Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05DHAKA1175
2005-03-16 08:00:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Dhaka
Cable title:
Media Reaction: Middle East;Dhaka
how-toThis record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 DHAKA 001175
SIPDIS
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER),SA/RA, INR/R/MR,
AND PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON)
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER),J45
(MAJ NICHOLLS)
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK)
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KMDR OIIP OPRC KPAO PREL ETRD PTER ASEC BG OCII
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Middle East;Dhaka
Summary: Various newspapers comment that Israel continues
to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the United States.
The United States' reaction to North Korea's possession of
nuclear weapons is discriminatory to Muslims.
--------------
Middle East
--------------
"Fight Against Jihadis And Crusaders Alike Is The Need Of
The Hour"
Independent English daily "New Age" op-ed opines (03/16/05):
Just look at the present global scenario. The Bush
administration's primary foreign policy goal in its second
term seems to be `regime change' in Syria, as follow-up to
the regime change in Iraq. Bush's `axis of evil', referred
to in the infamous speech delivered in 2000, did not include
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
Again, it is the United State's official policies towards
Muslims that allows people like Daniel Pipes to even create
and run so-called think tanks to perpetually malign the
Muslims. Pipes heads a private sector think-tank called
Middle East Forum (MEF),which is a fierce opponent of
Palestinian nationalism. He has recently proposed the
creation of an Anti-Islamist Institute (AII),designed to
expose `legal' political activities of the Islamists, such
as `prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by-
products to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq', which, he
believes, `serves the interests of radical Islam'. `In the
legal term...the legal activities of Islamists pose as much
or even a greater set of challenges than the illegal ones,'
Pipes reportedly argued recently in a proposal for a grant
for the MEF. The AII's proclaimed goal is the
`delegitimatiom of the Islamists'. `We wish to have them
shunned by the government, the media, the churches, the
academy and the corporate world.'
Israel continues to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the
United States. `Israel's expansion has included ethnic
cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for
centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror
aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of
the Israeli state. The methods of groups like Irgun and the
Stern gang were the same as those of the Bosnian Serb
Karadzic: to drive out people by terror,' writes Ken
Livingstone, mayor of London, for the UK-based Guardian on
March 5. `Today the Israeli government continues seizures of
Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into
surrounding countries and denial of the right of
Palestinians expelled by terror to return. Ariel Sharon,
Israel's prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in
prison, not in office.'
However, the fundamentalist discrimination against the
Muslims becomes further evident if one looks at Washington's
attitude towards a non-Muslim country, North Korea that
already possesses nuclear bombs. The political establishment
in Pyongyang announced on February 10 that it has nuclear
weapons and unilaterally suspended the disarmament
discussion with the China-led four-nation negotiation team
that includes Japan, Russia and South Korea. But the United
State's reaction is that they need to `engage in vigorous
diplomatic efforts' to coax North Korea back to the
bargaining table. North Korea also announced in September
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
2004, and that too at the United Nations, that it had
`transformed material for nuclear weapons into arms'. The
US's reported reaction, at that time, was that it was a
`regional issue', which `should be dealt with by North
Korea's neighbors'.
--------------
"A Banner of Peace"
Independent English daily "New Age" editorial comments
(0316/05):
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has vowed that the peace
process in the Middle East will go ahead. He was obviously
going through pangs of enthusiasm after a meeting with
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on March 14.
There is little question that since the death of Yasser
Arafat and the rise of Abbas to the presidency of the
Palestinian Authority, things have really been moving in the
region. Mr. Abbas has been the recipient of honors in such
important places as the United States and Britain. It is
clear that men of the likes of George W. Bush are quite
willing to engage with him in negotiations over the future
of the Palestinians. And he has already had meetings with
the hawkish Ariel Sharon over the future of the region. It
is all the cumulative result of all these happenings that
may now have prompted Mr. Annan into expressing his optimism
about the future of the most volatile part of the planet.
But there is a new difficulty which neither Mr. Annan nor
anyone else may have foreseen earlier. Even as he was into
his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli authorities made
a new announcement about the barrier they have already
constructed to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of
Israel and parts of the Arab land it has kept occupied. They
have now said that there will be a new extension to the
barrier that will effectively shut the Palestinians off from
East Jerusalem. That is quite a blow to the tentative
momentum, which has come to the peace process in recent
weeks. And given the fact that a key demand of the
Palestinians has always been the establishment of their
capital in East Jerusalem if and when a sovereign Palestine
actually takes shape, the new round of fencing can only add
to the complications. It will not be the Palestinians who
can or will be blamed. The burden will fall squarely on the
shoulders of the Israelis, who have kept adhering to the
curious thought that the barrier will be enough to deter the
young men determined to carry out their murderous acts
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
against Israeli citizens. As the politically astute Hanan
Ashrawi has pointed out, even the barrier has proved
insufficient in the matter of stopping Palestinians from
carrying out suicide bombings. Besides, there are very good
reasons why Israel and its friends, particularly the United
States, must now seriously go into the causes of the current
troubles. What is important today is not that some kind of
Palestinian entity will be forged from the territories
Israel plans to give up. The important thing is that the UN
Security Council resolutions, especially 242, asking for a
full and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab
lands occupied in June 1967 be implemented all the way.
Besides, it will serve little purpose, indeed it may give
rise to new deadlock if the right of Palestinians to return
to the homes that are now in the state of Israel is not
granted. An exodus in times of war cannot be an excuse for
anyone to lay claim to the property of those who have left
out of fear.
It will be up to Mr. Abbas to devise the means by which he
can wring concessions out of the Israelis. As for the
Israelis, their deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has
suggested that the barrier will come down once terrorism
comes to an end. That is a fuzzy statement. It does not do
anyone any good. It will only disappoint people such as Kofi
Annan.
--------------
"American Conspiracy to Attack Iran By Israel"
Large circulation independent Bangla language daily
"Jugantor" op-ed article says (03/16/05):
On what basis Israel will launch an attack on Iran should
Iran possess nuclear weapons? Is it due to the fact the
Israel is the main weapon of American terrorism in the
Middle East and its main executioner in the region? Israel
does not possess that much of power without the American
support through which Israel can threaten each Middle East
country and attack them.
President Bush terms every country as terrorists in his
speeches and literally wails to free the world from
terrorism. That is why he has been launching military
attacks on various countries. But why will he not prevent
Israel from attacking Iran? Will not the Israeli attack be
an act of terrorism? Will not it be the most naked example
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
of state terrorism? Of course it is. But it makes little
difference to Mr. Bush. He occupied Afghanistan and Iraq on
false pretexts. The United States is now mad to exert its
control over the entire Middle East. It is the Americans'
most important condition to retain its supremacy as the
number one imperialist country. The preparation to attack
Iran is part of that condition to maintain its supremacy.
Thomas
SIPDIS
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER),SA/RA, INR/R/MR,
AND PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON)
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER),J45
(MAJ NICHOLLS)
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK)
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KMDR OIIP OPRC KPAO PREL ETRD PTER ASEC BG OCII
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Middle East;Dhaka
Summary: Various newspapers comment that Israel continues
to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the United States.
The United States' reaction to North Korea's possession of
nuclear weapons is discriminatory to Muslims.
--------------
Middle East
--------------
"Fight Against Jihadis And Crusaders Alike Is The Need Of
The Hour"
Independent English daily "New Age" op-ed opines (03/16/05):
Just look at the present global scenario. The Bush
administration's primary foreign policy goal in its second
term seems to be `regime change' in Syria, as follow-up to
the regime change in Iraq. Bush's `axis of evil', referred
to in the infamous speech delivered in 2000, did not include
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
Again, it is the United State's official policies towards
Muslims that allows people like Daniel Pipes to even create
and run so-called think tanks to perpetually malign the
Muslims. Pipes heads a private sector think-tank called
Middle East Forum (MEF),which is a fierce opponent of
Palestinian nationalism. He has recently proposed the
creation of an Anti-Islamist Institute (AII),designed to
expose `legal' political activities of the Islamists, such
as `prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by-
products to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq', which, he
believes, `serves the interests of radical Islam'. `In the
legal term...the legal activities of Islamists pose as much
or even a greater set of challenges than the illegal ones,'
Pipes reportedly argued recently in a proposal for a grant
for the MEF. The AII's proclaimed goal is the
`delegitimatiom of the Islamists'. `We wish to have them
shunned by the government, the media, the churches, the
academy and the corporate world.'
Israel continues to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the
United States. `Israel's expansion has included ethnic
cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for
centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror
aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of
the Israeli state. The methods of groups like Irgun and the
Stern gang were the same as those of the Bosnian Serb
Karadzic: to drive out people by terror,' writes Ken
Livingstone, mayor of London, for the UK-based Guardian on
March 5. `Today the Israeli government continues seizures of
Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into
surrounding countries and denial of the right of
Palestinians expelled by terror to return. Ariel Sharon,
Israel's prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in
prison, not in office.'
However, the fundamentalist discrimination against the
Muslims becomes further evident if one looks at Washington's
attitude towards a non-Muslim country, North Korea that
already possesses nuclear bombs. The political establishment
in Pyongyang announced on February 10 that it has nuclear
weapons and unilaterally suspended the disarmament
discussion with the China-led four-nation negotiation team
that includes Japan, Russia and South Korea. But the United
State's reaction is that they need to `engage in vigorous
diplomatic efforts' to coax North Korea back to the
bargaining table. North Korea also announced in September
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
2004, and that too at the United Nations, that it had
`transformed material for nuclear weapons into arms'. The
US's reported reaction, at that time, was that it was a
`regional issue', which `should be dealt with by North
Korea's neighbors'.
--------------
"A Banner of Peace"
Independent English daily "New Age" editorial comments
(0316/05):
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has vowed that the peace
process in the Middle East will go ahead. He was obviously
going through pangs of enthusiasm after a meeting with
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on March 14.
There is little question that since the death of Yasser
Arafat and the rise of Abbas to the presidency of the
Palestinian Authority, things have really been moving in the
region. Mr. Abbas has been the recipient of honors in such
important places as the United States and Britain. It is
clear that men of the likes of George W. Bush are quite
willing to engage with him in negotiations over the future
of the Palestinians. And he has already had meetings with
the hawkish Ariel Sharon over the future of the region. It
is all the cumulative result of all these happenings that
may now have prompted Mr. Annan into expressing his optimism
about the future of the most volatile part of the planet.
But there is a new difficulty which neither Mr. Annan nor
anyone else may have foreseen earlier. Even as he was into
his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli authorities made
a new announcement about the barrier they have already
constructed to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of
Israel and parts of the Arab land it has kept occupied. They
have now said that there will be a new extension to the
barrier that will effectively shut the Palestinians off from
East Jerusalem. That is quite a blow to the tentative
momentum, which has come to the peace process in recent
weeks. And given the fact that a key demand of the
Palestinians has always been the establishment of their
capital in East Jerusalem if and when a sovereign Palestine
actually takes shape, the new round of fencing can only add
to the complications. It will not be the Palestinians who
can or will be blamed. The burden will fall squarely on the
shoulders of the Israelis, who have kept adhering to the
curious thought that the barrier will be enough to deter the
young men determined to carry out their murderous acts
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
against Israeli citizens. As the politically astute Hanan
Ashrawi has pointed out, even the barrier has proved
insufficient in the matter of stopping Palestinians from
carrying out suicide bombings. Besides, there are very good
reasons why Israel and its friends, particularly the United
States, must now seriously go into the causes of the current
troubles. What is important today is not that some kind of
Palestinian entity will be forged from the territories
Israel plans to give up. The important thing is that the UN
Security Council resolutions, especially 242, asking for a
full and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab
lands occupied in June 1967 be implemented all the way.
Besides, it will serve little purpose, indeed it may give
rise to new deadlock if the right of Palestinians to return
to the homes that are now in the state of Israel is not
granted. An exodus in times of war cannot be an excuse for
anyone to lay claim to the property of those who have left
out of fear.
It will be up to Mr. Abbas to devise the means by which he
can wring concessions out of the Israelis. As for the
Israelis, their deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has
suggested that the barrier will come down once terrorism
comes to an end. That is a fuzzy statement. It does not do
anyone any good. It will only disappoint people such as Kofi
Annan.
--------------
"American Conspiracy to Attack Iran By Israel"
Large circulation independent Bangla language daily
"Jugantor" op-ed article says (03/16/05):
On what basis Israel will launch an attack on Iran should
Iran possess nuclear weapons? Is it due to the fact the
Israel is the main weapon of American terrorism in the
Middle East and its main executioner in the region? Israel
does not possess that much of power without the American
support through which Israel can threaten each Middle East
country and attack them.
President Bush terms every country as terrorists in his
speeches and literally wails to free the world from
terrorism. That is why he has been launching military
attacks on various countries. But why will he not prevent
Israel from attacking Iran? Will not the Israeli attack be
an act of terrorism? Will not it be the most naked example
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May,
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon
since last week.
of state terrorism? Of course it is. But it makes little
difference to Mr. Bush. He occupied Afghanistan and Iraq on
false pretexts. The United States is now mad to exert its
control over the entire Middle East. It is the Americans'
most important condition to retain its supremacy as the
number one imperialist country. The preparation to attack
Iran is part of that condition to maintain its supremacy.
Thomas