Sharon and Israeli PoliticsIsrael and Palestine
Two leaders dominate this discussion -- Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon -- even while the US and Israel try to promote Abu mazen.
There is little need to document the shortcomings of Yasser Arafat -- they are covered every day in the American press.
... But what about the other partner in the peace? What kind of man is Ariel Sharon? What's his history? What's the mentality and political picture in Israel under his leadership?
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Why a 50-page memo on torture and what is permissible ... when no one was supposedly considering torturing al Qaeda prisoners ?
A Plunge From the Moral Heights (washingtonpost.com): "By Richard Cohen | Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A19
Come and sit with me for a moment. I am in a room, in a Middle Eastern country, and I am talking to a government official. He mentions the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S.-run prison outside Baghdad, and what this has done to America's image in his region. He smiles at what he says, for he is a man who appreciates irony. Of course, this same thing happens in his country, he says. Inwardly, I smile back, smug in my confidence that Abu Ghraib or no Abu Ghraib, America is a different sort of nation. It now seems I was a bit too smug.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department prepared memos parsing what is and what is not torture brings to mind regimes that, well, I would rather not bring to mind. These are the torturers of the world, although they deny it, and to bolster their lie they produce copious laws against the practice.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose Justice Department prepared the memos -- one of them running to 50 pages and signed by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel -- assured the Senate the other day that the memos are of no consequence. ....
I wonder, too, why the much-pressed Justice Department -- all those news releases to get out extolling Ashcroft -- went to all the trouble of coming up with definitions of torture that might be permissible under U.S. law when no one was supposedly considering torturing al Qaeda prisoners in the first place. A 50-page memo is not an hour's work. It's clear someone had torture in mind. The Defense Department and the CIA were looking for guidance.
... In one of the memos leaked to The Post, the Justice Department said yes, precisely -- torture, but only a bit. "For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." This is a very odd -- shall we say "tortured" -- definition.
My dictionary, compiled by lexicographers and not, thank God, by lawyers, knows precisely what torture is. "To bring great physical or mental pain upon another," is one of several definitions. Simple. ...
...
It is commonly said that we are a nation of laws, not men. And we are. But beyond the laws, we are also a nation of men and women with a common ethic. Some things are not American. Torture, for damned sure, is one of them.
A Plunge From the Moral Heights (washingtonpost.com): "By Richard Cohen | Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A19
Come and sit with me for a moment. I am in a room, in a Middle Eastern country, and I am talking to a government official. He mentions the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S.-run prison outside Baghdad, and what this has done to America's image in his region. He smiles at what he says, for he is a man who appreciates irony. Of course, this same thing happens in his country, he says. Inwardly, I smile back, smug in my confidence that Abu Ghraib or no Abu Ghraib, America is a different sort of nation. It now seems I was a bit too smug.
The recent revelations that the Justice Department prepared memos parsing what is and what is not torture brings to mind regimes that, well, I would rather not bring to mind. These are the torturers of the world, although they deny it, and to bolster their lie they produce copious laws against the practice.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose Justice Department prepared the memos -- one of them running to 50 pages and signed by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel -- assured the Senate the other day that the memos are of no consequence. ....
I wonder, too, why the much-pressed Justice Department -- all those news releases to get out extolling Ashcroft -- went to all the trouble of coming up with definitions of torture that might be permissible under U.S. law when no one was supposedly considering torturing al Qaeda prisoners in the first place. A 50-page memo is not an hour's work. It's clear someone had torture in mind. The Defense Department and the CIA were looking for guidance.
... In one of the memos leaked to The Post, the Justice Department said yes, precisely -- torture, but only a bit. "For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." This is a very odd -- shall we say "tortured" -- definition.
My dictionary, compiled by lexicographers and not, thank God, by lawyers, knows precisely what torture is. "To bring great physical or mental pain upon another," is one of several definitions. Simple. ...
...
It is commonly said that we are a nation of laws, not men. And we are. But beyond the laws, we are also a nation of men and women with a common ethic. Some things are not American. Torture, for damned sure, is one of them.
Sharon on a collision course with the powerful settler lobby: most of 7,500 settlers in Gaza refusing to leave or negotiate settlements
Excite - News: "Sharon Inflames Settlers Over Gaza Pullout Timetable | Jun 10, 6:40 am ET | By Megan Goldin
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Jewish settlers could start leaving Gaza in two months under a withdrawal timetable proposed by a government committee, setting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on a collision course with the powerful settler lobby.
The schedule, which envisages completion of a Gaza pullout by October 1, 2005, inflamed Jewish settlers and their powerful political allies who threatened to step up efforts to bring down the Sharon government.
Sources in Sharon's office said he had not yet approved the timeline, drawn up by the National Security Council and adopted by a steering committee overseeing the Gaza withdrawal.
However, the timetable was in accord with comments by Sharon that there would be no Israelis in Gaza by the end of 2005.
'Maybe there will be people who will leave but I know the majority will not agree,' Gaza settler spokesman Eran Sternberg told Reuters. He said most of the 7,500 settlers in Gaza had signed a declaration refusing to leave or negotiate payouts."
Excite - News: "Sharon Inflames Settlers Over Gaza Pullout Timetable | Jun 10, 6:40 am ET | By Megan Goldin
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Jewish settlers could start leaving Gaza in two months under a withdrawal timetable proposed by a government committee, setting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on a collision course with the powerful settler lobby.
The schedule, which envisages completion of a Gaza pullout by October 1, 2005, inflamed Jewish settlers and their powerful political allies who threatened to step up efforts to bring down the Sharon government.
Sources in Sharon's office said he had not yet approved the timeline, drawn up by the National Security Council and adopted by a steering committee overseeing the Gaza withdrawal.
However, the timetable was in accord with comments by Sharon that there would be no Israelis in Gaza by the end of 2005.
'Maybe there will be people who will leave but I know the majority will not agree,' Gaza settler spokesman Eran Sternberg told Reuters. He said most of the 7,500 settlers in Gaza had signed a declaration refusing to leave or negotiate payouts."
