🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht <199802211857.MAA16134@dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com>
   vom 22.02.98 10:53 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : I.Musa@Forum.gun.de
## Ersteller: ina@ix.netcom.com (ina)


   The New York Times,
   February 21, 1998


      *Arabs See U.S.-Israel Relationship as Double Standard*

       By STEVEN ERLANGER

   WASHINGTON -- When  President Clinton  spoke this week of sharply
   reducing Iraq's "capacity to threaten its neighbors," he referred
   to Saudi Arabia,  Kuwait and the other Persian  Gulf nations, but
   above all to the American commitment to the security of Israel.

   This commitment to Israel's survival is strategic, historical and
   political,  and presidents from  Richard M. Nixon  onward  have
   insisted on preserving Israel's military advantage over its Arab
   neighbors.

   But with a conservative Likud prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,
   in power and the prospects for an Arab-Israeli peace settlement
   looking dim, American support for Israel has brought charges of
   double standards and hypocrisy from many Arabs and Arab-Americans.

   They say Washington is willing to bomb Iraq to enforce Security
   Council resolutions but does not even criticize Israel when it
   flouts the council. And Israel possesses weapons of mass destruc-
   tion -- nuclear weapons -- but this draws no overt criticism from
   Washington.

   "The perception of an American double standard has undercut U.S.
   credibility and that of the Arab governments who are allied to
   the United States,"  said  James Zogby,  president of the Arab
   American Institute in Washington. "The ordinary Arab on the street
   is both angry and alienated, and that is every bit as significant
   a factor in the political equation as any of the military compo-
   nents."

   Sam Husseini, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimi-
   nation Committee, said, "The Clinton administration keeps citing
   U.N. Security Council resolutions and Iraq's weapons of mass
   destruction, but Israel is guilty on both counts."

   The criticisms are particularly acute because Iraq has done
   nothing so clear and indefensible as invading Kuwait, the justi-
   fication for the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

   Such public challenges gained international attention on Wednesday
   at the  "town meeting"  in Columbus,  Ohio,  where  questioners
   insisted that the administration's top foreign policy officials
   explain the perceived inconsistency. The forum was broadcast world-
   wide by CNN.

   Comparing Iraqi behavior to human rights abuses in Turkey, Saudi
   Arabia, Indonesia and Israel, a teacher from Cleveland asked, "Why
   does the U.S. apply different standards of justice to those
   countries?"

   The sense of unfairness is made more acute now, says Philip Mattar,
   executive director of the Institute for Palestine Studies, because
   of Washington's refusal to challenge Netanyahu, whose policies --
   on new settlements, for instance -- seem to have dimmed peace
   prospects.

   "The reaction of ordinary Arabs would be totally different if the
   United States could press both parties into progress on peace or
   come outstrongly against Netanyahu's intransigence," Mattar said.
   "And we would certainly not see the strong public reaction even
   by pro-American regimes, like Egypt, to the impending bombing of
   Iraq."

   Israeli officials reject the charge of double standards.

   Dore Gold, the Israeli representative at the United Nations, noted
   that the relevant U.N. resolutions on Iraq followed an invasion of
   Kuwait and come under Chapter 7 of the charter, which relate to a
   "breach of the peace or acts of aggression." The resolutions are
   self-enforcing, he said, meaning that the Security Council sets up
   mechanisms of enforcement, like weapons inspectors, without the
   need for any negotiation with Iraq.

   The many resolutions affecting Israel, its policies in Lebanon,
   its settlements and its negotiations with the Palestinians follow
   a defensive war, Gold said, and come under Chapter 6 of the charter,
   which governs peaceful settlement of disputes.

   "Israel's presence in the West Bank is a result of a war of self-
   defense," Gold said. "The relevant resolutions require Israel and
   its neighbors to sit down and negotiate to achieve the goals of
   Resolution 242." Those include secure borders for Israel and "the
   return of territories" seized by Israel. These resolutions, he
   said, are not self-enforcing.

   Still, Zogby and Husseini note, Washington has often used its veto
   in the Security Council to block many resolutions that criticize
   Israel or its policies toward the Palestinians or that demand its
   withdrawal from specific territory.

   There are important differences between the confrontation with Iraq
   today and the circumstances in 1991, and in American relations with
   Israel then and now.

   During the gulf war, for instance, the United States firmly and
   publicly urged Israel not to respond to 39 Iraqi Scud missiles
   that landed on its territory, killing two people and wounding
   hundreds, and to let the allied coalition carry the war against
   Iraq. Washington feared that an Israeli attack on Iraq might lead
   Arab nations to pull out of the coalition against Baghdad.

   Now, however, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has told the
   Israelis that "every country has the right to decide how to defend
   itself," and Netanyahu has vowed serious retaliation should Iraq
   attack.

                              * * * * *

   NYT, February 21, 1998

             *Crisis Has Arab-Americans Sad, Angry, Scared*

              By KEITH BRADSHER

    DEARBORN, Mich. -- Overhearing a conversation about possible air
    strikes against Iraq, George P. Asker set down the six boxes of
    baklava he had just bought and expressed the anguish he felt as a
    naturalized immigrant from Iraq.

    "I feel very, very bad, because Iraq is my mother country and the
    United States is my father country, and the two are quarreling",
    the 66-year-old retired supermarket owner said. "I could see the
    dispute in the Persian Gulf war, but I can't see it now."

    Throughout this middle-class Detroit suburb, the hub of the
    nation's largest Arab-American community, immigrants from Arab
    countries overwhelmingly oppose the prospect of U.S. military
    action.

    Where the Clinton administration sees a dictatorial government
    developing weapons of mass destruction, most residents here see
    the home of fellow Arabs who may be uncles and aunts, brothers
    and sisters.

    And while the Pentagon is laying plans to use guided bombs and
    cruise missiles in precise attacks against weapon factories and
    military bases, the worry here is that civilians may die by
    accident.

    "I don't care about Saddam Hussein," said Esam Nemer, 42, the
    general manager of the Palace Restaurant, who came here from
    Lebanon in 1974. "I care about the young child who is going to
    be separated from its parents, who perhaps are killed."

    At an English class for immigrants, a group of women, mostly
    Iraqis in white and black kerchiefs, unleashed a torrent of fear
    and anger in a mixture of English and Arabic. Living conditions
    for their loved ones in Iraq are already terrible because of
    economic sanctions and would become even worse in a military
    conflict, several women said.

    "They don't have medicine," said one of the women, all of whom
    insisted on anonymity because of concerns about family members in
    Iraq. "They don't have food. They don't have electricity. The
    water is dirty."

    Thousands of Iraqis have moved to the Detroit area since the
    Persian Gulf war of 1991, mainly Shiite Muslims from southern
    Iraq who fled after a failed uprising against the government in
    Baghdad, which is dominated by members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim
    minority, to which Saddam belongs.

    None of the women in the English class had anything good to say
    about Saddam, but they doubted that a military strike would
    accomplish much. "Saddam Hussein is a war criminal," one said.
    "You can take him and do whatever you want to him without taking
    the war to Iraq."

    But dismay at the prospect of military action is tempered by a
    strong desire to support their adopted country's policies. In
    interviews this week, Arab-Americans tried to strike a balance.
    They said they believed that administration officials and U.S.
    generals wanted to restrict the damage from air strikes to mili-
    tary and governmental targets but doubted that this would be
    possible.

    "When America makes war on Iraq, it thinks it will destroy the
    important points, the army, but by mistake will destroy civilian
    houses," said Jamal Mourad, 40, a beauty salon owner. He immigra-
    ted here from Lebanon four years ago and is applying for U.S.
    citizenship. "I'm sure they mean a clean war, but maybe there is
    a mistake."

    Opposition to air strikes is notable because many local residents
    supported the U.S.-led military campaign in 1991 to drive the
    Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Nemer, for example, said he supported
    the Persian Gulf war because he believed that the invasion of
    Kuwait was morally wrong.

    "I saw the necessity of the war because Kuwait is just a neutral
    bystander," he said. "It doesn't have a strong army. I don't be-
    lieve in people invading countries, just as I don't believe in
    people invading homes."

    But Nemer contended that the Clinton administration had not proven
    that Iraq was pursuing such dangerous policies that a military
    assault was needed. "The public needs to hear more than just
    hearsay," he said.

    Samir Khoury, 53, a translator who stopped by the Palace Restaurant
    on Tuesday soon after President Clinton warned of possible military
    action, said opinions here were influenced by sentiment back in Arab
    countries.

    At the time of the gulf war, Khoury said, "the Arab nations had a
    very strong stand against Iraq."  "This time," he said, "they are
    more sympathetic to the Iraqi people."

    Nobody knows just how many Arab-Americans live in the Detroit area.
    Estimates range from 60,000 to 350,000. The Census Bureau estimated
    in 1990 that there were 870,000 Americans who considered their main
    ancestry to be Arabic. But the Arab American Institute, an advocacy
    group in Washington, contends that there are 2.5 million Americans
    with at least one Arab ancestor, and the largest community is around
    Detroit.

    Some younger Arab-Americans, including recent arrivals, are less
    concerned about the prospect of a military clash than their older
    relatives are. "I have no idea about that, I don't really watch
    the news," said Batoul Abbas, 23, a cashier who came to the United
    States from Lebanon six years ago. She sold Asker his baklava --
    or baklowa as he called it, using an Iraqi term instead of the
    Greek name for the sweet.

    But others share the worries of their older relatives. Ali Ammar,
    21, a college student sipping coffee at the counter of the Palace
    Restaurant, said his Lebanese ancestry gave him a sense of kinship
    with the people of Iraq. "I don't agree with the Iraqis, the way
    they make decisions, but they're still from my blood," he said.

                               * * * * *