The new escalation of violence in the Middle East and in particular the massacre of 19 students in Jerusalem by a “kamikaze” monopolizes the attention of the main international dailies. The recurrent question is that of the new problems that are jeopardizing the peace process in the Middle East, after the beginning of the construction of the “wall” that is intended to divide Israeli from Palestinian territories. The possible significance of Israel’s measure is commented on by Le Monde (19/6): “Political and permanent for the one side, security-geared and provisional for the other, the barrier being constructed to protect Israel from Palestinian terrorist infiltrations had no sooner begun to rise from the ground than it began to arouse bitter controversy. The work of construction, inaugurated in a fury of public relations by the minister of defence, Benyamin Ben Eliezer, on Sunday 16 June, in the northern part of the West Bank, provided the occasion for the various Israeli and Palestinian players to display their profound divergences on this physical ‘separation, which is supported, according to recent surveys, by 60% of the population of Israel. Planned to run along the 350 kilometres that separate Israel from the West Bank, the first 130 kilometres of the barrier are scheduled to be completed in six months”. “Kamikaze kills 19 persons on a bus in Israel”, is the headline of the Herald Tribune of 19/6, describing the outrage perpetrated by a suicide bomber: “The Israeli authorities comments James Bennet have threatened to retaliate after a Palestinian kamikaze exploded a packet of explosive in a city bus packed with commuters and students. The human bomb killed 19 passengers and derailed the plans of the Bush administration for a new initiative in favour of peace in the Middle East. After the attack, senior representatives of the Bush administration said that the president could send back Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region next week. They fear that the explosive attack, condemned by the White House, could delay Bush’s announcement of the new initiative”. An article by Andreas Platthaus published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 17/6 reports on the construction of the wall that will divide Israelis from Palestinians and on the appeal for the separation between the two peoples which was presented by sixteen intellectuals including the German Hans Magnus Enzensberger and several Italians and which takes as its model “ the Franco-German reconciliation” of the post-war period . “This explicit reference to Germany represents – according to the journalist – a certain provocation for the Israelis and must also make us reflect. But it shouldn’t be ignored that these accords were facilitated in an almost cynical way by the expulsions ordered immediately after the end of the war“. The question is resumed by the same paper on 18/6: “ Terrorism has succeeded in obtaining – says the comment in the FAZ – that the separation, not the desire to make an effort in spite of the contrasts, is the dominant motive for the actions. In this way security may be increased in the short term, but the separation in people’s minds increases. This gulf is expression of the fear and of the inability even to think of a common future.” The weekly Der Spiegel of 17/6 dedicates its cover story to the influx of refugees into Europe and European policies on immigration, under the headline: “ The assault of the immigrants. Europe closes its frontiers“. The authors are Renate Flottau, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, Sylvia Schreiber, Erich Wiedemann and Bernhard Zand, who comment on the proposals of the European Commission as follows: “ If the heads of state and of government, meeting at the summit in Seville, are due to set to work once again on the great European dossier [on immigration], this is tantamount to an admission of the failure of the previous policy“. “ Guilty of the dilemma – according to the authors – are the populism of the right, the terrorist cells of Islamic fundamentalists in Europe and the lack of any will to integrate on the part of the immigrants“. The FAO summit which has just ended in Rome is the subject of some comments in the German press: “ Limited nutritional value” is the headline in the Frankfurter Rundschau of 13/6, referring to the final declaration of the congress. Brigitte Kols observes: “ The rich countries tackle the problem of hunger in the world with constant indifference“. “ Can a summit against famine in the world serve any purpose?“, asks Tobias Piller in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 14/6: “ The FAO has presented a programme that is admirable, comprehensive and yet composed of simple elements. But as an organization of the United Nations the FAO encounters limitations, because it provides a platform not only for those who are actively combatting famine but also for those who don’t care tuppence about it“.
