Excerpts: West faulted for condemning Iran. Trickster Sharon.Egypt's
Muslim-Christian split. 28 October 20005

+++ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 28 Oct.'05:"Editorial: Contrived Fury"
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"Western fury, with countries such as Canada, France, the UK andSpain
hauling in the
Iranian ambassador and protesting, looks contrived."

"Four years ago, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, regarded by the
West as a moderate,
called for the nuclear annihilation of Israel."

"the words were mere rhetoric"

"the US and the West imagine that a nuclear Iran would bomb Israel"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT:
It was certainly undiplomatic of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to
call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" at a conference on Zionism in
Tehran. But the wave of Western fury, with countries such as Canada, France,
the UK and Spain hauling in the Iranian ambassador and protesting, looks
contrived.
Is this the same France that four years ago ignored the comments of its then
ambassador in London, Daniel Bernard, who called Israel "that shitty little
country"? Is this the same UK that likewise turned a deaf ear? Nor is it the
first time an Iranian leader has used such language. Four years ago, former
President Hashemi Rafsanjani, regarded by the West as a moderate, called for
the nuclear annihilation of Israel. The West did not blink an eye. Ever
since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been consistently and vehemently
anti-Israel. The rest of the world has known it and lived with it. It lived
with the knowledge because it also knew that Iran was not in a position to
wipe Israel off the map and that the words were mere rhetoric from those who
wanted to give their people something other than their failures to think
about. The rest of the world too has been happy to live with the knowledge
that most Muslims and Arabs would prefer that Israel did not exist. But it
does exist. It is a question of accepting reality.
So why the apparent anger at something known? And why is it that only the
West is making a fuss?
This response has far more to do with Western fears about Iran's nuclear
intentions than with its views about Israel. Washington, which does not have
diplomatic relations with Tehran and so could not haul in the ambassador to
protest, let the cat out of the bag when it said that the comment showed it
was right to be concerned about Iran's nuclear program.
Yet that is a worrying leap of logic. It suggests that the US and the West
imagine that a nuclear Iran would bomb Israel. If they do, it is
frightening, given what happened with Iraq and the myth of weapons of mass
destruction there. Without a breakthrough on the Iran nuclear issue, it
makes an attack on its nuclear facilities a strong likelihood. Is the ground
being prepared for Israelis doing it, acting on Washington's behalf - a
carbon copy of what happened in 1981 when Israel destroyed the Osirak
nuclear plant near Baghdad? That cannot be ruled out. Last February
President Bush said that the US would back an Israeli attack on Iran if the
latter tried to make nuclear bombs and the former felt threatened. And now
we have President Ahmadinejad being as provocative as he can, using words
that are loaded: To wipe a country off the map involves something fairly
spectacular.
This, of course, is Ahmadinejad the radical speaking, Ahmadinejad the
politician who perhaps wants to divert attention from his government's
failure so far to deliver on his promises to Iran's poor. That is where he
needs to concentrate his energies and his passion. The danger is that with
such rhetoric he gives his nation's enemies the chance to act.

+++JORDAN TIMES 28-29 Oct.'05:Editorial:Sharon's ammunition"
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"Once again ... Sharon is condemning the region to
more bloodshed and instability."

"As long as the voices of extremism continue to spew
hatred and anti-Jewish propaganda and foment
terrorism, there will be many in the international
community ready to stand beside the Jewish state,"

"Ahmadinejad's statement harms the Arab, Palestinian
and Islamic cause."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS:
Once again ... Sharon is condemning the region to more bloodshed and
instability.
His policies over the past five years have consistently shattered the hope
that patient negotiations, wise and quiet diplomacy, and the goodwill of
some international leaders had managed to keep alive or revive.
[IMRA: Of course, all blame on Israel. Intifada II began in the Barak
government.]
Yesterday, Sharon thundered some more of his promises of further violence
and hatred. His threats of "wide-ranging and ceaseless" operations of
collective punishment, state murder and military occupation are nothing new.
Nor are the tanks rolling into Jenin: Blood will bring more blood, and
hatred will bring more hatred. Nor the fact that today's Israeli
"operations" will nurture the next generation of suicide bombers.
... The Israeli prime minister and all Israeli extremists have long been
taking advantage of several psychological, cultural and diplomatic factors
playing in their hands on the international scene.
[IMRA: But the "extremists" oppose Sharon.]
First, the widespread - and rightful - sympathy for all Jews persecuted by
the Nazis. Second, the outrage at the revisionists' attempts to deny or
belittle the horror of the concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. Last
... the instinctive sense of solidarity with Israel that many international
community members cannot help but feel in the face of inflammatory
anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda.
As long as the voices of extremism continue to spew hatred and anti-Jewish
propaganda and foment terrorism, there will be many in the international
community ready to stand beside the Jewish state, or to buy Sharon's
argument that his military occupation of Palestine is a legitimate act of
self-defence in the war on terror.
[IMRA: Jordan is a prime instigator of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel
education through authorized textbooks.]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call on Wednesday for Israel to be
"wiped off the map" not only undermines Tehran's line that its nuclear
programme is solely for civilian purposes, it also offers Sharon many
sympathy cards free of charge to use in the international arena.
Ahmadinejad's statement harms the Arab, Palestinian and Islamic cause.
[IMRA: Never mind immorality. Evidently it would be fine if it didn't
also harm the"Palestinian and Islamic cause".]
How can we convince the international community and world opinion that
Muslims deserve respect and consideration when the leader of an Islamic
state calls outright for another country's annihilation?
Extremism is the best ally of all the Sharons in the world.

+++AL-AHRAM WEEKLY 27 Oct.-2 Nov.'05:"Editorial: Facing down sectarianism"
QUOTES FROM TEXT:
"in thhcurrent situation a few sparks can quickly set off a bonfire as
happened when Muslim crowds attacked a church and Coptic shops last week in
Alexandria"
"Muslim and Coptic fanatics view all but their strictest co-religionists
as ungodly."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL TEXT:
To play down sectarian tensions is a dangerous strategy. What is needed is
to address the facts squarely, not brush them beneath the carpet. Inequities
exist: they need to be recognised and then tackled.
Mosques and churches have turned into political arenas. It can be argued
that this has happened because political parties have been decimated by the
state, are in shambles or else are clueless. What cannot be denied, though,
is that in the current situation a few sparks can quickly set off a bonfire,
as happened when Muslim crowds attacked a church and Coptic shops last week
in Alexandria.
The urge to violence is not confined to religion. Football fans in Cairo
recently attacked the residence of a club chairman and beat his daughter.
National Democratic Party supporters have clashed with opposition members in
the streets. There is an undercurrent of violence in our society that must
be addressed.
Muslim and Coptic fanatics view all but their strictest co-religionists as
ungodly. And unless we do something about the fanaticism that has led to
this situation tragic incidents of the type seen in Alexandria will be
repeated. Police intervention can only do so much. The problem is much
bigger than one of preventing crime.
One cause of sectarian tensions is that the government is weak. It does not
want to be seen to be punishing Muslim fanatics for fear of alienating the
Muslim public. It does not want to punish Coptic fanatics for fear of
foreign pressure fomented by expatriate groups. Meanwhile, the problem
festers.
There are those who use mosques to stir up conflict, feeding young people a
diet of hatred. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Muslim
Brotherhood must take some of the blame for this morbid attitude.
Neither is the Coptic Church blameless. For the past few years the church
has been appropriating a political role to which, as a religious
institution, it is ill-suited.
It is hard to believe that a CD of a two-year-old theatrical performance
could provoke such an outcry. Yet it did, and it did so because there are
fanatics, on both sides of the equation, who believe they will benefit from
sectarian conflict.

Dr. Joseph Lerner, Co-Director IMRA