Officially, the Clinton Administration considers the recent election in Yugoslavia a triumph and the violence in the Middle East a foreign policy disaster. So says the Washington Post (Sun. oct 9: U.S. Focus Turns to Middle East Violence.) Or do they?

Days of Rage is used to describe both the recent election in Yugoslavia and the violence in the Middle East, two events that could not be more dissimilar.

Yugoslavia had a peaceful election. Despite heavy financial investment by Western countries to "opposition candidates", forty per cent of the populace still voted for Milosevic. The military did not go to bat for Milosevic. Such a relatively fliud transfer of power could hardly be called a revolution.

Still the wicked king is dead, though it costs the U.S. and European allies at least $100 million to get rid of him. In circles other than diplomatic that's known as blackmail, but this, of course, was in the defense of democracy.

Kostunica is not the Administration's first choice. He is unwilling to hand over Milosevic to the Hague Tribunal, an institution he does not hold in high esteem. And he is a Serbian nationalist.

Coverage in the Washington Post and NPR on the Middle East continues to portray Israel as the victim of Palestinian aggression despite nearly 100 Palestinian deaths and over 2600 injured compared to 2 or 3 Israeli injuries.

The triggering event, Ariel Sharon's forced entry into an Islamic Holy Site with 3000 soldiers is glossed over or not mentioned. The Washington Post ( Saturday, Oct. 7) describes the begining of the violence in these words:

The violence in Jerusalem began after Muslims traditional prayers, or what Palestinian leaders had called 'a day of rage'.

This sentence accomplished a lot. It skips over the Israeli provocation and makes it appear tht "day of rage" is some sort of Muslim tradition.

Stone-throwing youths take center stage in the reporting of The Washington Post, NPR, And CNN. While Israeli helicopters raining gunfire on unarmed civilians below is simply not mentioned. (For more complete reporting see Middle East press quoted on this webpage.)

Still the Post can tell it like it is.

Israel has a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy. Most Palestinians who hold jobs in Israel support large families at home, often a dozen or more people. Barak also could freeze virtually all imports to Palestinian areas, including basic food and energy supplies, including perishable goods, such as fresh produce, from reaching their market. He could even switch off electricity, water and telephones.

We don't need to bomb them," said an Israeli official, "We have other means available to us."

But Baraks's military means are also formidable. So far the Israeli army has made heavy use of rubber-coated bullets and standard ammunition but spared use of helicopters gunships armed with machine guns rockets and missiles to put down crowds of rock-throwing Palestinian youth and gunmen (not according to local reports).

Despite using the most sophisticated military in the Middle East against a largely unarmed and trapped civilian populace, Israel must be considerd the victim of violence. OK, I get it.