Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.

Without serious impediments placed on groups like Hamas and their rocket attacks from a wide variety of nations in the world including Arab countries asking for cease fire agreements is just more of the same that has accomplished nothing worthwhile over decades. It is obvious the vast majority of nations in the world are not interested in solving this conflict. At least not in a way that would benefit all involved. When all the opinions vary and feature self-serving proposals or strategies as solutions there can be little optimism for the illusive prize some call peace. It would appear that most do not really seek peace but having their own way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States will press for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mrs. Clinton met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem Tuesday as part of her first foray into the region as Secretary of State.

Secretary Clinton’s pledge of support for a two-state solution may put the Obama administration at odds with Israel’s new leadership. The country may soon be led by the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused to declare his support for a totally independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

At a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Tuesday, Secretary Clinton said the White House believes that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests.

“It is our assessment as I expressed yesterday and again today that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable,” Clinton said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective and from the perspective of the Obama administration time is of the essence.”

Clinton’s schedule on Tuesday included a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, who has been designated to form a coalition government after last month’s inconclusive elections. Mr. Netanyahu has said he wants to focus less on negotiations with the Palestinians and concentrate more on shoring up the Palestinian economy. He also supports the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - something the United States sees as an obstacle to peace.

The Secretary of State acknowledged the road ahead will be difficult. She said the process of peace must start with finding a solution to the Gaza conflict. She called on Hamas to cooperate.

“The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable cease fire, but that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks,” Clinton said. “No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territory. These attacks must stop.”

Israel’s defense ministry says militants in Gaza have fired more than 120 rockets at Israel since the end of Israel’s 22-day assault in January.

Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday also sought to ease Israeli concerns over the new U.S. approach to Iran. During his campaign, President Barack Obama said his administration would be open to dialogue with the Iranian leadership, triggering concern among many here that Washington might soften its position on Tehran.

Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.

“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused,” Clinton said. “Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do.”

Regarding Syria, she announced Washington plans to send two envoys to Damascus soon to begin discussions on improving relations with the U.S. and furthering peace efforts in the region.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton is due to travel to the West Bank for meetings with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

This front page was printed in September 1938 - one year before the outbreak of World War II. The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, believed that ‘appeasement’ was the best way to avoid war with Germany. (graphic and caption above from link provided and not part of VOA report (click pic)

U.S. President Barack Obama has tied the future of Iraq to that of the broader Middle East, which he says will include Washington’s “principled and sustained engagement” with Iran and Syria.

Mr. Obama said the U.S. can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation. He argued Friday during a speech to Marines in North Carolina that Washington must take a “smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach.”

While reaching out to Tehran, Mr. Obama added that the U.S. is developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government says its nuclear program has no military component.

Mr. Obama also said the U.S. will refocus on al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world.

As proof of his commitment. he pointed to the appointment of George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke as special envoys to the region.

He also announced he intends to send veteran diplomat Christopher Hill to Baghdad as U.S. ambassador.

The U.S. president said that everyone - both friends and foes - must know that the end of the Iraq war will bring a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East.

President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.

The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.

Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President to Muslim World: “Americans are not your enemy”

In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.

“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.

“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.

In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.

Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.

As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.

Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”

He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.

Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.

Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.

He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.

It is no surprise with all the hype that continues about PEBO and the arrival of inaugural activities many so-called experts have an abundance of advice equalled only be their desire to be heard and given media attention. Nothing like using a national event to promote your own self-interest. The least impressive video account below belongs to the person with the easiest name to abuse while criticizing. Guess who it is? (hint: it could make you hurl)

J Scott Carpenter is one of Bremer’s Boyz from the days of the Iraq Provisional saga and has ties to Duncan Hunter and Rich Santorum. There are other details you can find for yourself with a simple search or visit to Wiki or Source Watch, etc. Michelle Dunne from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace may have some similar history with foundations, institutes, academia or other org’s as Carpenter. The value of the opinions of these two is probably up to the reader. This blog lumps them into the category of those who have connections in the public sector and likely special interest motivations influencing their positions.

Go figure, Heather Hurlburt is a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright. Has been described as a ‘Michigan-based consultant and writer’. That explains a lot. Hisham Melham is a Lebanese journalist and bureau chief for As-Safir Daily, a Beirut, Lebanon, newspaper. That wraps up the brief descriptions of those offering their advice to Obama on the Middle East. Will his administration or any others in Washington offer better? Only time will tell. But there are a couple of points made in one or more of these videos that may in fact be valid.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Video: What Should Obama Say to the Middle East?

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
Washington
17 January 2009

So what should President Barack Obama say to the Middle East? That was the question before a panel of Middle East experts convened recently by two Washington-based nonprofit groups - the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project for Middle East Democracy.

Click the videos below to view excerpts of the panelists’ addresses.

J. Scott Carpenter

Carpenter says the Obama administration must recognize the Bush administration’s mission to promote freedom in the Middle East failed. He says the U.S. must narrowly define its interests in the region.

Michele Dunne

Michele Dunne cautions the Obama administration against developing a rigid list of policy priorities for the Middle East and encourages officials instead to develop a framework for dealing with unexpected challenges that are likely to arise.

Heather Hurlburt

Heather Hurlburt encourages Obama’s administration to listen to leaders in the Middle East and promote cultural exchanges between Americans and Arabs.

Hisham Melhem

Hisham Melhem says Obama’s tone will be very important when he addresses the Middle East.

Just another example of whining from the Muslim population when another one of their attacks on Israel fails. Is it possible they really expect to eliminate or defeat Israel by lobbing primitive rockets in their country? No. They know the rocket attacks will not cause much more than an annoyance. That is not why they do it. They simply try to see what they can get away with and wait for Israel to lose patients from getting no cooperation in solving the problem. Then once Israel exercises its right to defend itself by defeating those responsible the remainder of the Muslim world whines that Israel is being unfair and mistreating the offenders.

It shows how ridiculous international politics are as this sort of thing has continued for years and the rest of world is content to let it continue. With the number of those involved expressing a desire to eliminate Israel the chance of a peace arrangement has never been realistic. Why other nations including the US even engage in the theatre of appearing to believe it will ever happen is as ridiculous as witnessing just one more violent episode like another old rerun on TV.

What was just expressed is the main reason this blog has only recently published any commentary on the topic. The endless loop that is the history of the Middle East with regard to Israel and its neighbors is so repetitive as to be pathetic nonsense. Those opposed to Israel in the region and elsewhere have no interest in peace. That is why it is time to republish another Muslim cartoon to demonstrate the silly notion of the religion of peace. One annoying display deserves another.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Worldwide Protests Against Gaza Operation

Tens of thousands of Muslims took to the streets Friday from Amman to Jakarta to protest the Israeli action in Gaza.

An estimated 50,000 people rallied in the Egyptian coastal city of Alexandria after Friday prayers. The demonstrators waved Palestinian flags and shouted slogans against Israel, and in support of Hamas.

In Amman, Jordan, police fired teargas on a crowd of some two-thousand people to prevent them from marching to the Israeli embassy.

In Israel’s occupied West Bank, police in Ramallah and Hebron also used teargas to disperse Palestinian protesters.

Other demonstrations were reported in Turkey, Algeria, Kenya, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Some of the demonstrators expressed anger at Arab leaders for failing to ease the plight of people in Gaza. Egypt has kept its border with Gaza largely closed.

The European Jewish Congress said earlier this week it was planning pro-Israel rallies in London, Rome, Berlin, Vienna, and other locations.

The most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.

For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel’s patience was exhausted after days of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza, and that the Israeli government would no longer accept the status quo. This of course occured before any retaliation from Israel. It is not like the rocket attacks were quietly accepted until the defensive action began. Rockets were regularly fired on Israel from Hamas and no one in the ‘Arab world’ criticized Hamas.

Israel gave notice to Hamas and anyone else to stop the attack. Here is the second excerpt and link in this chronology.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has issued what he calls a “last minute” call to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, urging them to pressure their Hamas rulers to stop rocket fire into Israel.

Mr. Olmert made the appeal during a television interview with Arab station, Al-Arabiya on Thursday, during which he said Israel will not hesitate to strike Hamas or any other Palestinian militant group.

The remarks came as militants fired rockets and mortars into Israel for a second day in a row. Israeli officials say more than 80 rockets and mortar rounds hit southern Israel on Wednesday. No casualties were reported.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense officials say the military is preparing an operation against Hamas targets in Gaza.

The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?

Nearly 300 Palestinians, most of them armed militants, have been killed since Israel launched the offensive on Saturday. But let the protesters and certain media outlets lead you to believe that civilians are paying the price for Israel’s self-defense from rocket attack.

Where is the Arab criticism for the following?

Hundreds of Palestinians breached the Gaza border fence in four places and poured into Egypt on Sunday. Egyptian police opened fire, prompting gun battles with Palestinian militants. Several hours later, Egyptian officials said border guards restored order.

The breach followed Israel’s bombing of 40 tunnels in Gaza used by the ruling Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies across Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

An AP report suggests Barack Obama will try to improve America’s image as viewed by other nations. The report also blames America’s image problem entirely on the war on terror. Could it be many nations are not happy with the US for refusing to do nothing about 9/11? Could it be those nations had hoped that after the attack on the World Trade Center America would simply withdraw from the international stage or offer surrender or appeasement to the terrorists and their state sponsors?

Rather than suggest America has an image problem it may be reasonable to suggest there are plenty of countries in the world that need to address their own ‘image’ problems. According to the USA Today on Feb 6, 2002 15 of the 19 hijackers from the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis disputed this information and at one point suggested it was Israeli-inspired. Well no one is disputing Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and had his citizenship withdrawn in 1994.

What about those of power and influence in Saudi Arabia? The royal family in all its luxury and fundamentalist views has been accused of many things with regard to the way ordinary citizens are treated in their country. How much different is that to the way others are treated in countries like Iran, Syria, or even Iraq? In general, how are Muslims doing on matters of human rights, treatment of women, tolerance of other religions and violence or oppression of individuals in their midst who may not share their views? But America has an image problem. How ironic.

Yet President-elect Barack Hussein Obama (the full name as he intends to use at inauguration) intends to make his case to the Muslim world in an effort to improve America’s image as viewed by Islamic nations. Obama promised during his campaign that one of his top priorities would be to work to repair America’s reputation worldwide, and that one element of that effort would be a speech delivered in a Muslim capital. It is reported as customary for American presidents to be inaugurated using their full name. It is also reasonable to believe that Barack Obama’s parents are responsible for selecting his full name. But every choice made by Barack Obama as an adult is a responsibility he must shoulder. Does his intention to essentially ‘apologize’ to the Muslim world add support to the notion that liberals favor surrender and appeasement to those who favor our destruction as well as anyone else viewed as infidels. Which by the way sometimes includes members of their own religion.

“It’s something I intend to follow through on,” Obama said in an interview published Wednesday in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. “We’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular. So we need to take advantage of that.”

‘In the Muslim world in particular’ is a troubling statement. The President-elect seems to be focusing on an agenda item discussed by many during the 2008 campaign in which bloggers in particular were criticized for suggesting. That Barack Obama may demonstrate his affinity with the Muslim world through policy and initiatives while in the White House. Another major concern by those opposed to his election deals with his connection to corrupt Chicago politics all the way up to the Illinois governor who was arrested on corruption charges this week. How about the following excerpt in light of that and concerns with his associations with the likes of Tony Rezko and William Ayers, etc.

Obama said he, his wife Michelle and their two young daughters will make frequent visits during his presidency back to their home in Chicago, perhaps as often as every six weeks. “My Kennebunkport is on the South Side of Chicago,” he said. “Our friends are here. Our family is here. And so we are going to try to come back here as often as possible.”

His continued closeness with all things Chicago may be his undoing. Blagojevich is keeping that possibility alive. Here is another link on this story for you to ponder.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Parents worldwide inspired to name kids for Obama (Michelle Malkin)

All you have to do is Google, 2008 presidential election Jewish vote, to learn that exit polls and pundits conclude 78% of this voting demographic selected Barack Obama for President. Some people on the planet, not the least of which is the Arab world, have long complained that the US has a biased view in their support of Israel. Some people complain that the US affords too much support to the Palestinians and others on the side opposite Israel in this long standing dispute over land, politics, policies, religion, history and a whole list of sensitive issues not the least of which is the survival of this tiny state surrounded by much larger unfriendly neighbors.

The US and Israel have been staunch, unyielding allies for most if not all of the long standing relationship. So why the 78% vote for Obama? To the casual observer it would seem logical that Jewish voters would have overwhelmingly supported John McCain for President. Here is one sources ’spin’ on the vote.

The economic crisis and disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters “coming home” to the Democratic Party are the best explanations for the Obama surge, Brooks said, denying that there was any evidence — other than some anecdotal reports — that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee was a factor in Jews turning so decisively towards Obama.

There is much more in the report above but this observer would have expected no such outcome. Any reports seen here over the years suggested that by and large the Jewish vote is dominated by the issue of Israel and the US support associated with its survival. This blog would also suspect that no special special support for Israel will be forthcoming from an Obama administration. Some other reports may bear this out based on reaction to the Obama election from abroad.

People on the streets here in Cairo, and across much of the Arab world, appear elated by the election of Democrat Barak Obama as the next president of the United States, despite some apprehension in the Gulf and in Lebanon.

Commentators on Al-Jazeera TV, which has consistently criticized the outgoing Bush administration for its policies towards the Arab world, appeared almost jubilant over Mr. Obama’s election, with many hailing the results of the election as a “positive for the Arab world.”

Aside from a Syrian paper’s editorial suggesting anyone will be better than President Bush or an Egyptian who apparently drank the Kool Aid before echoing Obama supporters’ common refrain that Obama will solve the world’s problems, the ‘Arab world’ seems to believe that Obama, Biden and the Dems majority in Congress will benefit them. Perhaps their are Arabs and Jews who like most other people on the planet would just like to see the Middle East’s problems solved it should be reasonable to suggest that what the Arab world wants and what Israel wants are quite clearly at odds given the history of the region and state of affairs over so many decades in recent memory. So if the Arab world is ‘almost jubilant’ over the Obama victory and 78% of the Jewish vote in America went for the new President-elect, what are they all thinking?

“But, for some Arab Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and those who deal really with the Bush family and with the Republicans in particular, I think it is not a good moment for them; they prefer to deal with the Republicans and not with the democrats, since the democrats emphasize democracy and human rights and those issues are not welcomed in such countries as Egypt, and Saudi Arabia,” he added.

Essam El Aryan, who is a leader of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood was mostly optimistic about Mr. Obama’s election and thought it was good for both the Arab and Islamic worlds.

It is almost unavoidable to at least mention some issues raised during the campaign, reasonable or not, regarding Barack Obama and items in his past and more recent history related to the Muslim world. With a Muslim father and part of his youth spent in Indonesia as well as other similar connections to the Muslim or Arab world is it possible that while many, including the Obama campaign, dismissed these facts as irrelevant that others outside the US include these facts in their positive assessment? And could it also be that the trips to Syria and other locations in the Arab world by Speaker Pelosi’s mini-world tour convinced the Arab world that the Dems in general are ready to appease them? After all, Barack Obama is ready, willing and now able to begin discussions with Iran without any opposition from anyone about how the meetings are initiated. So again, why did 78% of the Jewish vote in the US go for Obama?

Granted, sentiment in the Arab world is not unanimous on the election of Barack Obama. Despite the general tone of optimism in the Arab press over President-elect Barak Obama’s victory, the Arab daily Al-Hayat ran a caricature showing an Israeli wielding a gun at an Arab man, joking “heads, Obama, and we win; tails McCain, and you lose,” suggesting that the paper thinks neither candidate will really be beneficial to the Arab world.

So what about opinion in Israel? Reaction to the news of Mr. Obama’s victory was not so positive in Jewish West Jerusalem, where many Israelis saw John McCain as a stronger supporter of Israel. This 67-year-old Israeli woman says she was born in Israel and has lived through several wars with Arabs. She says Obama’s willingness to engage Iran and his outreach to Palestinians makes her feel unsafe. She says Mr. Obama’s election presents a danger for Israel and a danger for America.

To put a positive spin on Obama foreign policy as it may or may not be regarding Israel and the rest of the Middle East an academic contributes the following anecdote. Political scientist Mohammed Dajani, of Al Quds University in Arab East Jerusalem, hosted Mr. Obama during a visit and was impressed by his charisma.

“He was able to actually inspire Palestinians who walked in as anti-Americans, yet he was able to keep the message that he had [and] he was able to win them over,” he said. “So I feel he is someone who could inspire both antagonists or both conflicting parties, to be able to find a solutions, within his term, for the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

That would represent an incredibly optimistic viewpoint. For as long as the ‘crisis’ in the Middle East has continued where does one locate realistic expectations of a solution acceptable to those involved that at a minimum would eliminate the constant threat of violence or war? Official comments out of Israel, as might be expected, expressed the expectation of continued cooperation from the US.

Maybe President-elect Obama will convey the same sentiment to Israel that he delivered to the American people in his acceptance speech. That nothing may be accomplished in the first year or first term and we all will need to sacrifice. Could the 78% Jewish vote for Obama be having buyer’s remorse yet?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

It is not uncommon to find an analysis of the foreign policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. One such analysis below from down under agrees with the view from this blog and is used here to emphasize that point. Senator John McCain is in a much better position to deal with Iran than Barack Obama. Among all the issues that face the US now and will face the next President very soon, Iran and their pursuit of nuclear capabilities as well as the threats against Israel, the rest of the Middle East and the world in general ranks as critiical. So think about the other events related to Iran presented below and their historical implications.

Iran test candidates

In the end the result was much closer than anticipated, with most political pundits calling it tie. But on the crucial issue of Iran, Senator McCain struck a more convincing tone, giving him the edge on this most pressing of security issues. What to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program will be one of the most difficult challenges to face the next occupant of the White House. A nuclear-armed Iran would spark an atomic arms race in the Middle East, threaten the world’s oil supplies and embolden Iran-sponsored extremist groups such as Hezbollah.

Senator Obama’s policy on Iran has been marked by missteps, most notably his offer to negotiate directly with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In Saturday’s debate he backtracked on this position, saying he was no longer so sure. But he stuck to his belief that direct diplomacy would give the US more credibility to press for tougher sanctions. Senator McCain was more forthright, ruling out talks with Mr Ahmadinejad and reiterating his opposition to giving ground in any way that might legitimise the Iranian leader’s illegal behaviour.

At first glance, the title from an article in the Tehran Times suggested someone had lost their mind or this was simply propaganda from Iran.

Rabbis hail Ahmadinejad’s NY visit

A group of American rabbis welcome Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York in a move aimed at countering an anti-Iran protest.

Iran promotes peace and respects Judaism, spokesman of Neturei Karta International (Jews United Against Zionism) Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss said in a statement issued on the eve of President Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York.

This is while a pro-Israeli group called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations has made efforts to organize a rally in front of the UN headquarters on Sunday to protest President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s arrival in the U.S..

Right out of the blocks the claim that Iran ‘promotes peace and respects Judaism’ sends the BS meter off the charts. How is advocating the destruction of Israel promoting peace and respecting Judaism? The additional strange suggestion from the piece indicating Rabbis on both sides of the Iranian controversy. The report offered below also presents a combination of expected and unexpected responses to Iran.

A coalition of U.S. religious groups exchanged views with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a New York hotel.

The dialogue Thursday, sponsored by Mennonite, Quaker and other religious groups that press for world peace, had been sharply criticized by Jewish groups for allegedly legitimating the Iranian president’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and his oppression of religious minorities in Iran.

Expected: Jewish groups criticizing others for meeting with the Iranian President. Unexpected: other religious groups meeting with the Iranian President. While one might not reasonably expect everyone to hold the same opinion on Iran on every issue, recognizing Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel and therefore condemning the Iranian Preisdent and refusing to meet with him should be SOP for religious groups as well as political leaders. Since Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler it is not a stretch to view some recent events as similar to the coddling manner by which many also treated Hitler during his rise to power in Germany. And we all know what happened then.

And then a surprise from the WSJ that would seem more appropriately located in the confines of the NYT based on past history. A reporter’s account of an invite and dinner with Ahmadinejad extended to those of Iranian heritage.

Inside Iran, sentiments are divided over him. The ultra conservatives praise his populist demeanor while others criticize him for his government’s economic policies that have contributed to the rise of unemployment and a 25% inflation rate, despite a country swimming in cash from soaring oil prices.

At the dinner party in New York, criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad appeared to have been brushed aside and replaced with fervent nationalistic pride. Both the host and the attendees appeared to cling to the one strong, if only, tie: being Iranian.

And the same mixed reactions are of course not dead at the United Nations either.

Sound familiar? First there is tough talk from those in the UN and the IAEA that Iran is dangerous and pursuing nukes (or WMD) and that they are ignoring the United Nations and members that are demanding they cease and desist.

UN Nuclear Agency Accuses Iran of Blocking Investigation

September 15, 2008
The United Nations nuclear agency is accusing Iran of blocking a U.N. investigation into allegations that Tehran tried to make nuclear weapons.

The UN then speaks of enforcing sanctions and possibly announcing more to which Ahmadinejad promptly flips them off.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Dismisses Sanction Talk as Weak

September 18, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed talk of new sanctions over Iran’s disputed nuclear work as a sign of weakness by those making the threat.

And about a week later the Iranian President struts his stuff at the UN and essentially tells them to go pound sand

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Denounces ‘Bullying Powers’ in UN Address

Sept 26, 2008
The Iranian leader sounded a defiant tone at the United Nations, where preliminary consultations have been held on a possible fourth sanctions resolutions against Tehran in the Security Council because of its refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Sounds like the UN responded with tougher sanctions after being bad mouthed by Iran.

Major Powers Agree on New UN Resolution on Iran

Sept 26, 2008
Putting aside differences over Georgia, the United States and Russia joined other major powers Friday in endorsing a new draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to comply with international demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft, expected to be approved by the full council next week, reaffirms existing U.N. sanctions against Iran but contains no new ones.

While the previous report indicates there were no new sanctions, the title and story below drive home the point.

Iran Avoids New Sanctions in Security Council Vote

By Margaret Besheer
27 September 2008

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution ordering Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program — but the council did not impose any new sanctions.

And on top of all that comes a recent addition to the shameful actions of some Iranian citizens.

Young Iranians Release Book Caricaturing The Holocaust

Sunday, September 28, 2008

TEHRAN, Sept. 27 — Iranian students have released a book containing cartoons of the Holocaust, including some depicting hospitalized Jews on respiratory machines attached to canisters of Zyklon B, the gas used to exterminate Jews during World War II.

The students, members of a state militia, unveiled “Holocaust” in Tehran’s Palestine Square on Friday in the presence of Education Minister Ali Reza Ali-Ahmadi, during annual demonstrations calling for the retreat of “Zionists” from “occupied Palestine.”

Below is an excerpt of an account of the Iranian President’s stand on Israel.

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off “without the existence of the Zionist regime.”

Israel “is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,” he said.

There are enough examples in this post to reveal nearly every nation, organization or group is complicit in allowing the insanity that is Ahmadinejad to persist. Many are quick to condemn his behavior but few, especially the United Nations, are prepared to support that condemnation with action. This includes other Arab states who publicly support peace in the Middle East but whose actions offer little evidence that this is anything more than posturing.

It has been said that during the first Presidential debate John McCain was the only adult in the room. That would be a plus since Ahamdinejad contends since the US has nukes Iran should be able to also. An adult would handle that like any other lame argument from an unruly child and not allow the stupidity to continue. Whereas Barack Obama would simply say ‘no’ without follow up action like the fine parents who let their children raise hell in public to the disdain of others wishing the offending parent(s) knew how to raise children.

But of course that is an absurd analogy on the state of affairs with Iran equal to the inept response of world leaders to the very real threat of the stated goals of Iran.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com