Washington Report, November 2005, pages 28, 57

European Press Review

Israeli Compliance With Law on Gaza “No Concession,” Says UK’s Guardian

By Lucy Jones

The eviction of more than 8,000 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip by the Israelis, which began on Aug. 17, was seen by the London Times of Aug. 20 as a turning point in the peace process.

“The operation…has gone much faster than expected. This is a remarkable achievement, for which Mr. [Ariel] Sharon and the army deserve full credit,” said the newspaper.

“Mr. Sharon has broken taboos and changed a mindset in Israel. He may yet be the man, if the Palestinians cooperate, to take his country along that road to peace,” it concluded.

The UK’s Guardian of Aug. 22, however, thought that Sharon and his supporters should not be able to get away with arguing that the Gaza withdrawal has been a “painful concession” for which the Palestinians must now reciprocate. “Compliance with international law over the Gaza settlements, after many years of illegality, is no concession,” the paper editorialized.

Columnist Jonathan Steele, writing in the Aug. 19 edition of the same newspaper, said Sharon “wanted the world’s media to see the protracted agony of the settlers, so as to make the (spurious) point that if it is hard to get 8,000 to leave Gaza, getting 400,000 to withdraw from the West Bank and West Jerusalem will be impossible.

“There was no ‘sensitivity training’ for the Israeli troops, no buses to drive the expellees away, no generous deadlines to get ready, no compensation for their homes, and no promise of government-subsidized alternative housing when the bulldozers went into Rafah,” he noted, referring to Israel’s evictions last year of Palestinian residents of southern Gaza.

Meanwhile, The Sunday Times of Aug. 14 argued that it was time for the U.S. to get involved. “[British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has insisted that an Israeli-Palestinian settlement is one of the key ingredients for sustained success in the war on terror but has found it difficult to pull the U.S. president along,” the newspaper noted. “After Mr. Sharon’s Gaza gesture Mr. Bush needs to make some gestures too.”

European Diplomacy “Stammering” Over Iran, Says France’s Le Monde

Iran’s decision to break U.N. seals at its nuclear facility at Isfahan on Aug. 10, despite European calls for a suspension of uranium conversion work, shows the inadequacies of Europe’s diplomacy, opined Le Monde the following day.

“Faced with the determination of the Iranian Islamic Republic and its diplomacy, which blows hot and cold, Europe is stammering,” the French daily said. “Deaf, it is not capable of decoding and anticipating Tehran’s message.”

“The way in which Iran has made the Europeans look silly over the last few days is more than humiliating,” agreed Austria’s Die Presse on the same day.

In the newspaper’s opinion, the Europeans would have no reason to complain if the U.S. were to use military means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

In London, The Times on Aug. 11 noted the “grim” conclusion which could be drawn from Iran’s resumption of uranium conversion—“that the regime has no intention of dismantling what it euphemistically calls its ‘national nuclear industry.’” But the newspaper went on to note that Russia and China have come out in firm support of the European demands.

Meanwhile, several German newspapers commented on Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s speech at an election campaign rally in which he said the military option for resolving the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program should be “taken off the table.”

“You could only tell from one letter that you weren’t in a time-warp,” wrote the Aug. 15 Financial Times Deutschland, referring to Schroeder’s warning against a military attack on Iraq—not Iran—during Germany’s 2002 election campaign, which led to a deterioration of Berlin-Washington relations.

“Schroeder’s ranting is stupid because...his words signal to the Iranian leadership that the West is divided, that Europe is shying away from reacting resolutely to Tehran’s latest provocations,” the newspaper maintained.

“The chancellor should be ashamed,” stated Die Welt the same day. “A German election campaign is not carte blanche to put extremely tricky international politics on the line.”

Economist Says Abdullah “Must Bring Saudi Arabia Into Modern World”

According to Mark Hollingsworth, an expert on Saudi Arabia, writing in the UK’s Guardian on Aug. 2, King Abdullah, who succeeded King Fahd upon the latter’s death the previous day, has always been “an aberration in the House of Saud.” Saying the new king “is determined to curb royal corruption…and is also likely to be more non-aligned, reducing Saudi dependency on America in order to increase the prospects of peace in the Middle East,” Hollingsworth thought change in the Kingdom may be afoot.

“The White House and No. 10 will be nervous,” he added, “because the new king believes his country should be less subservient to Western military and strategic interests in the Gulf.”

While The Times of Aug. 2 disagreed, editorializing that “no one expects dramatic change,” The Economist of Aug. 6 argued that if the new king did not strive harder to bring his kingdom into the modern world, “the whole Saudi edifice may come tumbling down and make the Middle East even messier and more dangerous than it is already.

“At the very least,” the paper added, Abdullah must “prepare for a younger generation of princes to skip the geriatric queue of…royal brothers, formally next in line for the throne, who are patently unable or unwilling to prod the kingdom toward modernity.”

Iraq Constitution Called “Remarkable Democratic Achievement”

Sunni opposition to Iraq’s draft constitution does not mean all is lost, according to Germany’s Aug. 29 Die Welt.

Following the Second World War, the paper noted, Germany’s own draft constitution faced opposition from the Bavarians.

“We caution against too much euphoria,” it continued, “but exaggerated pessimism is out of place too, in view of this remarkable democratic achievement by the fathers of the Iraqi constitution.”

However, the UK’s Guardian of Aug. 24 was less optimistic, remarking: “The Shi’i and the Kurds needed to be magnanimous toward the Sunnis, to find space for them in the political process. This they failed to do and that is ominous for the future.

“The draft version embraces Islam as the religion of the state and a fundamental source for legislation,” the newspaper observed, concluding that “The Islamization of Iraq could prove awkward for the U.S. as it prepares to leave because neither the basic rights of women nor human rights in general are protected.”

Deaths in Shi’i Stampede Show Iraqis “Living on Their Nerves”

The death of almost 1,000 Shi’i pilgrims in an Aug. 31 stampede in northern Baghdad was by far the greatest loss since the U.S. invasion of the country in 2003, France’s La Croix pointed out the next day. “It is as if all of Iraq’s pains have been concentrated in one day,” said the newspaper, noting that the Shi’i were heading toward Kadhimiya mosque to mark the martyrdom of the 8th century imam, Musa al-Kadhim.

The stampede occurred because people are “living on their nerves,” said the same day’s Irish Independent. Meanwhile, the Americans and British who promised them democracy and peace are “out of ideas,” the newspaper added.

The London Times of Sept. 1 feared civil war unless Iraqis are “spurred by this terrible event into pulling together.”

The UK’s Independent of the same day saw the “hand of the insurgents” in creating the panic that led to the stampede, expressing concern that the huge loss of life could push Iraq toward new levels of violence.

Blair Anti-Terror Measures “Cause for Alarm,” says UK’s Guardian

Telling journalists that “the rules of the game are changing,”British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Aug. 5 proposed a raft of anti-terror measures. The plans include: new grounds for deporting people from the UK (including statements already on record advocating violence to further beliefs); making the justifying or glorifying of terrorism an offense; and banning the Islamic group Hizb ut Tahrir.

The following day’s Guardian found the measures “cause for alarm.” “Let us be clear that the most compelling objection to several of the proposals made by the prime minister is not that they intrude upon the human rights of every single resident and citizen of this country, although they certainly do that,” said the newspaper. “Instead the foremost objection is that these measures would have done nothing to stop the first and most deadly wave of suicide bombing on London’s transport network on July 7.”

Added the Aug. 7 Observer, “The Prime Minister has yet to explain how he plans to deal with the fact that the murderous message peddled by the extremists appears to be so attractive to young Britons.”

The previous day’s Times, however, welcomed the proposals, saying that “for the wider community such decisive action against any group preaching violence is an important sign that the government understands, and shares, the current concern.”

The Sunday Times of Aug. 7 agreed: “The general message was welcome, if not long overdue: ‘If people want to come here, either fleeing persecution or seeking a better life, they play by our rules.’”

“Foreign governments, newspapers such as this one and ordinary people have for years been bemused, then angered, by the successive failure of Conservative and Labor governments to deny access to outsiders who pose a threat to this country and to our allies,” the newspaper wrote.

Headscarf “Not Symbol of Hate,” Says London’s Times

At the beginning of August, a leading British scholar, Zaki Badawi, advised Muslim women not to wear the headscarf, in order to protect themselves from attack following the London bombings.

According to The Times of Aug. 5, the recommendation had “regrettably helped to further the notion that the headscarf is a symbol of hate. It is not,” the newspaper insisted. “Muslim dress has thankfully not been politicized in Britain as it has in France,” it continued, concluding that “Britons are a lot more tolerant than the fanatical followers of al-Qaeda or their apologists.”

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.