When Europeans and Americans Disagree
In the public arena on both continents, all (even the most extreme) points of view are represented. But that tells us little about which points of view dominate in the news media that determine mainstream opinion. Here, our differences are in fact considerable.

I was struck by the fact that as recently as the time of Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to the Middle East, American television had barely raised the subject of settlements in the occupied territories. The American press, in contrast to the European press, has only recently noted that in the short time since Mr. Sharon took office, some 30 new settlements have been created — a policy of unlawful land seizure that every Israeli administration (with the exception of the Rabin administration) has pursued. When American commentators mention this problem, they treat it as inappropriate behavior, but hardly justifying any kind of strong response.

No one on the American side of the Atlantic seems to want to mention the settlements by name, as if to escape the suspicion that to do so might present a motive for the suicide bombings. Nothing can justify these attacks, but that doesn't mean that the taking of land should be silently accepted. Absent a recognition of this issue, demonstrating Palestinians can seem like a blindly raging mob, with no legitimate grounds for protest.

Europeans and Americans tend also to differ in their assessments of Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon. Most observers on both continents believe Mr. Arafat has a split strategy: preaching peace when he speaks in English, fomenting a jihad when he speaks in Arabic. Still, Europeans are generally stunned by the conviction with which the Bush administration has embraced Mr. Sharon's view that Mr. Arafat is the head terrorist, able to stop Palestinian terrorism with a single command. The photos that showed Yasir Arafat in his broken headquarters before his release last week did nothing to make this version of the situation more convincing.

But even assuming for a moment that Mr. Arafat is the head terrorist, why would the Bush administration continue to promote him as an equal partner in the negotiation process? Most European observers know for a fact that Yasir Arafat has, over the past 30 years, accomplished nothing for his people, and that he rejected an opportunity at Camp David — perhaps the only one ever — to achieve a just peace. That alone should be enough to discredit him as a negotiating partner. Even so, what sense was there in the Israeli Army's devastating not just Mr. Arafat's headquarters, but all the infrastructure that even the most Sharon-friendly Palestinian Authority would need to function: the airport, municipal buildings, schools, banks and streets?

Another point of discord is over Ariel Sharon's credibility. The Bush administration has called him a "man of peace." Yet most Europeans would note that he seems to have done everything he could to torpedo the peace initiative, including refusing to halt or remove the settlements. This is why many Europeans question the American conviction that Mr. Sharon really does want a viable Palestinian state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/opinion/05SCHN.html