September 27, 2002
UNSC ON ARAFAT SIEGE: MANY SEE IRAQ-PALESTINE LINK IN U.S.
ABSTENTION
KEY FINDINGS
** The
U.S. abstention, rather than veto, of UNSC 1435 demanding Israel lift its siege
of Yasser Arafat's compound was widely attributed to Washington's Iraq strategy
rather than an erosion of its support for Israel.
** Arab media interpreted the U.S. abstention as a ploy to enlist
Arab allies during a "vigorous" campaign for an invasion of Iraq.
**
Israeli writers saw the U.S.-Israeli anti-terror partnership on terra
firma, but believed that the GOI will not be allowed to jeopardize Arab support
for a strike on Iraq.
** W. European writers said Washington must push
for Mideast peace if it wants to disarm Saddam.
MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS
ARABS SEE A TACTIC TO PLACATE THEM. Though initially portraying the U.S.
abstention in a positive light, Palestinian papers eventually joined others in
the Arab world in slamming the U.S. for cynically using the UN. Arab dailies placed the U.S. abstention
within the context of a "duplicitous" U.S. policy at the UN which
"endorses Israeli atrocities" while seeking to "launch
offensives against Iraq." Thus the
U.S. decision was seen as a calculation to mobilize Arab allies for a war
against Iraq rather than a substantive change in Washington's
"perception" of "Palestinian rights." The English-language Saudi Gazette
argued that Arab publics will continue to be "alienated" from the
U.S. unless its policy changes. Jordan's
influential Al Dustour ruefully concluded that Washington would never
remove its "diplomatic cover" from Israel. But it and others warned that building up the
"archives" of UN resolutions ignored by Tel Aviv will only undercut
the body's authority.
U.S.-ISRAELI ANTI-TERROR INTERESTS COLLIDE. The majority in Israel's media saw no reason to
worry about the U.S.-Israel anti-terror partnership. Some suggested, however, that the U.S. had
publicly reiterated that the GOI will have take its alliance with the U.S into
account as it pursues its own anti-terror objectives. According to an Israeli defense analyst,
"Bush wants to be rid of Arafat almost as much as he wants Saddam
gone. Sharon's bouts of rage could slow
down that process instead of accelerate it."
PALESTINE AND IRAQ REQUIRE SIMULTANEOUS
ANSWERS. Western European dailies
emphasized the link between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iraq
crisis, with some suggesting that only the Bush administration denies any
linkage. London's liberal Guardian
argued that if, as Washington and London fear, it is no longer possible to
contain Saddam Hussein, then there is all the more reason to prevent his
exploiting Arab-Israeli tensions.
EDITOR:
Gail Hamer Burke
***************************************************************************
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This analysis is based on 34 reports from 18 countries, September
23-27. Editorial excerpts from each
country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL:
"A Matter Of Time"
Senior columnist Yoel Marcus wrote in
independent Ha'aretz (9/27): "It's only a matter of time before
Israel pays the price for refusing to comply with the decision of the UN
Security Council.... When America doesn't veto the decision, but only abstains,
it means it doesn't object to this anti-Israel resolution.... This is not the time for Bush to break with
the UN because of Israel's obstinacy, and declare war on Iraq on his own. Friends are friends, but let's not forget
that this guy has Texan blood in his veins.... It's only a matter of time
before Israel gets to the point where Bush rakes it over the coals for this
business at the Muqata.... Bush is hopping mad, they say. Also over Sharon's warnings and insinuations
that we might nuke Iraq. With Sharon's
remarks and Peres in the cheering section, weirdly urging Bush on, somebody
could get the impression that the Elders of Zion are calling the shots. Sharon can forget about discounts from Bush
when the time rolls around for a Palestinian state."
"Avoid Even The Smallest Crisis"
Nationalist Hatzofe editorialized (9/27):
"The debate between Jerusalem and Washington is an argument among
friends.... On the one hand, Israel should listen to the voices coming from
Washington and on the other hand it should explain to its American friends its
moves, in a businesslike manner, while considering Washington's global
interests, if not before the action, than after it. This should be done in order to maintain the
normal relationship texture with the only superpower, which is Israel's only
and biggest friend in the international arena.... One should hope that Israel
would draw the lesson, as obliged, in all that concerns its relationship with
the U.S. Israel must carefully keep its
security interests together and at the same time maintain its relations with
the U.S. and avoid even the smallest crisis for the sake of peace and security
that are so vital to Israel at this point."
"Walking On Egg Shells"
Veteran op-ed writer Eytan Haber wrote in the
lead editorial of mass circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (9/26):
"The State of Israel is always--and certainly in these days--walking on
egg shells: One the one hand, the current administration is favorable to
Sharon's government and it sees itself as a partner to the war on terror. On
the other hand, the Americans need many Arab states, their devices, air-zones
and their oil.... And if the question is
oil or a 'warning' to Arik Sharon, there is nearly no doubt in what and who it
would chose. Oil of course.... That is
why the prime minister and the ministers...must watch their moves and words
closely until the picture becomes clear regarding the upcoming war against
Iraq. Israel must not, god forbid, make
noise in the Pentagon corridors and it must walk on its tip toes between the
Muqata and the blood allies of Hebron."
"The Reverses Of Love"
Diplomatic correspondent Efraim Ganor wrote in
popular, pluralist Russian-language Novosty Nedely (9/26): "This
week the U.S. reminded [Israel] once again of a wise expression: 'If you don't
help yourself--nobody will help you'....
George Bush...said that recent IDF activities in Ramallah are
useless.... This is a substantial
retreat in the U.S.' policy towards Israel and the [Israeli]--Palestinian
conflict.... Washington is ready to do
anything,...even to sacrifice Israel, in order to get wider support of its plan
to attack Iraq.... The United States definitely recognizes and appreciates
Israel,... but not more then one of its multiple economic interests in the
Middle East. [Israel] will be better off
if it...relies on itself rather than lapses into illusions, even throughout the
sweetest moments in the U.S.-Israeli 'love affair.' Bush shouldn't be convicted for changing his
general strategy towards Israel; his actions are dictated by the circumstances....
Israel should remember that even if it has the U.S.' support...today, things
could change tomorrow, therefore, Israel shouldn't depend on anybody, even on
its best friend--the U.S."
"Sacrificing Israel For The Operation In
Iraq"
Political Science professor Avi Ben-Zvi wrote in
mass circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (9/25): "The United
States' decision not to oppose the UN Security Council resolution that called
for an immediate withdrawal from the Muqata constitutes a seminal point in U.S.-UN
relations--but does not necessarily constitute a change in its position
vis-a-vis the Israeli activity in the territories.... It is unrealistic to expect the United States
to show understanding for Israeli needs when they contradict more vital American
interest.... There is no doubt that the United States would like to signal to
its potential Arab allies that it does not fully and automatically identify
with every Israeli measure."
"Fulfilling His Plan"
Defense and foreign affairs columnist Amir Oren
opined in independent Ha'aretz (9/24): "The Bush doctrine, which
justifies preemptive prevention in an era of suicide bombings, seeks to bring
the balance of power back to the world, though this time not between the
powerful nations--there's only one of those--but between rights and
responsibilities. Every state is
required to bear responsibility.... The enemy is terror, which is defined as
'intentional violence, for political motives, against the innocent.'.... A
sovereign Palestine is only possible if it is a democratic, non-corrupt entity
run by an administration that 'counts the voters' ballots.'.... Bush wants to
be rid of Arafat almost as much as he wants Saddam gone. Sharon's bouts of rage could slow down that
process instead of accelerate it, but they won't prevent Bush from fulfilling
his plan."
WEST BANK:
"American Position Lacks Credibility"
Independent Al-Quds editorialized (9/27):
"The Israeli government, headed by Ariel Sharon, is actually being
motivated to continue its military operations by the dubious silence of the
American administration and its reluctance to assume a positive and effective
role to restrain both the political and military establishments in Israel. The
world's nations, not just the Arabs and Europeans, are wondering about the
[U.S.] logic and fairness of demanding that Iraq completely and precisely
implement Security Council resolutions, threatening it with invasion and regime
change, while Israel openly declares its rejection of similar resolutions... In
spite of that, Washington turns a blind eye to the Israeli defiance of Security
Council resolutions and apparently sees no problem in Israel's disregard of
international law. So, can it be said that there is any justice or credibility
in the American position, which is totally biased toward Israel? And whatever happened to Washington's role in
supporting the UN and helping implement the will of the international
community?"
"SC Resolution Bad News To
Palestinians"
Talal Okal commented in independent Al-Ayyam
(9/26): "The Palestinian leadership knows very well that Security Council
Resolution 1435 will be treated like all previous resolutions and will never be
of any help in ending the ongoing crisis.
The Palestinian leadership also knows that there is no real benefit in
adding to the number of resolutions that Israel has rejected in the past. Such a rejection by Israel will neither embarrass
Israel nor its ally, the United States....
But what the Palestinian leadership should know is that this latest
Security Council resolution is a bad precedent that will harm its interests. According to the resolution, condemning the
so-called Palestinian terrorism and pursuing wanted Palestinians [by Israel]
will be considered as basic U.S. demands vis-à-vis the Palestinian
reforms. Moreover, Washington will
coerce other countries to accept such conditions as part of the American war on
terrorism.... We have to warn all the
Palestinians against committing any action, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, that will lead to weakening the Palestinian unity."
"U.S. Security Council Vote Is Step In The
Right Direction"
Independent Al-Quds editorialized
(9/25): "The neutral position taken
by the United States at the Security Council, regardless of its motives and
justifications, is a step forward. The U.S. stand not to exercise its veto
power against the Palestinians is considered a step backward in the eyes of the
Israeli government, which has gotten used to having the American veto on its
side in order to protect itself from UNSC resolutions.... But we have to note here that the parties
that submitted the resolution at the Security Council kept in mind Washington's
expected reservations. Thus, the
resolution included language acceptable to the American
administration...including highlighting what the United States and Israel call
'Palestinian violence and terrorism.'
Having said that, it must be emphasized that it is neither fair nor
logical for the United States and international community to follow a
double-standard policy regarding UNSC resolutions by imposing extreme standards
on Iraq...while turning a blind eye to Israel."
"UNSC Resolution Receives Israel's Usual
Treatment"
Hani Habib commented in independent Al-Ayyam
(9/25): "Following the passage of
the Security Council resolution demanding that Israel withdraw its forces,
which was passed only after the United States decided not to exercise its veto
right, a spokesman for the Israeli government confirmed that Israel will
maintain its siege around [Arafat's] headquarters until the Palestinian
Authority hands over 50 people inside the building. In other words, Israel, as
usual, will ignore the resolution and refuse to implement it in defiance of the
international community's will."
EGYPT: "Busy With War
Plans Against Iraq, U.S. Not Interested In Palestinians"
Columnist Magdy Mehana wrote (9/25) in
opposition Al-Wafd: "A number of Arab capitals and Cairo conducted a
number of contacts with world powers, including the U.S. so that the siege,
which was imposed by Sharon on Arafat, should be lifted. Israel said that no one contacted it for this
issue and gave the reason that Arafat became a hateful person. The American administration is busy preparing
for the attack on Iraq and is not bothered with what is happening to the
Palestinian people. It seems that
America does not care about how other countries feel. Sharon wants to impose on
the world that Arafat is politically dead.
Alas, if this is true it is by Sharon's decision."
JORDAN:
"It's Reckoning Time"
The centrist, influential among the elite
English-language Jordan Times opined (9/25): "Perhaps it is encouraging that the United
States abstained on the resolution....
Had the United States used it veto power, the resolution would not have
passed. Washington's move could indicate
that a new page is being turned in international efforts to reverse the tide of
violence in the area.... The time for
reckoning and accounting has come for both sides. Israel must take stock of its policies and
actions since the flaring of the Palestinian uprising, and the Palestinians
must assess their modus operandi in seeking to achieve liberation from
occupation and establishing their own state.
It is clear by now that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are able to
attain their minimum objectives and aspirations by embracing violence. The fact
that the United States abstained in yesterday's voting, rather than vetoing the
resolution outright, could mean that Washington agrees that Israel's
counterproductive humiliation of the Palestinian president and his entourage
must stop. But it does not necessarily
mean that the United States is willing and ready to tell Israel that enough is
enough."
"The American Cover For Israel's
Arrogance"
Center-left, influential Al-Dustour
editorialized (9/25): "After all the
obstacles that the United States placed before the issuance of a new Security
Council resolution and then the U.S. abstention on the resolution, Israel was
without a doubt expected to reject the Security Council resolution. Israel's arrogant boldness to defy the
international will and to reject the Security Council resolution finds its
origins in the full diplomatic cover that the United States is providing for
the Hebrew state, inside and outside the Security Council.. Shame, all of it, falls on the only world
superpower, which, only yesterday, was calling for a hard line Security Council
resolution against Iraq, but, at the same time, opposes any resolution by the
Security Council that calls on an occupying state to withdraw its army from
other people's lands and to end its siege of democratically-elected president."
"Why Did The U.S. Not Use The Veto?"
Daily columnist Musa Hawamdeh wrote on the op-ed
page of center-left, influential Al-Dustour (9/25): "America did not oppose the Security
Council resolution calling on Israel to end the siege of the Palestinian
president's headquarters, because Israel has already completed what destruction
it had set out to do.... America, as
usual, is going to protect Israel within the Security Council from what it is
about to do. Israel has actually started a massive attack against Gaza and
could commit horrible crimes there. We
are positive that America informed Sharon that it does not intend to veto the
Security Council resolution. An
agreement must have been reached for Israel to attack Hamas in Gaza while
America guarantees that no new resolution would be issued condemning Israel. We should not be fooled by America's latest
stand in the Security Council, because it is a calculated stand."
"Resolution 1435: UN Credibility In The Balance"
Semi-official, influential Al-Ra'i told readers (9/25), "Our experience has
taught us about the futility and uselessness of issuing a Security Council
resolution. It will just end up in the
archives and will not be worth the ink it is written in. Yet, this resolution has a different taste,
because it comes in light of American statements that if the United Nations
does not perform its role, then there is no use of its existence. Therefore, the international organization
seems to be facing a test by the U.S. administration. The United Nations is asked to issue
resolutions, that is as far as the Iraqi issue is concerned.... But what about the Palestinian issue and
Israel's defiance of international legitimacy?
What resolution has been issued on that?"
LEBANON:
"American Preemptive Strategy Based On Assumptions"
Aouni Al-Kaaki held in pro-Syria Ash-Sharq
(9/25): "No one had any illusions
that Israel would accept the UN resolution that calls for ending the siege on
Arafat.... Ever since it was created,
Israel has rejected UN resolutions....
All through the years, the United States made sure that no sanctions
were imposed on Israel. This policy
encouraged Israel to practice what is characterized as 'arrogant force' against
unarmed Palestinians. It also encouraged
Israel to continue its wars against various Arab countries. In contrast, the United States is trying to
justify its plans to attack Iraq by saying that Iraq did not implement and did
not respect UN resolutions. The United
States develops this unconvincing logic further by talking about a new U.S.
'preventive' strategy, which in fact means that the United States is giving
itself the right to attack any regime for merely doubting that it could be a
threat to the United States....
Everything in American policy during Bush's term is based on
assumptions. Every Arab or Muslim is a
terrorist until the contrary is proven.
Every Arab or Islamic country is evil unless it complies with U.S.
will. Europe has no right to discuss
issues because it will 'poison' relations with the United States.... Only Israel is not accountable to anyone or
anything."
SAUDI ARABIA:
"The Only Absentee Was Justice"
Abha's moderate Al-Watan demanded (9/25):
"Washington had not honored its threat to veto any UNSC resolution calling
Israel to end its siege on President Yasser Arafat, instead it had abstained
voting and the council had adopted a resolution. This represents a rare case because when an
issue is related to Israel the United States' veto was always ready, but it is
clear that Washington wants to spare the UN Security Council for another
issue.... In other words, Washington had
not used its veto right in order not to encourage a major country like Russia
to veto a resolution on Iraq.... If the
UN is interested in maintaining its respect, role and neutrality it must
enforce its resolutions everywhere since there are several that are related to
Israel but none had been implemented."
"A Meaningless Move"
Jeddah's moderate Al-Bilad stated (9/25):
"It is not enough that the UNSC demands Israel to stop its siege on
Arafat's headquarters and to withdraw from the Palestinian cities.... The recent
UNSC move will mean nothing if it remains just a verbal condemnation, which the
world is accustomed to hear."
"UN Resolutions And International
Legitimacy"
Jeddah's moderate Okaz editorialized
(9/25): "The United States understands that it makes no difference if the
UNSC adopts a resolution or not, since Israel will not implement it nor will
the UN have the capability of enforcing it or using its authority of
enforcement against Israel. Clearly, the
UN will be prevented from using its authority to enforce its (decisions) but
the UN must enforce them against Israel in order to maintain its respect,
likewise international legitimacy and resolve."
"Siege Mentality"
Jeddah's moderate, English-language Saudi
Gazette pointed out (9/25):
"Yasser Arafat remains under siege, and with him the whole world
and humanity is suffering in the same siege.
The United States did a great disservice to its own ideals by abstaining
on a toothless UN Security Council resolution asking Israel to lift the
siege.... This worthlessness is precisely what Israel had looked for and the
U.S. ensured... The important thing is that, according to media reports,
Western diplomats said the United States decided against vetoing the resolution
in order not to alienate Arab opinion during President George W. Bush's
vigorous campaign for an invasion of Iraq.
But Bush should be informed that his policy is already alienating Arab public
opinion."
"Israel Isolated"
Riyadh's moderate Riyadh Daily held
(9/25): "The Israeli assault has come in for world condemnation, prompting
even Tel Aviv's close ally, the United States, into abstaining from voting
rather than torpedoing the resolution with a veto... Understandably, Israel is
upset over the American decision to keep off the UN vote. This time however,
Washington deserves a word of praise for its bold decision to risk antagonizing
Tel Aviv. Whatever may have been the
stimulant for this shift in stand, Israel now stands isolated in its hard-line
policies against Arafat and his command."
SYRIA:
"Contradictions In U.S. Policy"
Mohamed Khair al-Jamali, a commentator in
government-owned Al-Thawra, wrote (9/26): "In two contradictory stands, the United
States called on the Security Council to adopt a strongly-worded resolution
against Iraq rejecting the concept of negotiation with the Iraqi government
threatening that it will interfere if the U.N. does not respond. On the other hand, it threatened to veto any
Arab resolution that calls for an immediate U.N. intervention to end Israeli
siege on the Palestinian Authority's headquarters.... The contradictions in U.S. policy--its
flagrant bias towards the logic of aggression and brute force as well as its
unprecedented duplicity in dealing with Arab and international cases--lessen
regional and international bets on the U.S.' ability to lead the world and
address its issues and crises. These contradictions make Arab and international
publics suspicious about U.S. policy....
If the United States is really concerned about changing world opinion
and eliminating the causes of international hatred of its policy, it must
reconsider its policy, relinquish its bias towards Israel and its double
standards, and Americanize the world to reconcile with its policy, culture and
interests."
"Short Sold"
Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned Syria
Times, editorialized (9/26):
"The U.S. abstention on the Security Council resolution does not
mean that Washington has finally discovered the oddity of its foreign policy
towards this strategic region of the world, or the recognized atrocities
against the Palestinian people. It means that the Bush Administration does not
want to polarize Arabs against it and thereby complicate its efforts to attack
Iraq."
"Flagrant Duality"
Sayyah al-Sukhni commented in government-owned Al-Thawra
(9/25): "At the time the Security Council was unanimously voting on a
resolution calling on Israel to stop its military operations and siege on the
Palestinian Authority, Israeli forces committed a brutal new massacre in Gaza
that claimed the lives of nine Palestinian and injured more than 18.... Nobody can ignore that the U.S. abstention on
the new Security Council resolution happened at the same time that the U.S. is
pressing the Security Council for a new resolution on Iraq to free it to attack
Iraq without any logical or reasonable justification. This constitutes an outrageous example of the
U.S. policy of double-standards in dealing with hot international issues. It also represents a flagrant example of the
reality of duplicity of some decision-makers in the U.S. administration. Americans are seeking to demolish Iraq and
force the world community to go along with them in this morally and politically
unjustified action, while they turn a blind eye to the real danger that
jeopardizes peace and stability in the region at the same time. They continue to allow Israel, and Israel
alone, to violate international resolutions and continue threatening the lives
and dignity of Arabs without being punished by the Security Council.... The
Americans are jeopardizing both their credibility and prestige. This will create an impression in world
public opinion that they advocate Israeli racism and brutality in support of a
blood-thirsty assassin like Sharon."
TUNISIA:
"An American Glimmer Of Hope"
Editor-in-Chief Mustapha Khammari wrote in
independent French-language Le Temps (9/25), "Even as it abstained
from voting on the UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to Israel's
siege of Arafat, the United States gives signs of fatigue towards the
stubbornness of its Israeli ally.
According to American sources, Washington prefers to act discreetly, but
firmly, to show its disapproval of the Israeli government initiatives. Did the
White House finally find out that Sharon's policy is disastrous and opposed to
the American-Israeli interests of peace? It is clear that by not voting against
the UN resolution, the U.S. wants to send a warning to its Israeli protégé.... It means also that the American position is
taking into account international criticism and is moving favorably towards a
better understanding of the exigencies of peace. We also understand that Washington is busy mobilizing
its allies for a war against Iraq; therefore, it is making concessions by
changing its own perception of Palestinian rights."
"Before It Gets Too Late"
Editor-in-Chief Abdelhamid Riahi made this point
in independent Ash-Shourouq (9/25), "We've been so used to
America's frequent use of the veto in the UN Security Council each time it
considers redressing Arab rights and condemning Israel that the simple fact of
its abstention from voting on a resolution (which does nothing to change the
situation) becomes a diplomatic 'success' for Arabs and a 'failure' for
Israel. This weak resolution adopted by
the UN yesterday is neither a success for Arabs nor a failure for Israel...as
it is going to be implemented on paper only."
EUROPE
BRITAIN:
"Yes, There Is A Link"
The liberal Guardian held (9/25): "That the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
and the Iraq crisis are inextricably linked becomes more obvious almost by the
day. Common sense suggests that a lasting
solution to one is unlikely, if not impossible, without a solution to the
other. Tony Blair seems to understand
this.... Mr. Blair has repeatedly and
rightly urged the Bush administration to address the problem with greater
urgency.... If Saddam has moved beyond
containment and is clambering out of his box, as Mr. Blair fears, then all the
more reason to stop him exploiting Arab-Israeli tensions to bolster his
position. To do this, the peace process
must be revived and a heads-of-government conference, with everything on the
table, is as good a way as any. Iraq
also understands the linkage. It loses
no opportunity to identify its cause with that of the Palestinians, Arabs and
Muslims generally.... Nor does Israel
fail to see the connection. Prime
minister Ariel Sharon has told the United States (and Baghdad) that, unlike
1991, Israel will strike back hard if attacked by Iraq, whatever the risk of
regional escalation.... Only the Bush
administration rejects the link, refusing to accept that the Palestine and Iraq
questions require coterminous answers.
It opts instead tacitly to 'freeze' the peace process while it deals
with Saddam. This approach invites
disaster on both fronts. If the U.S.
really wants to disarm Saddam, then fairly, fully and finally resolving this
poisonous issue is one of the very best ways to do it."
ITALY:
"No Future With Arafat"
A commentary by Fiamma Nirenstein in centrist,
influential La Stampa stated (9/25): "The Israeli attack on
Arafat's headquarters...aims to achieve long-term goals, and involves more or
less the same risk that George Bush is running when he declares that, by
ousting Saddam Hussein and giving a green light to a process of democratization
in the Middle East, a new road is being taken that is destined to defeat
terrorism. The same thing is true in the
case of Arafat, who has led the Palestinians to a war that turned the
Palestinian Authority from a ground of hope to an area of poverty and
desperation.... According to the
Israelis, no future is possible with Arafat.
And most of the European leaders agree, and certainly the U.S.
administration agrees, and has asked for a reform of the Palestinian
Authority.... Israel is a Western society that has tried, by attacking the
symbolic Muqata, to achieve what now appears to be a possible prospect: to show
that Arafat has been defeated, and terrorism with him. That is why Israel is
attacking, at the same time, Gaza, i.e., Hamas' fortress."
HUNGARY:
"Israel In Baghdad's Shadow"
Conservative Magyar Nemzet held (9/26):
"The developments in Israel come at the worst time for the United
States. In the midst of the U.S.' heavy
efforts to build a coalition against Iraq the last thing one wants is a country
that keeps grumbling and torpedoes the plans.
The United States neither supported nor rejected the recent UN
resolution that condemns the attack against Arafat's Ramallah compound. One reason why Washington did not exercise
its veto right could be that it wanted to win a score with the Arab allies. The
preparations of a military action against Iraq is undoubtedly favorable for Tel
Aviv."
NORWAY:
"The UN's Clear Demand"
The newspaper of record Aftenposten
commented (9/25): "It is a clear resolution that the UN Security Council
decided on yesterday.... The United
States abstained from voting in the UN Security Council. That is a clear signal from Israel's closest
ally, but we note that no effective pressure is being used this time either in
order that the UN resolution be lived up to....
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now only the destructive powers have
the upper hand. Unfortunately are there
no signals that show a will to listen to the world community that the UN
represents."
SPAIN:
"Israel And The UN"
Left-of-center El País wrote (9/26): "The U.S. attitude has much more to do
with Iraq than with the conviction that Sharon's scorched earth policy makes
impossible any understanding whatsoever.
The White House wants to show a friendly signal to the Arab countries
with regard to an attack against Baghdad and create a favorable environment in
the Security Council for the approval of the ultimatum for Saddam which it is
going to submit as a proposed resolution in the next days.... The greatest danger of this repeated
challenge to UN decisions is that it seriously damages the world organization's
credibility, whose resolutions are supposed to oblige all in the same way. Therefore, it is time for pressure on Israel
to be exerted with no indulgence from those who are most effective, that is,
the United States and the Security Council; and for the European Union,
traditionally a silent guest in the Middle East and also divided in relation to
the perception of the Palestinian-Israeli tragedy, to use its economic
weapons--preferential trade treatment--as strongly necessary to force the path
of dialogue."
EAST ASIA
INDONESIA:
"Israel Loses Diplomatic Efforts"
Independent afternoon Suara Pembaruan
held (9/25), "Israel seems to have lost its patience and diplomatic
efforts, which are actually more human and effective compared to violence that
is almost certain will be avenged by violence.... But in last two years of the enduring
Israel-Palestine conflict, PM Sharon's strategy only relies on a military
solution. Hopefully, the new UN Security
Council Resolution would restrain violence versus violence between
Israel-Palestine that has prevailed during the two years of the Palestinian
intifada."
PHILIPPINES:
"Shove It"
Liberal Today told readers (9/26),
"George W. Bush all but threw a tantrum at the General Assembly earlier
this month challenging the UN to justify to Washington why the U.S. shouldn't
just go ahead and bomb Iraq? But now
this. This is the last thing Israel's
patron and biggest ally needs. It's hard
enough asking the Arabs to unite against Saddam. Asking them to ignore the plight of Palestine
now and at the very least prioritize America's agenda over the historic
persecution of Arabs in the Gaza strip, would be to invite even more contempt
against the United States. Worse, the UN
itself can stare back at America, and tell it to take its talk of sanctions, of
defending the UN, of demanding that nations respect the call of international
community, take all that and shove it where Ariel Sharon sits arrogant in his
own defiance of the international community.
America and the UN's resolve are both being tested in the Middle
East. The calls on Israel and Iraq to
heed the international community define the balance that must be achieved in
the region, for a greater war to be averted, and for some international
influence to regain some weight and credibility. Given this, however, the fulcrum is
Palestine. If it is allowed to be
destroyed--physically with bombardment or politically with a forced removal of
Arafat--then the Middle East will have no point at which to tip or to
turn. The UN and the United States, in
other words, both have their reasons for calling each other hypocrites and
weak, but, clearly, they can only rise above the awkward situation by first
securing a halt to hostilities in Palestine.
For without Palestine--without any such things as a genuine Palestinian
nation or authority or territory to speak of or even fight over--there frankly
would be nothing to talk about. An end
to the siege in the Gaza Strip must take precedence over any proposed action
against Iraq. Even the American agenda
must recognize this fact. At any rate,
they can only blame Israel for weakening and delaying its own cause for
security in the region."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA:
"Characterisitically Double Faced"
Independent Urdu-language Awam opined
(9/25), "Israel's renewed offensive in Palestinian areas, especially the
siege around the headquarters of President Yasser Arafat, has sent strong wave
of anguish and resentment across the Muslim world. Although the United States has asked Israel
through a resolution moved in the UN to stop demolishing Palestinian bases, the
move should primarily be seen in the context of Washington's effort to gather
Arab support for its planned attack against Iraq. The United States cannot
absolve itself of the responsibility for encouraging Israel to continue with
its terrorist campaigns against Palestinians. The U.S. policy of endorsing
Israeli atrocities and launching offensives against Iraq and other Arab countries
has led the Middle East to a situation which could explode into a major crisis
for the whole world."
PAKISTAN:
"Adoption Of Resolution Against Israel"
Karachi-based, right-wing pro-Islamic unity Jasarat
held (9/26), "How will the UN Security Council make its resolution against
Israel effective, or will it meet the same fate as the other previous
resolutions? Various countries taking part in the debate [at the UN] have
raised very pertinent question as to why there is a double standard regarding
the implementation of UNSC resolutions.
Why is Iraq forced to obey the resolution, and why Israel is not bound
to abide by it? The United States has
made Muslim blood very cheap for itself.
It only considers Americans, Israelis and Indians as human beings....and
for the United States, Muslims do no fall in this category."
"Israel's Defiance Of UN"
Karachi-based independent national Dawn
said (9/26), "As was only to be expected, Israel has again shown its
contempt for the UN by denouncing the Security Council resolution asking it to
lift its siege of Yasser Arafat's headquarters.
An Israeli official was quoted as saying, 'The UN can do what it wants,
but Israel will continue the operations.'...
The United States did not veto the resolution, but by abstaining from
voting, it has sent a clear message to its protege: no matter what Tel Aviv
does, it will find Washington firmly on its side, all other considerations
notwithstanding. The main U.S. objection
was that the resolution had not 'explicitly' condemned terrorists and those who
'provide them with political cover, support and safe haven.' This sums up
Washington's perception of the Arab-Israel conflict: Arafat and his people are not freedom
fighters, but 'terrorists.' For that
reason, Israel is not only entitled to occupation and reoccupation of the
Palestinian territories; it can kill any number of civilians in the name of
fighting terrorism, and punish the Palestinian leadership for its failure to do
so.' The resolution asks Israel to lift
the siege and withdraw its 'occupying forces' to the position they held before
the second intifada began on September 2000.
No wonder the resolution should appear 'flawed' to an American
administration whose defense secretary refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip
as the 'so-called' occupied areas."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA:
"The Limits Of Force"
The leading Globe and Mail opined (9/23):
"Israel has proven it can crush Palestinian militants. But force alone cannot make Israelis
secure. Mr. Sharon's government also
should think carefully in another context:
How to respond to a possible Iraqi attack if there is a U.S.-led
invasion. Israel held its fire in 1991, when Iraq fired Scud missiles into
Israel. That decision reportedly was
opposed by Mr. Sharon, who thought it made Israel look weak. The expectation now is that Israel would
strike back. But would that be in
Israel's best interests if the United States was on its way to overthrowing
Saddam Hussein's regime? Washington recognizes there would be no holding Israel
back if attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Israel is responsible for
Israelis' safety. But a hair-trigger
response, especially if Israel had suffered few casualties, might not be in
Israel's own interest."
##
