New York Times
Late last week, senior Israeli army officers called for uprooting several dozen isolated Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because of the military burden involved in protecting them. Even though the proposal was focused on Israeli security interests, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon angrily dismissed it at a cabinet meeting, saying that as long as he was in power there would be no discussion of removing a single settlement.
It is hard to imagine a more dispiriting statement for those hoping for a negotiated land-for-peace end to hostilities in the Middle East. If Mr. Sharon sticks to this view he will leave little hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We recognize that this is an exceptionally painful moment in a region where the focus has been on death and human suffering rather than on land. But ultimately this dispute is over land.
Just as terror is the greatest Palestinian threat to Middle East peace, so are settlements on territory captured in the 1967 war the greatest Israeli obstacle to peace. ...
Mr. Sharon has said he is willing to make "painful compromises" for peace, and has called for a regional peace conference. He has welcomed the Saudi peace framework, which posits the return of all land captured in 1967 in exchange for full diplomatic ties with the Arab world. But to take out of negotiation even the most isolated settlements -- this week Mr. Sharon said Netzarim, a Gaza settlement, was the same to him as Tel Aviv -- is to undermine the possibility that following his military action, a meaningful political dialogue can begin. The Israeli public and the American government must not turn away from this painful reality. The Palestinian and Arab leadership must also realize that the longer the Palestinians rely on terrorism and fail to return to negotiation, the harder it will be to remove these "facts on the ground."
Washington Post
The signs of growing disorder and lawlessness in Afghanistan are abundant. There are the gangs of thugs who swagger through the streets of Khost, openly brandishing their Kalashnikovs and grenade-launchers. There are the rival militias that continue to fight for control of the north of the country, making a mockery of the central government's authority. And then there is the prison in Shebergan, 60 miles west of Mazar-i-Sharif, where conditions for the 2,700 inmates -- all men who were captured by U.S.-backed forces in last year's military campaign -- are so bad that the International Red Cross was forced to step in last week to avert mass starvation. Nearly 100 prisoners were put on an emergency diet of liquid feeding, and officials say up to 500 will soon have to be moved into tents for medical treatment. In a way, they will be the lucky ones: The rest of the detainees at Shebergan will go on living 50 to a room, without toilets, clean water or sanitary measures, in an environment where tuberculosis and cholera are rampant. Scores have already died. ...
The Shebergan prisoners were captured in a U.S.-orchestrated military operation and screened by American investigators, and their prison is controlled by a warlord who is a U.S. client. And yet when Bush administration officials are asked about the gross violations of human rights at the prison, their response is the same as it is for the thugs of Khost, or the feuding of the militias in the north: not our responsibility. It's up to Afghan authorities to manage the prisoners not chosen for Guantanamo, says the Pentagon; it's up to General Dostum and other warlords to deal with the thugs until an Afghan army can be trained and deployed, sometime in the future. By washing its hands of these troubles, the Pentagon surely makes an already difficult Afghan mission somewhat easier. But it also raises a question about President Bush's renewed pledge not to walk away from Afghanistan's problems, delivered even as the men of Shebergan starved. Was he serious?
Washington Times
In the wake of Israel's military offensive against Yasser Arafat's West Bank terror network, there's a growing consensus in Washington and Europe for some kind of aid package for the Palestinians. In the short term, there is a strong case for providing humanitarian aid to families who lost their homes in the recent fighting between the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian terrorists. But, beyond essential aid for things like food, medical assistance and shelter, it would be the height of folly to pour money into the West Bank and Gaza in the desperate hope of putting together a "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinians.
Most of the violence and destruction of property that occurred during the past month is the direct result of the fact that Mr. Arafat's own Fatah terrorist group, working in conjunction with like-minded organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, located bomb-making facilities and terrorist command-and-control centers inside densely populated areas of cities and refugee camps.
To listen to some Arafat defenders, any effort to achieve peace with the Palestinians that does not involve Mr. Arafat is doomed to failure. And, although Mr. Arafat has said he condemns terrorism and supports peace, he had a major role in orchestrating recent Palestinian violence against Israel. ...
Instead of clinging to old illusions about Mr. Arafat, it's time for farsighted U.S. policy-makers to understand that there can be no Israeli-Palestinian peace so long as Mr. Arafat and his friends are around to foment violence.
Dallas Morning News
The U.S.-Saudi summit in Crawford lasted five hours Thursday, allowing President George W. Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to meet in a relaxed setting for the first time. And to air their views on the swirl of events surrounding Israel, Iraq and the war against terror.
Those points alone are significant. The United States and Saudi Arabia must keep working on their crucial relationship. As Richard Murphy, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told this page this week, both sides have "a strong mutual interest in the relationship." But the circumstances are even deeper now. And the dynamic is growing more complex.
The Saudi prince came to Crawford with a blunt message: The Arab world does not understand the U.S. position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Indeed, there is a disconnect between the way the United States and Israel see the situation and how Arab and now many European states view it. The differences should not spook the United States, nor unravel its longstanding support for democratic Israel. Saddam Hussein would love nothing more than to use the unrest on the Arab street to his advantage.
But moving away from the Crawford summit, the United States should take constructive steps that could ultimately benefit all those seriously interested in peace in the region. That includes working toward an international peace conference, which involves either the top leaders in the region or their foreign emissaries. ...
Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to the United States, told this newspaper last week that for success to occur in the region, there must be a recognition that Israelis and Palestinians can achieve their political goals peacefully. At the moment, that understanding is lacking. But a well-prepared peace conference could change the equation. It could benefit the region. And it could help with the war against terrorism, in which the United States and Saudi Arabia still find themselves engaged.
Chicago Tribune
The presidential shouting match between Mexico's Vicente Fox and Cuba's Fidel Castro for the moment is nothing if not entertaining -- like watching the weird couple next door finally give up all pretense of civility and start throwing the china at each other.
Unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico never broke diplomatic relations with Castro and both countries have professed their eternal solidarity. But aside from half their populations wanting to move to the United States, these countries don't share much. This love fest has been more like an elaborate diplomatic Kabuki than a reflection of common interests or agenda.
The current spat started last month during preparations for the U.N. international conference on development in Monterrey, Mexico. Castro announced his attendance at the last minute, supposedly for security reasons. Fox, trying to prevent any clashes between Castro and President Bush, who would also be there, phoned the Cuban president to ask if he would please make his appearance a quickie.
Indeed, everyone knew something was wrong when Castro spoke for only six minutes and returned to Havana right away, instead of launching into his usual six- or seven-hour diatribes.
Breaking with diplomatic protocol and common courtesy -- Castro had promised Fox their phone call was private -- Castro on Monday released a transcript of their conversation and accused the Mexican president of trying to muzzle him in order to coddle the United States. Apparently, what finally lit Castro's fuse was the unprecedented vote last week by Mexico in favor of a U.N. resolution condemning Cuba's human rights record.
Since then, there's been a blizzard of mutual accusations, and criticism of Fox by Mexican opposition parties. Ironically, during all the fireworks, Cuba has still been negotiating to get Mexican gasoline -- on credit -- so all those '58 Fords and Chevys in Havana can keep running. ...
This is fun to watch. Castro seems to be softening his rhetoric. Evidently someone has reminded him that Cuba is hardly in a position to alienate any friends. Those '58 Fords get thirsty.
San Francisco Chronicle
Limited, cautious, sketchy -- all the wrong words apply to the Vatican summit on sexual abuse among the American priesthood. Only a pledge to defrock the worst of the worst emerged, not a fuller answer needed to end a devastating scandal.
It's unfair to load a quickie, two-day session with the huge task of answering all the questions. Pope John Paul II showed he was troubled by the "appalling sin" of pedophilia, its harm to victims and sagging morale of priests and laity.
But the Roman Catholic Church needs more than expressions of concern. The American cardinals laid down the law on "notorious" priests "guilty of serial, predatory sexual abuse of minors." The guilty will go, the leadership stated.
After this easy call, the commitment gets murky. Priests who are "not notorious," meaning guilty of an isolated or long-ago transgression, will be handled less decisively. For now, their future rests with local bishops, the churchmen who failed so badly to discipline wrongdoers in the past.
Zero tolerance for abusers was talked up but then set aside. The reasons aren't clear, and the cautious cardinals should consider the message they're sending. ...
The Vatican session fell short of supplying answers. It will be up to American prelates to measure the continuing trouble and take action.
(Compiled by United Press International.)
