New York Times
Sari Nusseibeh seems an odd focus for Israeli anger. Dr. Nusseibeh, the Palestinian Authority's representative in Jerusalem, is the leading voice of moderation within mainstream Palestinian politics. In a breathtakingly wrongheaded move, Israel shut down his office at Al-Quds University on Tuesday. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should limit the damage by quickly reversing the decision.
Last month President Bush exhorted Palestinians to turn to "new and different" Palestinian leaders, "not compromised by terror." Dr. Nusseibeh, a scholarly man descended from an elite Jerusalem family, would occupy a prominent place on any list of such leaders. He has repeatedly taken constructive positions, sometimes in opposition to Yasir Arafat. ...
Under the 1993 Oslo accord, Israel can approve or disapprove any Palestinian Authority office or activities in Jerusalem. The Sharon government decided to invoke this power to close Dr. Nusseibeh's office on the grounds that he was using it to carry out his representative functions. At a moment when Israel should be embracing moderate Palestinians, this narrow reading of the tattered Oslo agreement is self-defeating.
Washington Times
The shot that killed Afghan Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir on Saturday was heard around the world, resonating with special significance in Washington. His assassination could cause a host of strategic problems for the United States, both in tactical and less tangible (but no less important) terms. While there is a lively debate about who shot Mr. Qadir, it seems irrefutable that Afghanistan's coalition government and, more to the point, the U.S. government that supports it, was the target.
Mr. Qadir was probably killed in an ethnically or tribally driven power struggle. The Qadir killing is expected to trigger, at the very least, tribal warring in Jalalabad, the capital of the Nangahar province where Mr. Qadir was governor. This region has been a main theater of operations for U.S. troops hunting down al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. Peripheral infighting will complicate the U.S. mission and could ultimately claim the lives of U.S. troops.
But there is a grimmer scenario to consider as a result of Mr. Qadir's death. Mr. Qadir, a powerful Pashtun tribal leader, represented Afghanistan's ethnic majority. Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, is also a widely respected Pashtun intellectual, but lacks Mr. Qadir's tribal clout. The rest of Afghanistan's government and the bulk of the military is dominated by Tajiks, the ethnic group that primarily manned the Northern Alliance that helped America trounce the Taliban. With Mr. Qadir gone, the cleverly conceived but tenuous coalition U.S. officials helped build could crumble. ...
Whoever assassinated Mr. Qadir is clearly seeking to challenge U.S.-supported stability in Afghanistan for tactical advantage. The White House has painstakingly helped construct a democratic infrastructure in Afghanistan. Now, it must take measures to ensure its durability. Tribal thugs in Afghanistan can't be allowed to undermine such critical interests at the point of a gun.
Dallas Morning News
The U.S. needs to start exercising some diplomacy -- not toward Iraq but on the issue of Iraq, to get the world aligned with U.S. leaders' thinking.
The recently revealed existence of U.S. Central Command planning documents that would have as many as 250,000 American troops invading Iraq should not come as a surprise. The armed forces ought to be planning for contingencies against many possible foes. What was a surprise was the lack of administration uproar over the supposed leak of classified material. The administration did not appear to mind that Iraq would see the U.S. prepared to flex military might just as United Nations talks are proceeding to reintroduce weapons inspectors into Iraq.
However, Iraq has not yet been sufficiently impressed. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said some progress had been achieved in the recent talks, but that he would have preferred more. So would everyone. The inspectors have been barred for three years already -- giving Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein plenty of time to build his weapons of mass destruction.
Pressure needs to be put on Mr. Hussein to admit inspectors. ...
The administration is clearly concerned about attacks with weapons of mass destruction or disruption by terrorists possibly affiliated with a state like Iraq. American civil defense has proceeded with the administration preparing inoculation programs against smallpox and anthrax. The government also purchased 350,000 potassium iodide tablets, which offer limited protection against a nuclear disaster.
Others, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, also claim to have evidence of an Iraqi weapons buildup. And, yes, Mr. Hussein has used chemical weapons in the past. But it's up to the United States to prove that a growing Iraqi intent to use weapons of mass impact requires a response -- and one that should not come just from the United States.
New Orleans Times Picayune
If Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is successful in pushing through a plan that would bar Arab citizens from living in certain predominantly Jewish areas, the country can stop describing itself as a democracy or as a nation that places a priority on human rights.
Throughout the current conflict with the Palestinian people, Israeli officials have attempted to paint themselves as the more moral of the two sides, but if they insist on establishing certain parts of the country where only Jews can live, they will erode their claim to moral authority.
Prime Minister Sharon is endorsing a plan drafted by his nation's right-wing and religious parties that would effectively establish a hierarchy of citizenship. In that hierarchy, Jews would enjoy more rights and freedoms than their Arab counterparts would. ...
History has not looked kindly upon countries that draft racial codes and keep their citizens segregated. The slavery and Jim Crow eras in the United States represent some of our country's darkest days. Apartheid in South Africa was looked upon with scorn by people around the world. Most pointedly, Nazi-era Germany's extermination of Jewish people across Europe began by separating out citizens based on ethnicity.
Given their own history of oppression, their own victimization by the Nazis, how could Jews in Israel even contemplate a law that would deny other ethnic groups certain freedoms? ...
Some Israelis say the 2000 court ruling and the new proposal to restrict certain Arab freedoms illustrate the difficulty Israel has in trying to be both a Zionist state and a democracy. It would seem, however, that a system of laws that treats all citizens equally can be maintained even in a country established as a home for a specific group of people.
"My dream is to live as an equal among equals," said Mr. Qaadan. That's not an outrageous desire. And if Israel is the freedom-loving country it claims to be, government officials won't deny him his dream.
(Compiled by United Press International)
