Today, European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson delivered a stinging rebuke to Beijing. “During the summer some Chinese officials pointed out that less than 1 percent of China’s exports to Europe had alleged health risks,” Mandelson noted in a speech in the Chinese capital. “But Europe imports half a billion euros worth of goods from China every day—so even 1 percent is not acceptable.” The trade commissioner then told Beijing that “consumer safety is a zero-compromise issue.” Vice Premier Wu Yi, China’s so-called Iron Lady, was angry as she spoke to reporters afterwards. “I am extremely dissatisfied,” she said.
Her boss, President Hu Jintao, was also reported to be a bit peeved today. He got rough treatment from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who lectured the autocrat to his face in public. Sarkozy covered, among other things, the value of China’s currency, intellectual property, and human rights. The Chinese undoubtedly are bewildered by today’s events—they have not seen Euros act like this since Tiananmen.
Mandelson’s address and Sarkozy’s criticism come on the eve of the 10th China-European Union summit. Despite the fact that Beijing just placed large orders with Airbus and France’s Areva, observers say that the discussions this week in the Chinese capital will be tense. “For Europe, the ‘China honeymoon’ is over,” writes David Shambaugh of George Washington University.
We may think that Europeans are effete and spineless, but when was the last time someone from the Bush administration publicly told the Chinese off in their own capital? American officials like to speak about working cooperatively with China to solve “concerns,” while the Europeans are venting frustrations after years of useless dialogue. The welcomed departures of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder mark a change of mood in the heart of the EU. Perhaps President Bush should now take his cue from the new version of Old Europe.
“Ashkelon”
that’s important. many of hamas rockets are luanched there and the media never covers the significance of the refugee issue
“As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.”
I would say that Israel allowing in aid while bombing Hamas and caring for the Palestinians in its hospitals meets this goal.
The Time Op-Ed is just a reflection of the general rot that characterizes intellectual state of the region. Everything is a matter of propaganda and victimology. Introspection and self-criticism are vacant. Maybe someone should throw a rock through his office window. When apprehended they can say that it was symbolic gesture of joy. As to the Times, it as always is all the news and views that fit the narrative.
Khalidi’s confused. From Efraim Karsh, Commentary, May, 2008:
In Gaza in 1949, Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo found that while the Palestinian refugees “express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. ‘We know who our enemies are,’ they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes….I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.”
It is an excellent op-ed.
If you are going to lie it is pointless to be skimpy. Better to shatter the truth completely than to just wound it with ugly scratches. Good propaganda has no time for tap dancing. It has to be fearless and emphatic. Now those who want to believe Khalidi have solid meat to take away, instead of flimsy, equivocal treacle.
And it is a good op-ed for those who want a clear line of Khalidi, who want to know exactly what this Columbia professor is made of.
How about the overarching idiocy of “reduction in rockets fired… to a total of less than 20… The cease-fire broke down”.
Um, wtf? If they were still shooting rockets THERE WAS NO CEASE FIRE! What a moron.
Since I’m not going to be published in the NYTimes, here are my comments on Khalidi, behind who I stood in line for journalist accreditation at the Madrid Conference: http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-not-rashid-khalidi.html
I’m not a Jew but i’ve had plenty of Jewish boyfriends, close & casual friends, clients, professors, doctors, etc who are and i think they pretty much agree quietly with me re Israel and Gaza Strip. They dare not speak up for fear of being complete ostracized from their Jewish friends and of course form those who are Orthodox or Israeli. The treatment of the people who live in Gaza Strip is inhumane, sadistic, opportunistic and needs to stop. In this country – actually western world) anyone speaking out on behalf of the Palestinians is automatically labeled anti-Semitic, pro-terrorists, pro-Hamas and other such nonsense. No, we are simply pro-peace and know there are other ways to settle our differences. Imagine having to live in Gaza for awhile. The years of war have taken a toll on the countries in the middle east. The children grow up in an environment of hate and intolerance. With the Israeli’s there also seems to be an unhealthy dose of a false sense of entitlement. Much like Bush’s Wall Street herd of well-educated greedy little robber barons. Think about it.
I agree Khalidi’s op-ed is a bit weak in construction but your post is even worse. Wouldn’t it be better if you address his points rather than criticizing his way of writing? Leave that to his A-level teachers.
Now get to the point. Most of the Gazan came indeed from Ashkelon after the 1948 war. I don’t think you’d disagree on this. Re. the cease fire. Yes Hamas said the cease-fire expired on the 18th of November but that doesn’t mean Israel didn’t break it before. Fixing a tight blockage on Gaza is a serious violation and technically makes the truce void. However Hamas showed restraint and kept things going.
If you think otherwise, you should clarify it so people get to understand your point of view. Use numbers and facts instead of what looks like a childish way of defending your opinion.