator, and the sensitivity of the Arab public opinion about Jerusalem. In general, Camp David II has revived Arab solidarity.... If Barak has the power of arms, Arafat's power lies in Arab, Islamic and international support for Palestinian rights."
"U.S. Is Suddenly At War With The Palestinians"
Pro-government Al Akhbar averred (7/31): "The United States, which is supposedly the main sponsor of peace and approved the principle of land for peace, is suddenly declaring war on the Palestinians, as if they wanted to usurp Israel. The war started with congressional threats to cut the feeble annual assistance to the Palestine Authority. President Clinton joined by declaring the transfer of the American Embassy to Jerusalem before he departs the White
House. Why is all that?... No Palestinian, Arab, Muslim or Christian leader can give East Jerusalem to Israel. Arafat wanted to commit to the agreement with Barak signed in Sharm El Sheikh.... Clinton sided completely with Barak to save him from domestic problems.... He wanted to save his deputy...especially since Bush's popularity is rising over Al Gore's.... So far Palestinians insist on their rights...but patience has limits.... So far, we have hope that the United States reconsiders its positions for the sake of its interests and for peace."
"U.S. Fails To Escape Impression That It Is Biased Toward Israel"
Pro-government Al Ahram maintained (7/30): "The recent American position announced unhidden bias [against], and pressure on, the Palestinian party on the issue of Jerusalem, which satisfies Israel to the extent that President Clinton brandished the transfer of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to western Jerusalem and tied Palestinian hands about the declaration of their state. President Mubarak is pursuing contacts with all parties concerned to contain the current differences and emerge from the dark tunnel in which the talks have entered after illegitimate pressures and the exclusion of justice. There should be a strong Arab, Islamic-Christian support for the Palestinian leadership, which indicates clearly that a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital is the right that should return to its legitimate owners. This return is the beginning of real peace in the Middle East."
JORDAN: "America Is A Party To The Conflict, Not A Mediator"
Jihad Al-Momani commented in independent Al-Arab Al-Yawm (7/31): "The bitter truth that we must acknowledge and reveal to the world is that the United States is a party to the conflict, not a mediator. The other truth that we must acknowledge is that the whole world is not American. The U.S. Congress does not rule the French General Assembly, the Russian Duma or the People's Council of China. Therefore, this is the appropriate moment to acknowledge that the United States is totally biased not to Israel as a state, with all its different tendencies, but to Israeli extremists in particular. At Camp David, the Israeli Likud, the settlers and the extremists won, through the support of the American mediator."
"The U.S. Campaign On The Palestinian Authority"
Urayb Rintawi wrote in center-left, influential Al-Dustur (7/30): "U.S. diplomacy will move in the next few days in an effort to contain the international recognition of the anticipated declaration of a Palestinian state. It will do everything in its power to rally an international and Arab stand that would pressure the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian negotiators to go back to the negotiating table with a readiness for more concessions.... The way things are, we believe that when negotiations restart, they will be more difficult for the Palestinian side. And when the Palestinian state is declared, it will receive little recognition and support from the international community. We are in an era of the single sole power and it is naïve to belittle the changes in American diplomacy.. The alternative that the Palestinian diplomacy must consider should start with reinforcing the domestic front, building readiness for steadfastness and resistance and rallying Arab and international support for the Palestinian stand that is being defamed by Washington and Tel Aviv. It seems that the battle will be long and hard, and the only alternative is to cave in humiliation to Clinton's standards for winning the Nobel Prize."
"What Capital?"
Raja Issa remarked in semi-official, influential Al-Ray (7/30): "Clinton's anger has revealed a number of facts that we never knew. For one thing, the Camp David negotiations were held for the main purpose of preventing the declaration of the Palestinian state. For another, Clinton had always wanted to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. We thought that he was different
from the other American leaders but he turned out to be just like them, a prisoner of his own interests and those of his Jewish consultants."
SYRIA: "A Just Peace And The Role Of The Honest Broker"
Government-owned Al-Bath stated (7/30): "Soon after the United States announced the visit of its envoy, Assistant Secretary of State Edward Walker to the region, President Clinton unleashed a threat to move his embassy to occupied Jerusalem and he equated Palestinian refugees to Jewish refugees. The language of the stick and carrot is not appropriate for one who has taken on the role of an honest broker.... The mistake committed by a number of U.S. officials dealing with the peace process has been to assume that partial deals and single tracks could weaken these tracks...allowing Israel to implement a partial peace and impose its hegemony on the entire region."
"The Anger Of The Palestinian People"
Omar Jaftly commented in government-owned Tishreen (7/31): "Demonstrations poured down the streets of the (West) Bank and Gaza to reaffirm that Jerusalem is Arab and no peace can be achieved without returning the holy city to its people. This undercuts President Clinton's remarks about moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The escalating Palestinian and Arab reaction is a natural result of America's unreasonable bias favoring Israel...especially regarding Jerusalem. This city holds a special position for Arabs, Muslims and Christians.... The Jerusalem issue is a vital one which Arabs and Muslims cannot barter away."
BAHRAIN: "America's Political Terrorism Against Arabs"
Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij carried this view by Sayed Zahra (7/31): "What America is doing nowadays is clearly political terrorism. America which was accustomed to Arab concessions and silence did not imagine Arabs saying 'No' to it. Therefore, it got mad and showed its teeth...threatening to move its embassy to Jerusalem and stop its aid for the Palestinian Authority. The Americans should know that they are seeking the impossible and that not one of the Arab leaders can agree to it. America wants to give Jerusalem to the Israelis and no Arab leader is able to agree to this because if he does, he will simply be deciding his death."
"U.S. Sees No Harm In Showing Partiality To Israel"
Mohamed Fadhel judged in semi-official Al-Ayam (7/30): "So, this is the end of the ambiguity which surrounded the positions of the American officials in the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis? The American administration dispelled such ambiguity by threatening the Palestinians with bad consequences if they declared their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Moreover, NSA Samuel Berger's threats were even more eloquent and clearer than were those of President Clinton. He said the Palestinians have two options--reaching an agreement or facing (military) confrontation (with Israel). In these critical moments, the United States sees no harm in showing its partiality toward Israel. This American partial stand rewards the occupier...and represents the substantial defect in the peace process."
KUWAIT: "American Pressure On Arafat, Arabs"
Independent Al-Rai Al-Aam published this view by Abdul-Hussein Al-Sultan (7/31): "History and political reality corroborate that a firm and strong position is an effective tool when dealing with
the Zionist entity. The Camp David summit asserted the determination of the Palestinian position and reinforced the Palestinian delegation's status among their people. Arafat's victory will not have gone unnoticed by the American administration and the Zionist authority. Since Arafat's return, the American administration has threatened that his aid would be affected. This was also followed by the American administration's activity directed at several Arab countries in order to contain Arafat's position for rejecting American-Israeli proposals."
OMAN: "President Clinton's Statement...Is A Political Tactic"
Government-owned Oman had this assessment (7/30): "The statement by President Clinton to Israeli television...is a political tactic to put more pressure on the Palestinian side and examine the resolve of the Palestinian's position. Regardless of the tactical aspect of Clinton's statements, they were indeed inappropriate considering that the American sponsor of the peace process should be just and fair. It seems that domestic issues in the United States have imposed themselves. This includes the election gaming and the Democratic Party's desire to achieve positive results in the peace process by reaching a political settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. President Clinton's remarks about transferring the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem warrant questioning. This is an unprecedented step in U.S. foreign policy considering that eastern Jerusalem is a Palestinian-occupied land.... If such statements are tactical, then such tactics are not appreciated and create political confusion in the Arab world. The United States has a legal and moral responsibility vis-a-vis standing UN resolutions. As such, the president's statements do not serve the peace process nor do they help create a healthy atmosphere between the Israeli and Palestinian parties. Rather, they create doubts about the credibility of the U.S. sponsor whose administration was allegedly disappointed following the great efforts (at Camp David), which could have raised support for the Democratic Party and assisted Al Gore in the elections."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Unusual For Peace Sponsor To Challenge Arab Public Opinion"
Dammam-based, moderate Al-Youm opined (7/31): "It is unusual for the peace sponsor of Arabs and Jews to provoke and challenge Arab public opinion in this way. It not only confirms the U.S. bias toward Israel at the expense of the Arab side, but also plainly discloses a plan to evade the international resolutions. It also makes apparent the weakness of the principles of the peace process in the region."
"It Is Important That Hillary Win"
London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat's Managing Editor Abdulwahab Badrkhan declared (7/31): "Arabs should frankly answer a tough question: Should we satisfy the United States or should we stick to our rights in Jerusalem? From reading prevailing Arab politics, it seems that the option is determined and the answer is clear: It is possible to survive without Jerusalem and impossible to survive in the face of U.S. anger.... The position of Arab public opinion has contributed to strengthening the U.S.' partiality and pushed it to a far extreme. Any Arab official who is concerned with the negotiations finds himself with two options. Either support the Palestinian negotiator's resolve, which requires a clear position on Jerusalem and the peace process generally, or (positively) respond to pressure and maintain the U.S. role in this process?"
"Clinton, Has He Dropped The Mask?"
Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad declared (7/30): "The American president dropped the mask of peace process sponsor and revealed his Israeli face, which was brought to light during his biased statement to Israeli TV.... However, his dangerous statement clearly disclosed the
nature of the role Washington played during the Camp David summit.... Clinton's statement, which carried a clear and direct threat to Palestinians and Arabs...is a twisted logic that requires a quick and strong Arab move, not to assuage the president's anger but to correct this dangerous shift, which represents a great mistake and major imbalance in the credibility of the U.S. role, which Arabs reject."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Russia, UN Should Play More Of A Role"
Sharjah-based Arab nationalist Al-Khaleej published this editorial (7/30): "The United States blamed Al-Assad for the failure of the [Geneva] talks and similarly blamed Arafat for the failure of Camp David. Then, the United States threatened to penalize the Palestinians if they announce the independent state of Palestine and also threatened to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem. This stand discredits the United States as a fair broker and invites the Russians to play a more effective role in the Middle East as an authority to assist in resuming talks. If this does not work, then we should return to the United Nations, as it should be responsible in implementing its resolutions and protecting its role as a peacekeeper in the international community."
"Escaping American Captivity"
Dubai-based Al-Bayan published this editorial (7/31): "There is an urgent need to announce an Arab and Islamic state of emergency to discuss how to react to the situation and escape the American monopoly in controlling the negotiations. We should use all possible diplomatic and materialistic Arab and Islamic means to prove to the world that we have a legitimate case. We should call for compliance with the international resolutions that the Israelis, backed by Washington, have slain in plain view of the whole world, while still pretending that they are peacemakers and we are not. We will not run out of means to pressure Washington, even if we boycott its goods as the least that we can do. Let's try and wait for the results. There should be a sacrifice in any case. Are we ready?"
FRANCE: "Analyzing Clinton's Motives"
Christiane Vettu maintained in regional Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace (7/31): "The American president says he is ready to move his country's embassy to West Jerusalem in order to help a courageous man who is being harassed by his domestic adversaries. From the outside, it is difficult to understand these pro-Israeli maneuvers. Without a solid majority, Barak is reduced to begging for support in exchange for ministerial positions.... Under these sad conditions, we are heading either toward a serious crisis, or else toward new bargaining which will only cause people's hopes to recede."
GERMANY: "A Delicate Mix"
Manfred Pantfoerder suggested in right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost (7/31): "The new position of the U.S. government is causing unrest.... The straightforward threat to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and thus create a new set of facts in the tug of war over the Holy City, has led to a hardening of positions in the Arab camp. From the perspective of international law, Jerusalem has not been recognized as Israel's capital. Meanwhile, Clinton is more needed than ever before as a neutral mediator to keep the peace talks from turning into a disaster for the Middle East. The same President Clinton who is now putting pressure on Arafat is demanding that the Palestinian leader reject unilateral moves like the proclamation of Palestine on September 13. Clinton's impatience is detrimental to finding a solution. Arafat has
already become active in the face of this weak position. This president without a state is seeking allies in Europe and the Arab world. Such a strategy will make future peace talks more difficult, because more voices will have to be heard."
ITALY: "An Unusual Interview"
Centrist, influential La Stampa held (7/29): "In an effort to help Barak overcome the domestic political problems created by the Camp David summit, President Clinton yesterday granted an
unusual interview to the Israeli state television in which he confirmed that he will try to prevent
the unilateral proclamation of a Palestinian state.... Even Arafat indirectly tried to help Barak with an interview on Egyptian television in which he said that a large majority of the Israelis wants peace and should be helped to choose in that direction."
RUSSIA: "Clinton Helps Barak, Own Wife"
Yevgeny Bai commented on page one of reformist Izvestiya (7/31): "Moving the U.S. diplomatic mission (from Tel Aviv) to West Jerusalem will be a major step favoring Israel and Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It is also a way to put pressure on Yasser Arafat, who has resolved to declare an independent Palestinian state on September 13.... The votes of the powerful Jewish community in New York state are also vital to the president's wife Hillary, who is fighting for a seat in the Senate."
AUSTRIA: "Much Ado About Jerusalem"
Chief Editor Ernst Trost of mass-tabloid Neue Kronenzeitung held (7/31): "Much ado about Jerusalem after the debacle of Camp David: Clinton rouses Arafat from his dreams with his announcement to proclaim a Palestinian state. Hillary is courting Jewish votes in New York by promising that the U.S. Embassy will move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And Barak has to stand a vote of no-confidence in the Knesset first if he wants to continue working on a settlement with the Arabs. The mediators are sitting together once again, picking up the broken pieces of the peace service for the reconciliation dinner. Don't stop, keep on moving, find new approaches--this is the motto at least for all those who still hope for future normalization, for co-existence or even cooperation of Israelis and Palestinians. But there are also, on the other hand, all those who do not want to hear about all this. On the Israeli side, there is the 'David syndrome,' the absolute belief in the effectiveness of his sling. According to this conviction, Israel owes its survival primarily to military power and the will to make use of it any time. Giving in would only threaten its national safety. The hardliners on the Arab side, for their part, are thinking in historic dimensions. They refer to Saladin, who re-conquered Jerusalem, which had been ruled by the crusaders for almost 200 years, in 1187. Time would work for the Arabs again, they argue; all they had to do was to remain firm."
BULGARIA: "Did Clinton Make A Mistake Or Did He Give A Hint?"
Socialist opposition party Duma commented (7/31): "Did Clinton make a blunder when in this very delicate moment he announced on Israeli television that Washington will move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem?... Clinton only repeated Washington's known and old position. It doesn't dismiss the Palestinian claims on East Jerusalem, but it does support Barak, whom the Israelis suspect is ready to make extreme concessions to the Palestinians. Clinton's statement even hints that some kind of a broad agreement was reached at Camp David regarding Jerusalem's status, but that this agreement will be kept secret until each of the sides clears it with its top government circles."
EAST ASIA
CHINA: "Arafat Gives A Fresh Hint"
Luo Hua commented in Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao, 7/31): "On July 29, Arafat said in Paris that 'if the time is ripe,' he will declare an independent Palestinian state. The media takes these remarks as a hint that Palestine may again postpone declaring statehood. Analysts say that Arafat's words indicate a softening in his stance, which is a result of President Clinton's pressure and French President Chirac's persuasion."
HONG KONG: "Depressing Saga"
The independent South China Morning Post commented in its editorial (7/31): "It often appears that making peace can be more difficult than waging war, and the current political scrambling in the Middle East suggests that may once again prove depressingly true.... Mr. Clinton is adding pressure by threatening to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before that city's final status is agreed, and to review American aid programs if Mr. Arafat declares a Palestinian state before completing a peace treaty. Most of the world is tired of this endless dispute between rival nationalisms for control over the same small piece of arid land. Unless they can strike a deal both risk losing outside support--with the weaker Palestinians losing the most."
BANGLADESH: "U.S. Supports Israeli View Of Jerusalem"
Pro-government, vernacular Ajker Kagoj stated (7/30): "By not agreeing to accept the proposal of joint control of Jerusalem, Arafat has showed respect for the will of the Palestinian people. The United States has cautioned the Palestinians by supporting the Israeli view on the status of Jerusalem. The attitude of the United States toward Jerusalem will not help negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Arafat will have to move forward with patience and courage. He has to work toward a positive outcome his reasonable demands."
##
