DATE=04/05/02

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=BUSH/MIDDLE EAST

NUMBER=6-125629

BYLINE=TEDDIE WEYR

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

CONTENT=

INTRO: President Bush's decision to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East in an effort to stem Israeli-Palestinian violence, is being welcomed in many U-S newspaper editorials. But some say that in calling for Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian-controlled areas, Mr. Bush bowed to pressure from Europe and the Arab world. And some caution that a sustained effort will be required for the peace process to move forward. Here with a sampling of U-S editorial comment is V-O-A's __________.

TEXT: In what is seen by many as a policy shift on the Middle East, President Bush signaled greater U-S involvement in the region, announcing that he was sending Secretary Powell there next week. President Bush called for an immediate cease-fire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian-controlled areas. At the same time, Mr. Bush said Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had failed to stop suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis. He also warned Iran and Syria to "stay out" of the conflict.

The New York Times welcomes Mr. Bush's initiative, saying "the Middle East is under an intolerable siege of violence," and "only the United States can force the sides back from the brink."

VOICE: After an agonizing week of contradictory signals, the Bush administration stepped forward yesterday to do just that with a pointed and powerful speech by the president. It came none too soon, and, we hope, not too late. In reversing himself and announcing that Secretary of State Colin Powell would go to the region next week, President Bush did not flinch from spelling out truths that all sides in the region seek to avoid but that need to be stated explicitly.

... Secretary Powell has the unenviable task of seeking to persuade the leaders of the region to take painful but necessary steps.

TEXT: The Washington Post calls President Bush's speech "forceful," saying it "contained good and badly needed messages for all sides."

VOICE: It was one of the bluntest speeches ever made by an American president on the Middle East; though he acted belatedly, Mr. Bush clearly laid out what must be done to ease a rapidly deepening crisis. The president's action should .... transform a U-S role in the region that for the past year has been timid, unproductive and sometimes incoherent.

... If the U-S initiative is to succeed, Mr. Bush must continue to act personally and forcefully to insist that all sides respect the demands he has made on them. Performance should be the only acceptable measure for Mr. Arafat, Mr. Sharon and the Arab governments; a failure to act must bring consequences.

TEXT: The Wall Street Journal, calling the Arab-Israeli conflict "unsolvable," says President Bush has "bowed to pressure" from Europe and the Arab world in urging Israel to pull out of the West Bank.

VOICE: This strikes us as a mistake, maybe even a large one, though it all might be redeemed if this helps Mr. Bush refocus the war on terror back on Iraq.

... The only terms Mr. Sharon has set for resuming negotiations with Mr. Arafat is an end to the violence -- hardly unreasonable. If Mr. Powell now waters even that basic demand down, as European elites and the State bureaucracy will insist, then the U-S will truly be rewarding terror. ... What risks getting lost here is the common U-S-Israeli interest in making sure that suicide bombing doesn't succeed as a political tactic.

... Mr. Bush was blunt in calling other Mideast nations part of the terror problem for both Israel and the U-S. ... This hints that Mr. Bush still knows that the real long-term solution in Palestine isn't in Jerusalem but in Baghdad. If yesterday's speech calms Palestine enough to let Mr. Bush refocus the war on Iraq, then (and only then) his bending will have been worth it.

TEXT: The Washington Times calls Mr. Bush's move "a desperate attempt to revive the Mideast peace process."

VOICE: Unfortunately, in an effort to denounce terrorism against Israel without offending the Arab world, Mr. Bush delivered a muddled, confusing message that will do nothing to advance the cause he is advocating.

TEXT: The national newspaper, U-S-A Today, says Mr. Bush's decision to send Secretary Powell to the region -- quote -- "signals a welcome shift by an administration that has avoided involvement for fear of being blamed if its diplomacy failed."

TEXT: The Houston Chronicle, under the headline: This could be a moment of hope and leadership, comments:

VOICE: [Mr.] Bush has come under increasing criticism for not being engaged enough personally and for allowing the deterioration of events to unfold. Though it's far from clear that [Mr.] Bush could have done anything to change events, he has now at least made the position of his administration clear.

/// OPT /// [Mr. Bush], like previous presidents, may have felt he could stand back from the difficulties of the Middle East. He also had the fresh example of the personal investment and disappointment his predecessor, Bill Clinton, experienced in dealing with these seemingly intractable issues. But his realization and articulation of the important leadership role for the United States is welcomed. /// END OPT ///

TEXT: The Christian Science Monitor says President Bush has had to learn quickly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and must learn to distinguish between U-S interests in the region and those of others.

VOICE: /// OPT /// An American leader must check an instinct to side with every Israeli action or to sympathize with all the Palestinian frustrations that compel even girls to become mobile bombs. [Mr.] Bush's flip-flop on those instincts was made clear this week. At first, he winked in approval at Israel's invasion of the West Bank to root out terrorists. But then his secretary of state decided that the Palestinians could not suffer the destruction of their cities and be expected to end their general support of the bombings. Mr. Powell wants to move to a political solution even before a truce is set.

That difficult choice reflects the subtle difference between Israel's war and America's up to now, Bush has seen them as strategically equal. But the difference is this: Israel will eventually need to live next to the millions of Palestinians it is now oppressing, while the United States must merely destroy al -Qaida and shut down the governments that support it. /// END OPT ///

TEXT: The Oklahoman says, during his trip to the region, Mr. Powell should -- quote -- "be less concerned with [Mr.] Arafat's personal plight than with identifying individuals who will move the Palestinian cause beyond terrorism."

TEXT: The Los Angeles Times says Mr. Bush's initiative -- quote -- "provides a road map to end the slaughter in the Middle East."

VOICE: Israel is right to defend itself aggressively against the terrorists who want to drive the area's sole democracy into the sea. But wholesale attacks on Palestinian cities create more extremists. By suggesting a realistic vision of a Palestinian state, [Mr.] Bush gives those in the occupied territories a reason to rein in the violence, a goal to negotiate toward. [Mr. ] Arafat has squandered past opportunities. His followers should not let him do so again.

TEXT: That concludes this roundup of U-S editorial opinion.

NEB/TW/RH