Blog @ MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

While Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Dems or Democratic party faithful admit the surge is working but claim the good news comes too late, those supporting US troops never view advances toward victory as ‘too late.’ Nor do they place political motives above matters of national defense, security or support of the US military.

There is no need to revisit the civilian and political interference that has presented the greatest obstacle to victory in Iraq as it has been thoroughly addressed by everyone to date. However, positive news has been sorely neglected and a few notes are worth repeating.

Just this week Iraqi government leaders reached an agreement to resolve sectarian differences. While agreement by the entire Iraqi parliament is required and not guaranteed, this event is a breakthrough in what has been the Iraqi obstacle in this war.

Not long ago tribal leaders in previous hot spots in the country have joined with US military forces to oust Al-Qaeda from Iraq. The senseless murder of civilians by the terrorist group has finally been recognized as unacceptable by influential regional leaders in various provinces.

Countering the influence of Iran in the Iraq war are efforts like General Odierno who says the US is attacking supply lines of those offering money, material and trainers for Iraqi sectarian extremists. In addition the case is being made to Iraqis that Iranian involvement is not in the long term interests of Iraq. However, the General adds the Iranian factor is still significant.

In a report from VOA, President Bush again expressed displeasure with Iran’s actions in the Iraq war in a speech to members of the American Legion.

Stearns report (mp3) - download 630K audio clip
Listen to Stearns report (mp3) audio clipPresident Bush says Iran must stop arming militants who are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

Other events concerning Iran include their own saber-rattling and defiance to international opposition on their various nuclear programs as described below.

Pace report (mp3) - Download 567k audio clip
Listen to Pace report (mp3) audio clip

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that, contrary to recent news reports, Tehran has not slowed its nuclear activity. In a lengthy news conference in the Iranian capital, the president also warned Iran would respond if the United States goes ahead with plans to label the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

Urging by political opponents of President Bush for the US to enter talks with regimes in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere may not be having the effect suggested by those same opponents. But overall, Us efforts in Iraq are showing much improved results since the beginning of the surge. Including this week’s surprise event which should probably not be taken at face value.

Iraqi cleric Sadr suspends militia activities

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
518pm BST 29/08/2007

The powerful Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr moved to rein in his increasingly murderous followers today, announcing his popular Shia militia would stand down for six months following the deaths of more than 50 pilgrims in the holy city of Karbala.

The Democratic party leadership, like Majority Whip James Clyburn, recently expressed concern that a positive report from General Patraeus in September may split the party. Shortly after that reports surfaced that no matter what the General reported, the left would view it as a lie. Further evidence that the political left is obstructing the war effort as alleged earlier.

In other words, ever since those in Congress who oppose victory in Iraq were defeated on continued funding for the war, limited obstruction from civilian authorities have allowed military efforts to turn the corner that has fostered positive outcomes in Iraq.

Other foreign affairs issues that have been the focus of most criticism of the Bush Administration’s performance include relations with Russia, Israel, Palestine and North Korea to mention a few. Events like Pelosi traveling to Syria or Dems urging talks with Iran or North Korea have been used to attack the Administration’s positions. So how are things working out so far.

Again from VOA news a report outlining Congressional efforts to advance nuclear arms control with an old nemesis from the Cold War.

Fedynsky report (mp3) - Download 639k audio clip
Listen to Fedynsky report (mp3) audio clipSenator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn, authors of U.S. legislation to reduce the post-Soviet nuclear arsenal, are in Russia in an effort to further tighten global controls on weapons of mass destruction.

If you are old enough to have been on the planet when US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin worked on the Camp David Accords, you may have experienced an optimistic expectation tempered with an objective pessimism over the chances for Mid-East peace.

The first discussion over critical issues between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in seven years may have given rise to similar optimism but by now few would have truly expected progress. The excerpts below document the endless travel over all too familiar posturing.

The Israeli mood is summed up by analyst Dan Schueftan:
“Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not even a remote option. We will have to learn to live with the idea that for generations the Palestinian people has decided that fighting us is more important than giving a better future for their children,” Schueftan said.

Those fears were reinforced after the Islamic militant group Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from Mr. Abbas’s more moderate Fatah faction in a civil war two months ago. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said negotiations with Israel are a waste of time.

He says the only way to liberate Palestine is through jihad or holy war.

Palestinian moderates, like former Cabinet minister Ziad abu Zayyad, said Israel’s failure to advance the peace process brought Hamas to power.
“There is no chance of a peace agreement,” Abu Zayyad told Israel Radio. He said Israel does not have the resolve to dismantle dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

So with that much skepticism, why are Israeli and Palestinian leaders reporting progress on a framework for a peace agreement? Schueftan, the Israeli analyst, says the answer lies in Washington.

Another topic related to the illusive pursuit of world peace on the world leaders ‘to do’ list is nuclear power wannabe North Korea.

According to the February 13 Agreement, North Korea must declare all nuclear programs but their effort in manipulating the term “nuclear programs”, excluding the nuclear weapons from the list, is causing much hubbub.

The report above suggests there is no reason to be especially optimistic about talks between the US and North Korea. While it is better than a daily reminder of increasing tension or some concern of an imminent showdown, current talks may be nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. From what has been characterized as the most unpredictable regime on the planet, a most predictable course of bad faith negotiating emerges. And many criticized the US for not talking to North Korea earlier.

Any accommodations made by President Bush to resolve issues with the Democratic party and a few GOP members in Congress may less effective than if he had maintained his rigid position with regard to certain countries. Softening the approach may be what led Iran to make the ridiculous offer to fill the power vacuum in Iraqi politics. In addition, talks with North Korea are showing symptoms of DPRK intentions to circumvent an effective agreement.

The upside is conditions in Iraq have improved enough to potentially torpedo the left antiwar strategy. Talks with Iran and North Korea have not yet disintegrated. Maybe the US and Russia will move away from a return to Cold War positions and at least Israel and Palestine have talked about things that were ignored for the last seven years. Other than Iraq, no improvements really, just more of a time out.

There is no proof that politics are necessary for international diplomacy. Although diplomats and politicians will argue that point ad infinitum. It may be the wrong approach to expect people to resolve differences equipped only with the idea we should all be adequately intelligent to do so. If we learn how to remove politics from negotiation the solution may find us.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Robert Berger
Jerusalem
27 August 2007

Berger report (mp3) - Download 425k audio clip
Listen to Berger report (mp3) audio clip

Israeli and Palestinian leaders will hold a summit meeting on Tuesday in a fresh bid to advance the peace process. But as Robert Berger reports from VOA’s Jerusalem bureau, Israel’s “go-slow” approach has left the Palestinians disappointed.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas here in Jerusalem. Both Israel and the United States want to strengthen Mr. Abbas after the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip by the Islamic militant group Hamas two months ago. Hamas routed the forces of the rival Fatah faction, led by Mr. Abbas, who now heads a moderate government in the West Bank.

President Abbas and Mr. Olmert have met regularly since the civil war in Gaza. They are trying to hammer out principles for the creation of a Palestinian state ahead of an international peace conference in the United States this fall.

“Ultimately, the Israeli government and the Palestinian government, we share a common view of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace,” said Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman.

But Israel has been reluctant to discuss the thorniest issues of the conflict, creating skepticism among Palestinians.

“It is very essential to see and hear some concrete steps taken towards talking about a timeframe for solving the five permanent status issues of the Palestinian cause, namely Jerusalem, refugees, water, borders and settlements,” said Palestinian analyst Wadia Abu Nasser. “And without that the people are talking about [a] peace process but not necessarily peace.”

Israel’s reluctance to discuss those issues may point to a lack of confidence in Mr. Abbas. His forces collapsed during the factional fighting in Gaza, earning him the reputation of a moderate Palestinian leader who cannot deliver.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts
.

Matthew Continetti offers a spectacular view of the debate on the Iraq war. While you will have no trouble finding reports that are critical of General Petraeus and US military success in recent months, the Continetti opinion piece from the Weekly Standard is a refreshing look at more than one side of the discussion. Imagine that. And there is mention of some positive reports even from the left. Of course those ‘defections’ are rarely allowed to see daylight and often come with some sort of qualifier. As if it is only an attempt to not look biased by at least mentioning something positive like a backhanded compliment.

Why those opposed to the war find it necessary to publicly campaign immediately and continuously from the beginning of any conflict is at least disappointing. One might expect all citizens could restrain their personal opinions if expressing them would be damaging to the very troops they claim to be concerned about. It is difficult to define such protest as anything but unAmerican as it poses direct obstruction to a military mission. Exercising one’s claim of a right to free speech by opposing one’s own country in time of war again ignores responsibility in favor of personal preference. The argument from protesters is often expressed as a patriotic and necessary exercise of free speech when at odds with governmental authority. Since there are a variety of effective methods for accomplishing the same goal without harming those actively engaged in performing their duties, aka, military troops, protest arguments to justify action are not very convincing. Public protest only serves to disrupt the chosen target of those organizing such activity. Attaching any noble characteristics to antiwar public protest is nonsense. While claiming to be patriotic and necessary in exercising free speech, the reality is the goal of antiwar protest is to deny other’s rights in favor of their own.

What would compound the questionable motives of those opposing this particular war in Iraq is actions described in the accompanying reference to the Coninetti piece at the Weekly Standard. To discount the current military success in Iraq by the means described below is pathetic.

….. Antiwar Democrats immediately started dancing the Iraq shuffle, in which you ignore your opponent’s arguments, shift the terms of the debate, and attack his motivation and character. Witness the left’s reaction to a recent interview Petraeus gave to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Rather than rebutting Petraeus’s findings, lefty bloggers accused the general of being a partisan political actor. Or consider the liberal, antiwar Center for American Progress’s “Progress Report” of July 31, entitled “Bush’s Enablers.” The email newsletter is sent to left-wing political operatives, activists, and journalists throughout the country and is a reliable barometer of progressive opinion.

Maintaining an opposing viewpoint on an issue is a position anyone should be allowed to take. When circumstances change and the effect weakens the opposing viewpoint, a reasonable person would acknowledge the event. To ignore the event and continue to defend the position with purely political tactics exposes the real motive behind the position. It would not be the first time that left wing opposition to the war in Iraq has been suggested as the one issue Democrats have selected to use for political objectives. That would mean the one problem for the left would be victory in Iraq. So what is really driving opposition to the war?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Screw the UN
Reject the UN
Conservative Thoughts
.

Ban Ki Moon, the current Secretary General of the UN who follows Kofi Annan in that role has presented both contrast and similarities to his predecessor. At face value, his suggestion that all countries should be treated equally with regard to human rights policies is fair and should be an obvious conclusion to draw for reasonable people. If the Islamic Council had not criticized him for the remarks with accusations of taking sides, this would have been just another press item from the United Nations. Without the noise from the Islamic Council, Moon’s remarks would have resembled the style of Annan by overstating the obvious. Moon’s subtle insinuation was detected by this story’s antagonists.

The excerpt and video below provide a dramatic presentation of the situation and further explain what most already know. Some of the nations in the UN are deflecting attention from their abusive policies by pointing their fingers at Israel as the sole target of a scheme to shift guilt.

UN Watch Briefing
Analysis and Commentary from UN Watch in Geneva
July 11, 2007 — Issue 163
New Video: UN Human Rights Council Members—In Their Own Words

At its recent June 2007 session, the UN Human Rights Council concluded its lengthy reform process by voting, first, to drop Belarus and Cuba from its blacklist. New restrictions were imposed on the independent experts who report on country violations. The ability to introduce resolutions that name abusers was curbed. And Israel was singled out for permanent indictment—subjected to the council’s sole agenda item on a specific country, and to the sole investigation that examines only one side, presumes guilt in advance, and is immune from review.

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations has been under fire since its inception. This year is no different. The report below is from the UN’s own documents and is a brief insight to another flawed initiative from an organization in what and how are they united? Can the world really afford to continue these sham activities? What can this sort of behavior ever solve? There are essentially rhetorical questions.

Fourteen nations elected to serve on UN Human Rights Council
17 May 2007 – Fourteen countries have been elected to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Council after two rounds of balloting among Member States today at UN Headquarters in New York.

Angola, Bolivia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Qatar, Slovenia and South Africa were successful after the first round of voting, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy were chosen following a second round.

Here is a response from the other side of the issue.

Ki-Moon Criticized Over Israel
by Marc Shoffman - Thursday 2nd August 2007
Muslim states in the United Nations Human Rights Council have been criticized after attacking UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for sticking up for Israel.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the UN’s 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference at a UN meeting last Wednesday, attacked Ki-Moon after he said it was unfair to single out Israel for permanent review.

Ban said all countries should be treated equally after a resolution by the Council last June which put Israel’s human rights conduct under permanent review while failing to name any other countries.
(click to read the rest)

An excerpt from a recent speech by Ban Ki Moon demonstrates both his similarities and contrasts to Annan. The contrast is another reference to some truth about the UN while his other statements sound like Annan in his limp defense of the United Nations.

Unfortunately over the last six decades, even though the United Nations has been promoting human rights, peace and development, it has not enjoyed proper appreciation.

Polls show that two thirds of Americans think the United Nations is doing a poor job. Yet these same polls show that even larger majorities (74 per cent, to be exact) believe the United Nations should play a larger role in the world –- whether intervening to prevent genocide or aggressively investigating human rights abuses. An equally healthy percentage of Americans believe that the nation’s foreign policy should be conducted in partnership with the United Nations. (Read the full report) CLICK

Even the Secretary General points to data showing that two out of three Americans look unfavorably towards the United Nations. He may have misinterpreted the 74% figure. Perhaps three out of four Americans answered the way they did indicating the UN does little if anything to fulfill its obligations. Do something!!! That may be the real sentiment of those represented in the poll.

But Moon should get some credit for his remarks about human rights and how all countries should be treated equally. Yet nosing in to US affairs regarding incarceration of illegal aliens and allowing the Human Rights Council and the Islamic Council to conspire against others, especially in such blatant fashion, should be quelled. So his remarks may have been just another empty PR task from an empty leader. To be fair, more time should pass before judging this individual. But all experience and history thus far suggests a low probability of any improvements

Even the recent activity with distributing peace keeping forces around the world has more chance of causing more sexual abuse cases than resolving conflict. The UN must successfully string together a number of significant, positive accomplishments that can withstand global scrutiny before any optimism can be displayed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Israel Says No Objections to US Gulf Arms Deal
By Jim Teeple
Jerusalem
29 July 2007

Israel’s Prime Minister on Sunday said he has no objections to a proposed massive U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. VOA’s Jim Teeple reports from Jerusalem.

Israel has long expressed wariness over U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the proposal by the U.S. to sell $20 billion worth of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states is understandable.

Mr. Olmert says his government understands the need to strengthen moderate Arab countries that face Iran and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran.

The proposed arms deal includes advanced satellite guided bombs and upgrades that will greatly enhance the long-range striking ability of Saudi fighter aircraft. It also includes a large number of naval vessels.

Under the proposed deal Israel will also benefit. The deal calls for Israel to receive a 25-percent increase in U.S. military assistance. Israel currently receives $2.4 billion a year in military aid. That will jump to $3 billion a year over ten years, for a total of $30 billion, ten billion dollars more than the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

The deal is expected to be formally announced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who heads to the Middle East this week on a rare joint mission with U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Meanwhile Israel on Sunday allowed about 100 Palestinians stranded in Egypt to travel to the Gaza Strip by passing through an Israeli-Egyptian border crossing. The main Rafah crossing point between the Gaza Strip and Egypt has been closed since the Hamas takeover of Gaza last month, stranding about six thousand Palestinians on the Egyptian side of the border. Riad Maliki a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he believes all the stranded Palestinians will make it back to Gaza in the next few days.

Maliki says the Israeli-Egyptian crossing has been used in the past to allow Gaza residents to travel to Saudi Arabia for the annual pilgrimage, the Hajj.

Hamas has criticized the move to allow Palestinians to use the Israeli crossing, saying the Rafah crossing should be reopened instead. Israel has closed the entry points to Gaza for all but humanitarian aid and emergency medical issues, saying Hamas has used the Rafah crossing to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza and has attacked other crossings that border on Israel.

By Jim Teeple
Jerusalem
25 July 2007

Teeple report - Download 879k (mp3) audio clip
Listen to Teeple report audio clip

The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan held talks in Jerusalem with Israeli leaders on Wednesday. It was the first-ever visit to Israel by leaders representing the Arab League. VOA’s Jim Teeple reports from Jerusalem that Israel’s relations with the Palestinians were at the top of the agenda of the talks.

The Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers came to Jerusalem to discuss the Arab League Peace Plan, first proposed in 2002 by Saudi Arabia. Under the plan, if Israel withdraws to its 1967 borders, the 22-members of the Arab League will extend full diplomatic recognition to Israel.

Israel says it will consider aspects of the plan, but has so far ruled out a full withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories it captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Israel has also rejected an addendum to the plan that calls for right of return of all Palestinian refugees to their former homes.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni says the Arab League can help move the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians forward.

“I believe that this point in time is a crucial point in time and there is an opportunity here. I believe the Arab Peace Initiative and a dialogue with the Arab working group is an historic opportunity for Israeli-Arab relations but no less important, the Israeli Palestinian process,” she said. “I believe there is a need to promote a process between Israel and the Palestinians and of the importance of the Arab League in helping to support Israelis and Palestinians to take the right steps and in making this vision of a two-state solution more concrete.”

Both Egypt and Jordan have full diplomatic relations with Israel and their envoys said Wednesday they were not in Israel to negotiate on behalf of Palestinians, but rather to encourage a process of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.

Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, says progress in relations between Israel and the rest of the Arab world will largely depend on progress between Israel and the Palestinians.

“A lot of the responses of the region will depend on the bilateral [Israeli-Palestinian] talks. That is the crux of the Arab position, and I think they understand today in Israel that we are coming forward and we are offering, but do what is necessary and what is needed with the Palestinians,” he said. “This is the message.”

The foreign ministers’ visit to Israel comes as the Palestinian territories are now divided between Hamas militants, who control Gaza, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who controls the West Bank.

Jordan’s foreign minister, Abdul Ilah Khatib, says it is important to remember that President Abbas enjoys the full support of the Arab League.

“The Arab peace initiative enjoys the consensus of all Arab member states of the Arab League, including the Palestinian Authority,” he said. “This is why we need to express our full support to the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas and his government as the legitimate and qualified and willing partner to engage in serious negotiations with Israel in order to achieve a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians establishing an independent Palestinian state and offering Israel the security it needs.”

President Abbas said Wednesday he is moving closer to calling new legislative elections - a move rejected by Hamas. Mr. Abbas’ Fatah movement lost legislative elections to Hamas in early 2006, precipitating the current Palestinian crisis. Mr. Abbas also disclosed that outside negotiators have offered to try to mediate the dispute between Fatah and Hamas, but he will not speak with Hamas leaders unless they agree to share power with Fatah in Gaza where Hamas seized control last month.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

New US Travel Alert for Israel, Palestinian Territories

By VOA News
14 July 2007

In a statement Friday, the State Department said the fresh warning supersedes a previous travel alert for the region issued in January. It cited “considerable violence” in recent months between Palestinian factions, as well as between Israeli security forces and armed Palestinian groups.

It urged U.S. citizens to be mindful of security when traveling to Israel and Jerusalem. The statement recommended that all Americans, including journalists and aid workers, defer travel to the West Bank and avoid any travel in the Gaza Strip.

Was this hostage incident with British journalist Alan Johnston simply a plot between associated terrorists attempting to obtain positive press for releasing a hostage? C’mon, the Army of Islam, sounds like a quickly conjured name to accommodate the plot. It is tough enough to accept names like Hezbollah and Hamas let alone the Popular Resistance Committees and the Executive Force. The point is this all seems rather fabricated by a group of rank amateurs. Ok, they are violent, have weapons and engage in terrorist activities but their intentions, credentials and importance are largely self-defined. And a lot of paid consultants, journalists or reporters seem to be the only people outside these groups judging their validity. So they are just a bunch of punks with weapons. How do they expect that to solve their problems? They may have had a chance to become legitimate players on the world stage engaging in the political process but opted to return to weapons and being stupid.

Sometimes it almost seems more prudent for all the major countries of the world to simply withdraw from any interactions with the Middle East and similar zones of insanity. Y’all wanna kill each other, fine. You want to keep blaming each other for the problems you face and not help each other out, fine. From the major powers on the planet to all lesser influences and organizations like the UN, most of the violence and problems faced by the Middle East only seem to be exacerbated by the rest of the world’s involvement. At one time or another all countries in the Middle East seem to be ‘playing’ other countries in the world to get what they want. And the arrangements keep rotating around the region shifting advantage from country to country. All the while the richest nations in the world are pouring billions into the mix and only a few ranking members of failing governments appear to receive the benefit.

That is why it would be nice if the US could finish the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prepare them to take care of themselves and when ready call it a day. Every country foreign to the Middle East should then remove themselves and let the cards fall where they may. But there is a big flaw with this suggestion. It will never happen. Because the people in the Middle East countries are partly right. All the foreign countries involved in the Middle East have a stake in them but not for the right reasons. Other countries in the world will stay involved in the Middle East for their own selfish reasons. The centuries old conflicts in the region will continue and be complicated by outside interference. And the whole mess will never end.

Maybe this is a pessimistic or cynical interpretation of the problem. But it is a reflection of the historic trends in that region of the world.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hamas closes in on BBC hostage stronghold

From correspondents in Baghdad
July 04, 2007 03:33am
HAMAS gunmen today took up positions around the stronghold of the kidnappers of BBC journalist Alan Johnston, as the Islamist movement hinted it could use force to secure the newsman’s release.

Members of Hamas’s armed wing and its self-styled police set up checkpoints at the entrance to the southern Sabra neighbourhood in Gaza City, searching vehicles and fanning out around a compound, an AFP correspondent said.

Hamas, Islamic group swap prisoners in Gaza

Wed Jul 4, 2007 5:54 AM IST
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas and another militant Islamic group swapped prisoners on Tuesday in the Gaza Strip as mediators negotiated to free an abducted BBC reporter, a spokesman for a group of Palestinian mediators said.

Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella militant group in Gaza, said the “Army of Islam has released nine students and Hamas has released detained members of the Army of Islam.”

Kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston released

Last update - 08:11 04/07/2007
By News Agencies
Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist held hostage in the Gaza Strip since March, was handed over by his Islamist captors to Hamas officials on Wednesday.

The 45-year-old Briton was taken into the care of officials from the Hamas movement, which seized full control of Gaza three weeks ago.

“I was released a couple of hours ago. It was an appalling experience as you can imagine. Occasionally quite terrifying… Now it really is over,” Johnston told BBC World from the home of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City.

NEWSWEEK Cover: Why Gaza Matters

The June 25 Issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, June 18), “Why Gaza Matters” explores the impact the Hamas-lead attacks have on the rest of the Middle East. Plus: An exclusive interview Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that despite pressure to make changes in Iraq, he needs time because the decisions he is making will be “written in stone”; Angelina Jolie on the making of “A Mighty Heart,” being an activist and a mother; and Fred Thompson’s Senate record. (PRNewsFoto/Newsweek)

NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 06/16/2007

The Most Chaotic, Violent and Fractionalized Countries in the Middle East
are the Ones U.S. Urged to Hold Elections
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki says, ‘The Timetables Given, Sometimes I Do Not
Find Them in President Bush’s Mind so Much as They are in the Minds of Some
People Who Make [Public] Statements’

NEW YORK, June 17 /PRNewswire/ — This has been a bad week for
President Bush’s freedom agenda in the Middle East. Between the continued
violence in Iraq and the Hamas-lead violence that has broken out in Gaza,
America’s hopes for bringing peace to the Middle East are waning.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070616/CLSA011 )
The violence that has rocked Gaza over the last week has left Hamas
fighters in control of the 140-square-mile strip and it may now become
Hamas’s private enclave and perhaps even an ungovernable font of terror. In
the June 25 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, June 18), Senior
Editor Michael Hirsh states that the defeat of the secular and more
moderate Fatah forces could, along with the insurgents’ success in Iraq,
inspire Islamist radicals in the region and around the world.
In his second Inaugural Address, the president embraced the promotion
of democracy as his top priority, declaring: “The survival of liberty in
our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”
Hirsh points out, however, that in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, as
in Russia, Pakistan and other places, liberty is retreating. Now citizens
of countries where Washington has called for greater democracy-Iran, say,
or Syria- have three less-than-inspiring examples close to home. In
Lebanon, Iranian-backed Hizbullah reigns as a power unto itself. In Iraq,
the sect-based parties that came to power in the 2005 elections have
created a bloody nightmare, and stymied any attempts to forge a truly
national consensus. And in the Palestinian territories, Washington simply
rejected the election results.
After Hamas’s wins, the United States and other Western countries cut
aid money to the Palestinian government, instead funneling resources
directly to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s office, reports Jerusalem
Bureau Chief Kevin Peraino. Some observers accuse Washington of baldly
encouraging rivalry between the two camps. In a confidential report leaked
last week, United Nations envoy Alvaro de Soto wrote that “the U.S. clearly
pushed for a confrontation between Fatah and Hamas.” De Soto recounts
listening to a U.S. official declare, “I like this violence,” twice at an
envoys’ meeting in Washington recently. “The U.S. fanned the flames of this
internal Palestinian conflict,” says Haim Malka of Washington’s Center for
Strategic and International Studies. State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack dismissed de Soto’s remarks as “the views of an individual.”
What seems certain is that Hamas-run Gaza is doomed to greater
isolation and misery. With the Islamists in control, Israel may intensify
its campaign of air strikes on Hamas rocket teams and other militants. Some
Israeli analysts point out that a strong Hamas leadership in Gaza could
have its advantages; at least someone would be in control there. But that
is a minority view. “There’s no common ground [with Hamas],” says Ephraim
Sneh, Israel’s deputy Defense minister. Dialogue, he says, is almost
certainly a nonstarter. “Listen to them, for God’s sake!” he says. “Gaza
will be worse than Mogadishu. Our Apache [helicopter gunships] will talk to
them.”
Peraino also reports that Gaza is likely to experience further troubles
once the chaos settles because of the exodus of the territory’s middle
class citizens. The Gazans most likely to escape are those with means and
connections–the ones Gaza can least afford to lose. In the past 12 months,
88,320 people have left Gaza for Egypt through the Rafah crossing, and only
76,176 have come in-a net loss of some 12,000 people. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that the vast majority of those who manage to escape are the
young, wealthy and well educated. Many of those who are leaving are
technocrat types who work for organizations like the United Nations and
foreign NGOs with global reach.
“The next American president will have to grapple with a Middle East
that is messier and quite possibly angrier than before 9/11.” Hirsh says.
“But also, in a larger sense, he or she will have to confront anew a harsh
lesson in the limits of power. America can only be, at best, a guiding hand
behind an international system that is disposed to democracy and open
markets.”
Meanwhile, in Iraq, patience with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is
running out. Maliki recently gave Newsweek an exclusive interview in which
he expressed optimism for the process of turning his country around. But
the slow pace is testing the patience of Iraqis and Americans, except
apparently, President George W. Bush. With mounting pressure from all sides
to speed up reconciliation among Iraq’s various parties and bringing an end
to the civil war, Maliki says he needs time in order to make long-term
decisions-ones that will be “written in stone”-and says he’s confident that
Bush understands. Maliki tells Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional
Editor Chris Dickey and Baghdad Correspondent Larry Kaplow, “The timetables
given, sometimes I do not find them in President Bush’s mind so much as
they are in the minds of some people who make [public] statements.”
Maliki says his close relationship with Bush has a lot to do with fate,
“Destiny wanted to bring together two people who strongly stick to their
principles.” But what the two of them see as resolve, however, many others
see as stubbornness (that has yet to bring an end to violence.)
(Read cover story at http://www.Newsweek.com)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263096/site/newsweek/

SOURCE Newsweek

It is not as clearly defined as some would like to think. Disagreements, arguments, unpleasant incidents and all manner of behavior are represented in the issues related to the Iraq war. Military veterans express their favor with one side or the other. Common attributes among individuals that allow them to be categorized in groups, e.g., veterans, politicians, students, parents, wives, etc., have representation on both sides of these issues.

For those who choose an arbitrary withdrawal, aka surrender, a continuous stream of criticism directed solely at President Bush is the primary outlet for their anger. Any suggestion that mistakes were made by all those involved in the decision to authorize the use of military force in Iraq are ignored by those favoring surrender. To those who do not share that opinion a void is present in the debate. A debate that should never proceed during wartime but a debate nonetheless. While those who prefer the Reagan statement, ‘we win, they lose’, many have openly agreed the basis for proceeding with military action was flawed. A concession not reciprocated by those favoring surrender by admitting Congress shares responsibility for neglecting their duty of checks and balances.

The first reference in this post is from June 17th and outlines the fact that Americans are certainly not pleased with Congress. Based on polling data over many months, the President, the House and the Senate have record or near record low approval ratings from the public. Of course polls don’t tell the whole story and not all decisions should be made as a result of polling numbers. The importance of the polls here is a trend that applies to a long period of time. The statistical information can be significant as an indicator that all is not well. In addition to the midterm elections and the deluge of comments and demands communicated to the White House and Congress this year and last, one should be able to expect more appropriate response from elected officials. Not that they should be expected to find a perfect solution to satisfy all people but they should at least display the professionalism and intelligence in working together to solve issues.

Americans Clearly Upset with U.S. Congress

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
June 17, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Satisfaction with the performance of the House of Representatives and the Senate plummeted this month in the United States, according to four recent public opinion polls. 27 per cent of respondents to a survey by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times approve of the way Congress is handling its job, down seven points since April.

Although the next reference is considerably older than the rest it is still valid. The point made closer to the beginning of this post indicated those favoring surrender in Iraq refused to accept the fact that everyone involved in the decision to go to war share the responsibility with the President and he alone should not bare the burden. If you glanced ahead you understand the point. The flawed intel everyone likes to mention was neglected by Congress in their assessment of a vote on authorizing the US to go to war. So why then does the surrender crowd continue to disregard this fact? Could it be they view it as harmful to their interest in bashing the President? Could the bashing be mostly political? Does the surrender crowd have an understanding of how damaging their surrender speech is? There are many questions and not much in the way of answers from those favoring surrender.

Records: Senators who OK’d war didn’t read key report

POSTED: 7:25 a.m. EDT, May 29, 2007

• Hillary Clinton, John McCain and most others in Congress didn’t read document
• Newspaper: Six senators, a few House members logged as reading report
• Most in Congress were briefed several times, read summary of report
• Report was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

The articles referenced below are just a reminder of how central to all things MSM is the war in Iraq. The Dems have continued to make it a central theme of their campaigns. It is mentioned in nearly every speech, press release and news conference.

So the decision to discuss it on this blog was an unfortunate necessity. To omit arguments in opposition to the antiwar crowd merely concedes in their favor. That would be irresponsible. That the antiwar crowd cannot understand that no one wants war is also unfortunate. Humankind has not solved that age old problem. But when it does happen, to support surrender is near suicidal. The only thing worse than war is losing a war. And again, the really sad part is their missing support of the war effort surely would have shortened the duration and provided the desired outcome. Yet they complain and argue about how long or how well or how poorly is the status of the war.

There simply are not enough bananas to train the surrender monkeys for victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar “Movement”

Swans, CA - Jun 17, 2007 –1 hour ago
Of these 77 senators, 29 were Democrats — that is, a majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The House passed the Resolution by a vote of …

Russert on Presidential Race

RealClearPolitics, IL - Jun 14, 2007
HANNITY: Tim, one of the things, the most contentious issue of our time, obviously, is the war in Iraq. We had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid write this letter …

Pelosi, Reid and the Circular Firing Squad

TPMCafe, NY - Jun 13, 2007
Without those Republicans, not even an alliance between Reid and Bush could save the bill from defeat. Now comes the Iraq war, where Dubya and the GOP are …

Do-Nothing Congress

American Daily, OH - Jun 10, 2007
Now we hear that all out war between Israel and Syria is possible this summer. Did Pelosi’s humiliating wearing of a headscarf in difference to Islamic …

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, guerrilla radio, On the Horizon, DragonLady’s World, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Peres wins Israeli presidency

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

After five decades at the heart of Israeli politics, holding every major cabinet position, Shimon Peres was finally elected as the country’s president today. He won a secret ballot of MPs on the second round after his challengers, Reuven Rivlin of the Likud party and Colette Avital of Labour, dropped out.

Here’s something you never heard before. Someone claiming there is no link between terrorism and Islam. Have you ever heard a quote like this before? “Islam advocates tolerance, moderation and coexistence,” he pointed out. That was Zohair Al-Wazir from Palestine. And here’s a shocker. He says Israel’s state terrorism against Palestinians is the real deal. Can this guy even spell jihad? If the Sunnis and Shia’ are killing each other, where’s the tolerance, moderation and coexistence?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Palestinian diplomat raps attempt to link terrorism to Islam

Posted May 19th, 2007 by Indian-Muslim

VIENNA, AUSTRIA, May 19 (NNN-KUNA) — Palestine’s permanent envoy to the United Nations (UN) and Ambassador to Austria Zohair Al-Wazir condemned any attempts to link terrorism and Islam on Friday.
“The Palestinian people are a stark reminder of life under occupation and state terrorism as practiced by the Israeli against them, their sanctities and lands over long decades,” Al-Wazir told KUNA on the sidelines of the first anti-terrorism forum here.