German Press Review: Security Fences and Iraq Funding

The Rheinische Post from Düsseldorf wrote that the controversy over Israel’s security wall begins with the language describing the structure. Is Israel building a “security fence,” a “protective barrier,” a “wall” or a “border”? Is this a “line of apartheid” or a “security zone”? Whatever term is used, the paper wrote, it is incomplete and more political statement than objective description. By passing the resolution condemning the wall's construction, the paper continued, the UN has put Israel under moral pressure.

The Lausitzer Rundschau reminded its readers that the idea of the fence came from Israel’s peace camp. "The left wing of the Labor Party conceived it as a security fence which was planned to be built more or less along the green line between Israel and the Palestinian territories," the paper wrote. In the light of decades of bloodshed the original idea was a necessity, according to the paper. But it criticised the fact that the course of the fence the Sharon government is currently building is something very different. "It is an irresponsible theft of land, a cold annexation, a shameless political provocation and a hindrance on the way to peace," the paper wrote.

The Financial Times Deutschland criticized the United States for voting "no" on the UN resolution, thereby backing Israel. “The Americans have not only reduced the political significance of the resolution,” the paper suggests, “they also have divided the so-called Quartet which was created with the aim of promoting peace in the Middle East.” The paper goes on to say that they have failed to send a signal of reconciliation to the Arab world, thus missing an opportunity to win back some of its confidence.

Other German papers preview the international donor conference for Iraq being held in Madrid.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung suggested that those countries that opposed the Iraq war now want to leave the duty of reconstructing the country to the Bush administration. “One reason for this is that the positive predictions that could be heard in Washington before the war have not come true,” wrote the paper – recalling that the Americans had preferred to talk about swift post-war reconstruction than about ruined infrastructure. That is why, the paper predicts, the US won’t be able to collect much money in Madrid.

The Handelsblatt from Düsseldorf views matters differently: "The donor conference is a real chance for Iraq, and it is also a chance for the international community," the paper wrote. It pointed out that the Americans have agreed that the UN and the World Bank will head two of the new trust funds for Iraq. Thanks to this, the international community could finally obtain the leading role in Iraq which it has been demanding for a long time, the paper predicts. And it concludes: “The prospects that Bush will be ready to compromise are better than ever. At home, the U.S. president is facing an increasingly sceptical public. If he wants to be re-elected, he needs successes – also in Iraq.”