US embassy cable - 05DHAKA1175

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 DHAKA 001175 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE 
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER), SA/RA, INR/R/MR, 
AND PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON) 
 
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER), J45 
(MAJ NICHOLLS) 
 
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KMDR, OIIP, OPRC, KPAO, PREL, ETRD, PTER, ASEC, BG, OCII 
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Middle East;Dhaka 
Summary:  Various newspapers comment that Israel continues 
to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the United States. 
The United States' reaction to North Korea's possession of 
nuclear weapons is discriminatory to Muslims. 
----------- 
Middle East 
----------- 
 
"Fight Against Jihadis And Crusaders Alike Is The Need Of 
The Hour" 
Independent English daily "New Age" op-ed opines (03/16/05): 
Just look at the present global scenario. The Bush 
administration's primary foreign policy goal in its second 
term seems to be `regime change' in Syria, as follow-up to 
the regime change in Iraq. Bush's `axis of evil', referred 
to in the infamous speech delivered in 2000, did not include 
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush 
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that 
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because 
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to 
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was 
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by 
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political 
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic 
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by 
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is 
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for 
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush 
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May, 
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon 
since last week. 
 
Again, it is the United State's official policies towards 
Muslims that allows people like Daniel Pipes to even create 
and run so-called think tanks to perpetually malign the 
Muslims. Pipes heads a private sector think-tank called 
Middle East Forum (MEF), which is a fierce opponent of 
Palestinian nationalism. He has recently proposed the 
creation of an Anti-Islamist Institute (AII), designed to 
expose `legal' political activities of the Islamists, such 
as `prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by- 
products to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq', which, he 
believes, `serves the interests of radical Islam'. `In the 
legal term...the legal activities of Islamists pose as much 
or even a greater set of challenges than the illegal ones,' 
Pipes reportedly argued recently in a proposal for a grant 
for the MEF. The AII's proclaimed goal is the 
`delegitimatiom of the Islamists'. `We wish to have them 
shunned by the government, the media, the churches, the 
academy and the corporate world.' 
 
Israel continues to enjoy the unqualified friendship of the 
United States. `Israel's expansion has included ethnic 
cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for 
centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror 
aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of 
the Israeli state. The methods of groups like Irgun and the 
Stern gang were the same as those of the Bosnian Serb 
Karadzic: to drive out people by terror,' writes Ken 
Livingstone, mayor of London, for the UK-based Guardian on 
March 5. `Today the Israeli government continues seizures of 
Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into 
surrounding countries and denial of the right of 
Palestinians expelled by terror to return. Ariel Sharon, 
Israel's prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in 
prison, not in office.' 
 
However, the fundamentalist discrimination against the 
Muslims becomes further evident if one looks at Washington's 
attitude towards a non-Muslim country, North Korea that 
already possesses nuclear bombs. The political establishment 
in Pyongyang announced on February 10 that it has nuclear 
weapons and unilaterally suspended the disarmament 
discussion with the China-led four-nation negotiation team 
that includes Japan, Russia and South Korea. But the United 
State's reaction is that they need to `engage in vigorous 
diplomatic efforts' to coax North Korea back to the 
bargaining table. North Korea also announced in September 
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush 
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that 
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because 
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to 
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was 
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by 
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political 
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic 
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by 
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is 
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for 
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush 
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May, 
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon 
since last week. 
 
2004, and that too at the United Nations, that it had 
`transformed material for nuclear weapons into arms'. The 
US's reported reaction, at that time, was that it was a 
`regional issue', which `should be dealt with by North 
Korea's neighbors'. 
 
------------- 
"A Banner of Peace" 
Independent English daily "New Age" editorial comments 
(0316/05): 
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has vowed that the peace 
process in the Middle East will go ahead. He was obviously 
going through pangs of enthusiasm after a meeting with 
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on March 14. 
There is little question that since the death of Yasser 
Arafat and the rise of Abbas to the presidency of the 
Palestinian Authority, things have really been moving in the 
region. Mr. Abbas has been the recipient of honors in such 
important places as the United States and Britain. It is 
clear that men of the likes of George W. Bush are quite 
willing to engage with him in negotiations over the future 
of the Palestinians. And he has already had meetings with 
the hawkish Ariel Sharon over the future of the region. It 
is all the cumulative result of all these happenings that 
may now have prompted Mr. Annan into expressing his optimism 
about the future of the most volatile part of the planet. 
 
But there is a new difficulty which neither Mr. Annan nor 
anyone else may have foreseen earlier. Even as he was into 
his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli authorities made 
a new announcement about the barrier they have already 
constructed to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of 
Israel and parts of the Arab land it has kept occupied. They 
have now said that there will be a new extension to the 
barrier that will effectively shut the Palestinians off from 
East Jerusalem. That is quite a blow to the tentative 
momentum, which has come to the peace process in recent 
weeks. And given the fact that a key demand of the 
Palestinians has always been the establishment of their 
capital in East Jerusalem if and when a sovereign Palestine 
actually takes shape, the new round of fencing can only add 
to the complications. It will not be the Palestinians who 
can or will be blamed. The burden will fall squarely on the 
shoulders of the Israelis, who have kept adhering to the 
curious thought that the barrier will be enough to deter the 
young men determined to carry out their murderous acts 
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush 
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that 
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because 
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to 
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was 
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by 
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political 
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic 
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by 
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is 
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for 
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush 
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May, 
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon 
since last week. 
 
against Israeli citizens. As the politically astute Hanan 
Ashrawi has pointed out, even the barrier has proved 
insufficient in the matter of stopping Palestinians from 
carrying out suicide bombings. Besides, there are very good 
reasons why Israel and its friends, particularly the United 
States, must now seriously go into the causes of the current 
troubles. What is important today is not that some kind of 
Palestinian entity will be forged from the territories 
Israel plans to give up. The important thing is that the UN 
Security Council resolutions, especially 242, asking for a 
full and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Arab 
lands occupied in June 1967 be implemented all the way. 
Besides, it will serve little purpose, indeed it may give 
rise to new deadlock if the right of Palestinians to return 
to the homes that are now in the state of Israel is not 
granted. An exodus in times of war cannot be an excuse for 
anyone to lay claim to the property of those who have left 
out of fear. 
It will be up to Mr. Abbas to devise the means by which he 
can wring concessions out of the Israelis. As for the 
Israelis, their deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has 
suggested that the barrier will come down once terrorism 
comes to an end. That is a fuzzy statement. It does not do 
anyone any good. It will only disappoint people such as Kofi 
Annan. 
------------- 
 
"American Conspiracy to Attack Iran By Israel" 
 
Large circulation independent Bangla language daily 
"Jugantor" op-ed article says (03/16/05): 
 
On what basis Israel will launch an attack on Iran should 
Iran possess nuclear weapons?  Is it due to the fact the 
Israel is the main weapon of American terrorism in the 
Middle East and its main executioner in the region?  Israel 
does not possess that much of power without the American 
support through which Israel can threaten each Middle East 
country and attack them. 
 
President Bush terms every country as terrorists in his 
speeches and literally wails to free the world from 
terrorism.  That is why he has been launching military 
attacks on various countries.  But why will he not prevent 
Israel from attacking Iran?  Will not the Israeli attack be 
an act of terrorism?  Will not it be the most naked example 
Syria, but in his latest state of the union address Bush 
named the country, alongside Iran, hinting clearly that 
Syria's `rise up the bad guys' league table' (sic). Because 
Washington's prime objective in the Middle East region is to 
secure Israel's political and strategic interests, which was 
evident in a US-sponsored study - A Clean Break: A New 
Strategy for Securing the Realm - eventually published by 
Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political 
Studies in 1996, that said, `Israel can shape its strategic 
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by 
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.' This is 
the report that provided Washington with the guideline for 
enacting the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
Restoration Act just over a year ago, under which the Bush 
administration imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May, 
2004, and compelled it to begin pulling out from Lebanon 
since last week. 
 
of state terrorism?  Of course it is.  But it makes little 
difference to Mr. Bush.  He occupied Afghanistan and Iraq on 
false pretexts.  The United States is now mad to exert its 
control over the entire Middle East.  It is the Americans' 
most important condition to retain its supremacy as the 
number one imperialist country.  The preparation to attack 
Iran is part of that condition to maintain its supremacy. 
 
Thomas