http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/lebanon/7916925/Lebanon-facing-crisis-if-Hizbollah-charged-over-political-murder.html

Lebanon facing crisis if Hizbollah charged over political murder. Lebanon could be pitched into crisis if a tribunal set up to investigate the murder of the former prime minister, Rafik Harari, recommends charging Hizbollah members.

Rafik Harari, pictured,  Photo: AP

Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was killed in a massive blast on Beirut’s Corniche in 2005. Photo: AP
–

The shifting sands of the Middle East

By Ted Belman

Shimon Peres, President of Israel, has, for the last thirty years, called for a New Middle East.  In fact he wrote a book by that title in 1993, the year of the Oslo Accords. He believed that economic cooperation in the ME was the starting point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples.  The Oslo Accords, of which he was the main architect and instigator, was intended to lead in that direction.  It failed miserably.

In those days the main players on the Muslim side, were Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, all Sunni. And, of course, we cannot leave out Arafat, also a Sunni.

All this began to change with the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003. Talk about unintended consequences. The defeat of Iraq, created a power vacuum which Shiite Iran was salivating to fill. Although Iraq under Hussein was in the Sunni camp, its population was 60% Shiite. Luckily, the Iraqi Shiites prefer independence from Iran perhaps due in part to the fact they are Arab and not Farsi; at least for now but that could change.

Iran had aspirations of grandeur and imperialist ambitions.  She began to plot a course which would lead to her dominance of the Muslim world and in the Middle East. No small task, since 80% of Muslims are Sunni and Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, are located in Saudi Arabia.

This course had two prongs; the development of its own nuclear bomb and the confrontation with Israel, the Little Satan and the US the Big Satan on behalf of all Muslims everywhere.

Iran also had a natural advantage, her location. Egypt, with its population of 55 million is poor and on the periphery. It also made peace with Israel thereby taking her out of the race for now.  Iran borders on Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian Sea.  The US needs Iran to be cooperative in each of these theaters.

Iran’s first success was to win over Syria the most rejectionist Sunni state. This was easier than you might expect as Syria is ruled the Alawites, a Shiite sect. Their alliance is constantly growing and seems to have no bounds.  This is so notwithstanding that the US has attempted to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria is important because it borders on Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, with whom she has a casus belli for the return of the Golan.

Syria also has imperialist ambitions. She has visions of recovering all lands which were part of the Ottoman province of Syria.  Britain and France entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement during WWI in which they agreed that Britain would control Mesopotamia (Iraq) and southern Syria, (Jordan and Israel) and France would control the rest of Ottoman Syria (Syria, Lebanon and Hatay province of Turkey). The League of Nations formalized this agreement in 1923 when it created the British Mandate and the French Mandate.

In pursuance of these ambitions, in 1970, Syria invaded Jordan only to be repulsed by Israel.  During the recent decades, Syria extended its influence over Lebanon.  This was made easier with the growth of Hezbollah which was predominantly Shiite. It was natural for Syria and Iran to come together on this.  Together they have armed Hezbollah to the teeth in order to have a proxy for the war against Israel. In truth there is no casus belli  between Hezbollah and Israel.

Iran took Hamas under its wing after Hamas took over Gaza from the Sunni backed Palestinian Authority in 2007.  It was natural for this to happen since they both are dedicated to destroying Israel.

This is a development which has put Egypt in the cross hairs. Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood which was founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood has been a thorn in Egypt’s backside ever since. It believes that Muslim society is no longer Islamic and must be transformed by an Islamic vanguard through violent revolution. Thus, the Brotherhood and Iran are natural allies.

There is great concern that when Mubarak dies, Egypt will be vulnerable to a Brotherhood takeover. Hamas, with the backing of Iran, could greatly assist in this takeover.

Turkey was the last to join the Iranian axis. With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the modern state of Turkey. He ruled as President until his death in 1938.  During this time he sought to transform Turkey into a modern and secular nation-state. The Turkish army maintained this orientation until the election of islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2003.  This victory was made possible by the changing demographics of the country. The higher birth rates of the rural class in Turkey (and in Hezbollah in Lebanon) made possible the shift in power.

The US championed the admission of Turkey to NATO and to the EU. Turkey maintained a friendship with Israel to gain favor with the US and with the EU. She succeeded in being admitted to NATO but not to the EU. The EU was not in the mood to admit a Muslim state and set all kinds of preconditions. Erdogan decided to chart his own course rather than the one dictated by the EU. Turkey gave up on admission and turned increasing islamist and anti-Israel and, I might add, anti-American.

——————–

In Turkey’s MidEast Gambit, Sam Segev notes,

“Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has cautiously but consistently moved to reclaim Turkey’s “grandeur” of the Ottoman Empire era.

“This necessitated a slow but cautious distancing from Israel and the U.S. In 2003, it refused an American request to allow American troops to enter Iraq through Turkish territory. Then a Turkish diplomat was elected secretary general of the 53-member Organization of Islamic Countries and relations with Israel cooled.

“Erdogan ramped up his Islamic-oriented policy after his re-election in 2007. He reconciled with Syria, welcomed Hamas leaders in Ankara, hosted Sudanese President Omar Hassan el-Bashir, who is accused of war crimes, and began to undermine Egyptian and Saudi roles in the Sunni moderate Arab world. “

“ Turkey is the only NATO member to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and its alignment with Brazil to extricate Iran from stronger sanctions agreed upon by the five permanent members of the Security Council is a direct challenge to American influence in the region.

“Turkey’s attempt to break the blockade on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip was a direct affront not only to Israel, but also to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority.”

——————

And yet President Obama still believes “Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process.”

To make matters worse, the opinion makers in the US and the EU have come out in favor of lifting the blockade which in effect is in support of Hamas, a terrorist organization. And Obama is on their side.

The strengthening of Hamas effectively strengthens Iran, strangles the peace process and scares the bejeesus out of Egypt and Jordan.

As Obama stands astride the shifting sands what possible vision can he have?

You would think that as the U.S. is losing control of the Middle East and plans to bring most of the boys home before the end of next year, she would need a strong Israel all the more.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel

Meanwhile, EU announces plan to grant duty-free access for Palestinian products.  June 10, 2010

On Sunday June 6th Fareed Zakaria on CNN/GPS preached WORDS – NOT GUNS and was not shy to state that Turkey is also playing a new and dangerous game before interviewing An important Turkish Ambassador – perhaps the real mastermind of The Newest Turkey. He is the personal advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Fareed said: Once an ally of Europe it is (Turkey) now playing games that are enemy more then friend, but Fareed was trying to understand the Turkish position and expressed also that during the Bush Administration, Turkey was treated heavy-handedly and expected to be an ally in Iraq. The Turks bulked. That is how friend became enemy.

Fareed looked at the “Quartet – US, UN, EU, Russia – and with Tony Blair in charge said that the best effort is to work with the Palestinians in order to prepare them for Statehood. Israel ifs fully responsible for the security of its citizens and has full right to protect them but is also to see that life is not made impossible in Gaza. In the end, it is up to Senator Mitchell to navigate for the evolution of a two-State hope.

The question about the blockade is semantics Fareed and Blair concluded – Israel has the duty to protect itself against weapons and arms that come into Gaza but rural life must return to Gaza. There are objects and materials needed to rebuild agriculture that should be allowed in.

The Palestinians can see that there are good things that happen in the West Bank, but Gaza is left out. People in Gaza have to understand that there is a better way then what Hamas is offering them now.

Tony Blair – on TV – refused to answer a value question saying that he knows Israel values the relations with Turkey.

There is a chance we get to a better way for a bottom up approach in Gaza, as in Palestine Blair said, once you get an alignment between the achievements on the ground and the hopes – there may then be a way for Peace. The Turkish Foreign Minister went to Jeddah for the Islamic Conference to discuss Gaza. As we wrote already, we know that Jordan with Saudi money may try to figure the incentive, the first time, that is after 60 years, for the people in Gaza to cooperate in a more peaceful way.

Ambassador Ahmet Davutgglu, came on the program and started by claiming a comparison to the piracy of the coast of Somalia, and asking what are we to do? Fareed did not take this bait and if I were that Turkish Minister I would have walked off – but he did not. He reacted saying that this is not between Turkey and Israel but between Israel and the World and Israel does not want an international inquiry. The man looked like a snake-oil salesman and we envision that as main strategist of the new Erdogan geopolitics, he actually knows very well what he is after – no simple bumbler here.

{Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visited Washington, March 17-21, 2009, to discuss critical developments in the Middle East before President Obama’s visit to Turkey on April 6-7, 2009. During his visit Davutoglu stated that “The U.S. and Turkey is at the historical moment that both countries have similar views at almost all issues.” Davutoglu underlined that Turkey is becoming a strategic location for regional energy infrastructure and further suggested “from now on, everyone sees the strategic importance of Turkey that increases as the days pass” (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19)  http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cach… tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34754 }

“Israel is standing up for one soldier that was captured by Hamas, what did they expect from us after killing nine of our people?”

Fareed reminded him that one student had also American citizenship and that the US could make a request regarding its citizen. To which the Ambassador said that Turkey has contacts with the US on this matter. Also, there is a Human Rights Council in Geneva that should take this up but Israel just said they will not cooperate. Did our citizens violate Israeli territory? No! There was even a Nobel Prize Winner on the boat he further said – the list of the passengers can prove they were not terrorists.

For decades Israel and Turkey were allies – i myself mediated between Olmert and Syria. What happened he said was the change in Israel politics.  Are you having problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu asked Fareed? His answer came that last Thursday he was supposed to meet with P.M. Netanyahu on negotiations with Syria, but on Monday this happened and they attacked the convoy. This can go on in circles – why then did Turkey organize the flotilla’s leading ship?

Fareed asked to the point: There are many people that believe you, as the architect for moving Turkey away from Western Policy? To that he gave a long list of Turkey’s work with the West – Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Balkans, etc. only two weeks ago we had a Peace Conference in Istanbul he said. We are not trouble makers at all – he sad.

Following the interview – Fareed Zakaria had also two Jewish opponents – it was Republican Elliot Abrams versus Democrat Peter Beinart – but whatever policy differences they may have with each other, nobody was saying anything positive about Turkey’s recent activity though the door to future more positive intervention is left open.

Abrams, with a long track record on Middle East negotiations, under several US Presidents, made it clear that there is no International community that Israel can trust in the post-”Zionism is Racism” UN vote. In the light of this there is no way Israel can rely on the UN. Beinart said that he is not going to defend the Turkish action, but 90% of the water in Gaza is not drinkable – and to this both sides can agree that something must be done -HURRAY!

————

Having reported on the above, let me add that we get mail regarding our effort at honesty in this debate. The most interesting came from Russia and had Russian text, though I would guess it originated with Russian speakers living now in Israel.

Please have a look at the video, and without prejudging what the Turks could actually achieve, we can nevertheless wipe out the last few weeks when thinking of their credibility. We will get back to this point in next posting.

=========================================================

THIS IS A VIDEO WE RECOMMEND YOU WATCH!

We Con the World (LatmaTV production) -

We Con the World (LatmaTV production)

==================================

——-

In its latest effort to win back world opinion after killing nine pro-Palestinians in a mid-ocean raid on Monday, the IDF has released a video of a Gaza-bound activist declaring his wish to become a shahid, or Muslim martyr.

Israel intercepted a convoy of six boats in international waters, some 60 miles offshore in the early hours of Monday morning. Commandos had been equipped with riot gear for what was supposed to be a routine operation against protesters challenging Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Instead troops met stiff resistance and eventually opened fire. Activists have claimed their intentions were entirely peaceful – but the IDF, as well as some analysts, has drawn links between a Turkish charity group that funded the flotilla and al-Qaida terrorists.

The army on Wednesday posted this video on the YouTube website to support its claims – see: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7…

At the UN, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, a British Diplomat, former Ambassador to France, appointed to his UN position by  United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon January 2007, declared that “we want to turn this disaster into an opportunity, but h warned – the situation is very complicated and do not think it is a simple question to resolve.

he made it clear that the UN does not accept any interference at borders and that there should be no restrictions on what the various Palestinian factions want to bring in and the way they use what the donors send them as long as the donors agree.

But John Holmes is neither blind nor deaf – so he knows – and said so: “The de facto position is that Israel must agree to the crossing of goods.” {our update is about the inclusion of the article we received from Uri Avnery and we suggest that Mr. Holmes take a historic look at how other Britons dealt blows to themselves over 60 years ago.}

He noted, and we say this is the great luck of the UN, the UN has no ships to protect the shipping to Gaza – so it is for the interested parties to get to an agreement with Israel and take into consideration the security worries about shipping of arms to Gaza.

Here we get to the main issues. Israel is ready to allow transfer of goods to Gaza provided that some goods are not included but it has not made available such a list. Then the issue of cement – will it be used for housing or military purpose? With lack of agreement between the two main Palestinian factions – Hamas of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority that rules on the outside, who will speak for the people of Gaza?

So far – so good – but here Ambassador Holmes gave a clear picture of how difficult it is to satisfy Israel’s worries. He literally started to mumble when the question was what list is Israel expected to produce – the list of acceptable goods or the list of forbidden goods, Mr. Holmes settled on the liste of “forbidden goods – AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALLOWED.” But then how do you treat improvisations that lead to dangerous outcomes – like the issue of cement? Not easy indeed. We think that agreed upon foods and medications should be on that list – and everything else excluded until a resumption of Peace talks with the Gazan’s becomes reality – but then Peace talks with the Palestinian Authority about the other, and major, part of the land – the West Bank, should go on speedily. If Turkey wants to be of any help – that is what it can do – host the negotiations without posturing as leader of the hate-Israel tribes.

This website has its difficulty in accepting deeds of Israeli governments that did not try to solve the ongoing conflict and one of the people w admire most is Uri Avnery who is a maverick in Israel – that allows us now to take the position that Turkey, a country that we saw as potential trouble shooter, we feel now is becoming rather a trouble causer to Israel and the Obama Administration. Having entered the fray Turkey could now figure out ways how to monitor those lists and how to open the door to needed supplies in Gaza – but within the limits of required Israel security needs.

————-
From the UN, June 4, 2010 – GAZA: UN OFFICIAL VOICES DEEP CONCERN AS HAMAS RAIDS OFFICES OF AID GROUPS.

{just call it – biting the hand that feeds you!}

A senior United Nations official in the Middle East today expressed deep concern at reports that Hamas has broken into the offices of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Gaza Strip this week, confiscated materials and equipment, and forced the offices to shut down.

Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said in a statement issued in Jerusalem that reports indicated Hamas had broken into NGO offices in both Gaza City and Rafah.

“This targeting of NGOs, including UN partner organizations, is unacceptable, violating accepted norms of a free society and harming the Palestinian people,” he said.

“The de facto authorities must cease such repressive steps and allow the re-opening of these civil society institutions without delay.”

Hamas, which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, took control of Gaza in 2007 after it ousted the Fatah movement. About 1.5 million Palestinians live in the area, which has been blockaded by Israel for the past three years.

——————-

see also: http://israel.foreignpolicyblogs.com/

——————

But that is not all: What should be considered also is - http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers…

The Israeli special-forces assault in the early hours of 31 May 2010 on the leading ship of a humanitarian-aid convoy sailing towards the Gaza strip was intended to be a robust statement of national policy. Instead, the deadly commando-raid – in which nine of the on-board activists were killed and thirty wounded – has sparked an international diplomatic crisis with profound implications.

This international dimension of the incident was apparent within hours when Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancelled what was to have been a crucial bridge-building meeting in Washington with Barack Obama and returned to Israel. The events on the Mavi Marmara ferry, both a human tragedy and a public-relations disaster for Israel, were soon to accomplish what the activists had set out to do and Israel been determined to stop: focus global attention on the blockade of the Gaza strip (see Patrick Cockburn, “PR dangerously distorts the Israeli sense of reality”, 2 June 2010).

A clear danger

Israel had assembled a powerful naval force to intercept a flotilla that represented much the largest and best-resourced effort to break the Gaza blockade.

The Mavi Marmara initiative centred on the Turkish group the Foundation of Humanitarian Relief (IHH), a well-endowed organisation that may be supported financially by many Turks but also has (at the very least) informal links with the Ankara government. The IHH had bought the Mavi Marmara from a state-owned company for $1.25 million; there was every sign that the flotilla it led represented the early stage of a long-term  operation with high-level Turkish political endorsement (see Simon Thurlow, “Israel Founders in International Waters”, Asia Times, 1 June 2010) .

Israel’s absolute determination to maintain control of Gaza meant that the development of such a strategy (essentially under official Turkish tutelage) presented it with a clear danger. Israel therefore decided to use sufficient force to deter any practical attempts to pursue the strategy, even if that would damage further its already strained relations with Turkey.

A deep concern

The working relationship between Turkey and Israel, complex and in many ways unexpected as it has been, has survived major tests (see Kerem Oktem, “Turkey and Israel: ends and beginnings”, 10 December 2009). Yet it  had already been deteriorating for some time before the Israeli military assault on Gaza in December 2008-January 2009 – Operation Cast Lead – made it even more fraught. The public dispute between the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Israeli president Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos was only the most visible sign of an accentuating trend (see Mustafa Kibaroglu, “Turkey-Israel relations after Gaza“, 26 January 2010). Now, the crisis over the flotilla attack has brought it to an even deeper low.

This is worrying enough for Israel, but the profound breach between two of the United States’s closest allies is also a deep concern for Washington.

The US is acutely aware that the assault on the Mavi Marmara has potentially damaging reverberations in other areas – Pakistan and Iran, for example – where what it perceives as its core security interests are at stake (see “America and the world’s jungle“, 27 May 2010).

Among these effects is a further rise in anti-Americanism in Pakistan, evident in demonstrations in Karachi (see Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Israeli strike echoes in Pakistan”, Asia Times 2 June 2010). This will dismay Washington as it attempts to secure Pakistani cooperation in its tough campaign to subdue the Taliban.

But the Barack Obama administration will be even more alarmed by the renewed difficulties in persuading fellow United Nations Security Council states to vote for another round of sanctions against Iran over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The current non-permanent members of the council include Turkey and Brazil, and both were already aggrieved at the United States dismissal of the enriched-uranium exchange-deal they agreed with Tehran on 17 May 2010 (see Mariano Aguirre, “Brazil-Turkey and Iran: a new global balance”, 2 June 2010). Now, after the Israeli raid, Turkey will be even less inclined to support Washington.

An Istanbul gathering

These matters are serious enough for the United States. But an equally momentous development, one that as yet has not been fully registered, is a five-day meeting that took place in Istanbul’s Cevahir Hotel on 10 April 2010. The “Iraqi resistance support conference” involved dozens of Iraqis who had been active in the Sunni insurgency that developed after the US-led overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and occupation of Iraq in 2003 (under the banner of groups such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the al-Rashideen Army) (see Ernesto Londono, “Iraq’s Sunni insurgent groups gather to plot comeback amid political crisis.” (Washington Post, 1 June 2010).

The Istanbul meeting included people who had been involved in the governing Ba’ath Party during the Saddam Hussein era, though not (it seems) any linked to al-Qaida in Iraq. It did, however, reflect a strong sense that many of those involved in the “awakening” movement that had opposed and weakened al-Qaida in 2007-08 were now being excluded from Iraqi politics at the highest level.

Almost three weeks after the Istanbul gathering, on 29 April, a public meeting was held in Damascus to relaunch the Ba’ath Party in Iraq, an organisation outlawed since spring 2003. The Syrian capital may be seen as the “natural” location for this event for reasons both of geographical proximity and political-ideological affinity (Syria, after all, is ruled by a branch of the once-unified Ba’ath and is ostensibly committed to the same Arab nationalist goals).

The party’s rebirth was condemned by Iraq’s current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who belongs to the (Shi’a-supported) Dawa that long opposed Ba’ath rule. But the International Crisis Group’s specialist on Iraq (and openDemocracy author) Joost Hiltermann puts this political move in the context of current Iraqi realities:

“There is no doubt that Sunnis will feel excluded, disenfranchised and marginalised if they are not given a significant share in government. After all, it is with this expectation that they agreed to abandon the insurgency during the surge in 2007”.

The attempted reforming of the Ba’ath Party may well come to nothing. Indeed it may simply be a political ploy – a veiled threat to the Shi’a majority in Iraq that it should avoid entrenching any exclusion of the Sunnis from Iraq’s post-election settlement.

This aspect of internal Iraqi politics aside, the Turkish government’s willingness to allow a key meeting of Iraqi ex-insurgents to take place in Istanbul is remarkable.

A new wind

There is much talk and some fear in western capitals that Turkey is ceasing to look westwards towards the European Union and Nato, and rather seeks to build its influence to the east and south.

The view of some analysts in the United States is even more alarmist: that Turkey – its membership of Nato notwithstanding – is increasingly unreliable as a partner of the west (see Steven A Cook, “How do you say ‘frenemy’ in Turkish?”, Foreign Policy, 1 June 2010). The prospect of a revival of a form of Islamist-imperial dominance in the region, under the leadership of Erdogan’s AKP government, offers history-fuelled succour to the notion. A comment in the influential neo-conservative Weekly Standard is indicative:

“Since 2005, Americans have been worrying about Iran’s ambitions for regional hegemony. Maybe its time we started worrying about Turkey’s regional ambitions as well. The Turks ruled the region from 1453 to 1922, after all. A renascence of Turkish power, in an Islamist guise, would cause all sorts of troubles no one can anticipate” (see Matthew Continetti, “The Turkish power”, Weekly Standard, 1 June 2010).

There are variable degrees of simplification in such views, which need to be considered in the context of Turkey’s substantial military involvement in Nato and its continuing ambitions to join the European Union (see Katinka Barysch, “Turkey and Europe: a shifting axis”, 14 April 2010).

What is much more likely is that Turkey is pursuing and will further develop a triple strategic and diplomatic policy:

a.  retaining its European orientation

b.  enhancing its regional influence, not least in Iraq and Iran (see Carsten Wieland, “Turkey’s political-emotional transition”,        6 October 2009)

c.  creating space to work more closely with other major emerging states – notably Brazil, as over the tripartite fuel-swap agreement with Iran

In this broader context, the Istanbul hotel meeting may over time prove to be as significant as Turkey’s angry response to Israel’s commando-raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla. What is certain is that both events are ingredients of a change in the world’s political order.

———————————————————-

from: Uri Avnery

Hope this may interest you.
Shalom, Salamaat,
uri

– –

June 5, 2010

Kill a Turk and Rest

ON THE high seas, outside territorial waters, the ship was stopped by the navy. The commandos stormed it. Hundreds of people on the deck resisted, the soldiers used force. Some of the passengers were killed, scores injured. The ship was brought into harbor, the passengers were taken off by force. The world saw them walking on the quay, men and women, young and old, all of them worn out, one after another, each being marched between two soldiers…

The ship was called “Exodus 1947”. It left France in the hope of breaking the British blockade, which was imposed to prevent ships loaded with Holocaust survivors from reaching the shores of Palestine. If it had been allowed to reach the country, the illegal immigrants would have come ashore and the British would have sent them to detention camps in Cyprus, as they had done before. Nobody would have taken any notice of the episode for more than two days.

But the person in charge was Ernest Bevin, a Labour Party leader, an arrogant, rude and power-loving British minister. He was not about to let a bunch of Jews dictate to him. He decided to teach them a lesson the entire world would witness. “This is a provocation!” he exclaimed, and of course he was right. The main aim was indeed to create a provocation, in order to draw the eyes of the world to the British blockade.

What followed is well known: the episode dragged on and on, one stupidity led to another, the whole world sympathized with the passengers. But the British did not give in and paid the price. A heavy price.

Many believe that the “Exodus” incident was the turning point in the struggle for the creation of the State of Israel. Britain collapsed under the weight of international condemnation and decided to give up its mandate over Palestine. There were, of course, many more weighty reasons for this decision, but the “Exodus” proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

I AM not the only one who was reminded of this episode this week. Actually, it was almost impossible not to be reminded of it, especially for those of us who lived in Palestine at the time and witnessed it.

There are, of course, important differences. Then the passengers were Holocaust survivors, this time they were peace activists from all over the world. But then and now the world saw heavily armed soldiers brutally attack unarmed passengers, who resist with everything that comes to hand, sticks and bare hands. Then and now it happened on the high seas – 40 km from the shore then, 65 km now.

In retrospect, the British behavior throughout the affair seems incredibly stupid. But Bevin was no fool, and the British officers who commanded the action were not nincompoops. After all, they had just finished a World War on the winning side.

If they behaved with complete folly from beginning to end, it was the result of arrogance, insensitivity and boundless contempt for world public opinion.

Ehud Barak is the Israeli Bevin. He is not a fool, either, nor are our top brass. But they are responsible for a chain of acts of folly, the disastrous implications of which are hard to assess. Former minister and present commentator Yossi Sarid called the ministerial “committee of seven”, which decides on security matters, “seven idiots” – and I must protest. It is an insult to idiots.

THE PREPARATIONS for the flotilla went on for more than a year. Hundreds of e-mail messages went back and forth. I myself received many dozens. There was no secret. Everything was out in the open.

There was a lot of time for all our political and military institutions to prepare for the approach of the ships. The politician consulted. The soldiers trained. The diplomats reported. The intelligence people did their job.

Nothing helped. All the decisions were wrong from the first moment to this moment. And it’s not yet the end.

The idea of a flotilla as a means to break the blockade borders on genius. It placed the Israeli government on the horns of a dilemma – the choice between several alternatives, all of them bad. Every general hopes to get his opponent into such a situation.

The alternatives were:

1. To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come.

1. To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or “terrorists”, then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade.

1. To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board.

As our governments have always done, when faced with the choice between several bad alternatives, the Netanyahu government chose the worst.

Anyone who followed the preparations as reported in the media could have foreseen that they would lead to people being killed and injured. One does not storm a Turkish ship and expect cute little girls to present one with flowers. The Turks are not known as people who give in easily.

The orders given to the forces and made public included the three fateful words: “at any cost”. Every soldier knows what these three terrible words mean. Moreover, on the list of objectives, the consideration for the passengers appeared only in third place, after safeguarding the safety of the soldiers and fulfilling the task.

If Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, the Chief of Staff and the commander of the navy did not understand that this would lead to killing and wounding people, then it must be concluded – even by those who were reluctant  to consider this until now – that they are grossly incompetent. They must be told, in the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem.

The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order “to talk” and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word “lynching”.

On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites.

It is impossible not to be reminded of the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…”

“But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?”

“You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?”

To any normal person, this may sound crazy. Heavily armed soldiers of an elite commando unit board a ship on the high seas in the middle of the night, from the sea and from the air – and they are the victims?

But there is a grain of truth there: they are the victims of arrogant and incompetent commanders, irresponsible politicians and the media fed by them. And, actually, of the Israeli public, since most of the people voted for this government or for the opposition, which is no different.

The “Exodus” affair was repeated, but with a change of roles. Now we are the British.

Somewhere, a new Leon Uris is planning to write his next book, “Exodus 2010”. A new Otto Preminger is planning a film that will become a blockbuster. A new Paul Newman will star in it – after all, there is no shortage of talented Turkish actors.

MORE THAN 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that every nation must act with a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Israeli leaders have never accepted the wisdom of this maxim. They adhere to the dictum of David Ben-Gurion: “It is not important what the Gentiles say, it is important what the Jews do.” Perhaps he assumed that the Jews would not act foolishly.

Making enemies of the Turks is more than foolish. For decades, Turkey has been our closest ally in the region, much more close than is generally known. Turkey could play, in the future, an important role as a mediator between Israel and the Arab-Muslim world, between Israel and Syria, and, yes, even between Israel and Iran. Perhaps we have succeeded now in uniting the Turkish people against us – and some say that this is the only matter on which the Turks are now united.

This is Chapter 2 of “Cast Lead”. Then we aroused most countries in the world against us, shocked our few friends and gladdened our enemies. Now we have done it again, and perhaps with even greater success. World public opinion is turning against us.

This is a slow process. It resembles the accumulation of water behind a dam. The water rises slowly, quietly, and the change is hardly noticeable. But when it reaches a critical level, the dam bursts and the disaster is upon us. We are steadily approaching this point.

“Kill a Turk and rest,” the mother says in the joke. Our government does not even rest. It seems that they will not stop until they have made enemies of the last of our friends.

(Parts of this article were published in Ma’ariv, Israel’s second largest newspaper.)

-==========================================================================

CHAPTER II:

Saturday, June 5th there was again an attempt to breach the Israeli blockade, but it had a different result. So, as expected, these events will continue and one might be able to predict the results based on the country that sends out the ship.

Please see:  http://www.truthout.org/israeli-naval-fo…

This time it was an Irish vessel, “the Rachel Corrie, named after the US citizen who was intentionally crushed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, refused demands by Israeli defense forces to dock in Ashdod. It was intercepted in international waters.” From the tone of this report it is made clear that the report was not favorable to Israel – but nevertheless it does produce the truth in this case. Just see further  as it says:

According to the New York Times, “there were no resistance or injuries, and the military said the ship’s crew and passengers fully complied with the boarding.”

And from the Israelis – “Our forces boarded the boat and took control without meeting any resistance from the crew or the passengers. Everything took place without violence,” a military spokeswoman told Agence France-Press, saying no shots had been fired.

So, let us conclude – the issue is obviously complicated, so are the reasons for the previous deaths – when a flotilla comes in fighting mode and ready to become “jihadis” there will be dead – if the issue is plain civil protest and delivery of goods – Israel should deal with it accordingly – and the second case proves it.

Further: The ship and the 15 people on board, most of them Irish or Malaysian activists, was being escorted into the southern Israeli port of Ashdod from where the aid would be transferred to Gaza through land crossings, the military said.

Canada’s CTV reported that the Rachel Corrie was “carrying about 1,000 tons of aid, including wheelchairs, medical supplies and cement.”

Passengers, CTV news said, included Nobel Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire and are largely affiliated with the group “Free Gaza.”

The organization said in statement that the Rachel Corrie was tracked by Israeli ships for two hours prior to the raid and the Israeli navy jammed the vessels equipment.

All right – we expect the Israelis to deliver the wheelchairs and medical supplies to Gaza by road, and make a final decision on the cement. Maybe allow in part of it with the FREE GAZA  people vouching that it is used for housing. If the Palestinians refuse acceptance – the cement goes back to Ireland or is bought by the Israelis at fair price. Whatever the outcome – we see already that the Irish were not on the way to Gaza in order to stake claim for their flag – and that was the true difference between the first that was a Turkish political pro-Turkish attempt, and the follow-up Irish humanitarian pro-Palestinian attempt.

1761 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20036

Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear deal.
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, AP, May 17, 2010

TEHRAN, Iran -Iran agreed Monday to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the international standoff over the country’s disputed nuclear program and deflate a U.S.-led push for tougher sanctions.
The deal was reached in talks with Brazil and Turkey, elevating a new group of mediators for the first time in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities. The agreement was nearly identical to a U.N.-drafted plan that Washington and its allies have been pressing Tehran for the past six months to accept in order to deprive Iran — at least temporarily — of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.
The United States had no immediate comment, but Germany greeted the news with caution.
The key question is whether the agreement fulfills the demands that the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made of Tehran, German government spokesman Christoph Steegmans said.
Steegmans noted that the point remains whether Iran suspends enrichment of nuclear material at home, raising a possible sticking point since the agreement reaffirmed Tehran’s right to enrichment activities for peaceful purposes.
The heart of the deal is a swap in which Iran would send abroad most of its low-enriched uranium and in return received fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a Tehran medical research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
But for months, Iran has haggled over the terms, making counterproposals that were repeatedly rejected by the U.S. and its allies. With the deal announced Monday, Tehran seems to have agreed to almost all of the original terms. However, making the deal with Turkey and Brazil may have been more palatable, allowing Iran to argue that it did not bend to American pressure.
“It was agreed during the trilateral meeting of Iranian, Turkish and Brazilian leaders that Turkey will be the venue for swapping” Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium for fuel rods, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on state TV.
Washington has cited the Iranians’ intransigence against the original deal as proof of the need for new U.N. sanctions.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said the new deal meant Iran was willing to “open a constructive road.”
“There is no ground left for more sanctions or pressure,” he told reporters in Iran, according to Turkey’s private NTV television.
Monday’s deal was announced after talks between Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
The main difference from the U.N.-drafted version is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods within a year, Turkey will be required to “immediately and unconditionally” return the uranium to Iran.
Iran feared that under the initial U.N. deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently.
The process would begin one month after a final agreement is signed between Iran and its main negotiating partners, including the United States and the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran dropped an earlier demand for the fuel exchange to happen in stages and is now willing to ship abroad its nuclear material in a single batch. It also dropped an insistence that the exchange happen inside Iran as well as a request to receive the fuel rods right away.
The U.N. draft has a gap of about a year to allow time for the rods to be manufactured in France.
While kept under international supervision in Turkey, the uranium would still be considered Iranian property until Iran receives the fuel rods, said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, called Monday’s deal historic.
The United Nations has already imposed three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The process is key to concerns over its program, because it can produce either low-enriched uranium needed to fuel a nuclear reactor or the highly enriched uranium needed to build a warhead. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful and says it has a right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel.
The fuel swap deal on the table since October was touted as a way to reduce tensions and ensure Iran cannot build a bomb in the short term. The material returned to Iran in the form of fuel rods cannot be processed beyond its lower, safer levels. Iran needs the fuel rods to power an aging medical research reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
Under the agreement announced Monday, Iran will ship most of its enriched uranium — about 2,600 pounds, or 1,200 kilograms — to Turkey to be kept under U.N. and Iranian supervision. In return, it will get fuel rods containing uranium enriched to higher levels needed for the research reactor, Mehmanparast said.
Iran first reached out to Turkey and Brazil in its efforts to avoid tougher U.N. sanctions for its refusal to stop enriching uranium altogether. Both countries are non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Monday’s deal was signed by the foreign ministers of the three countries.
Iran says its enrichment program is only for peaceful uses, such as producing fuel for nuclear power plants.
Mehmanparast said a letter will be sent to the IAEA within a week to pave the way for a final agreement.
“Should they be ready, an agreement will be signed between us and the group,” he said, referring to the U.S., France, Russia and the IAEA.
A month later, the uranium — currently enriched to a level of 3.5 percent — would be sent to Turkey, where it would be stored under IAEA and Iranian supervision, Mehmanparast said. The fuel rods would contain material processed to just under 20 percent.
Enrichment of 90 percent is needed to produce material for nuclear warheads.
—
Associated Press writer Suzan Fraser contributed to this report from Ankara, Turkey.
—
Online:
The agreement —
 http://www.mfa.gov.tr/17-mayis-2010-tari…

———————————–

Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel):

• Iran Creates Illusion of Progress in Nuclear Negotiations – Glenn Kessler
  By striking a deal to ship some of its low-enriched uranium abroad, Iran has created the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise. (Washington Post)
  See also A Sham Deal with Iran – Bronwen Maddox
  Brazil and Turkey claim to have pulled off a triumph in persuading Iran to freeze the heart of its nuclear program. But this is almost certainly a sham deal – and one that, dangerously, will undermine the drive to bring new sanctions against Tehran. (Times-UK)
• Changing the Paradigm of U.S. Assistance to Egypt: Alternatives to the “Endowment” Idea – J. Scott Carpenter
  Recently leaked documents detail an exchange between Washington and Cairo regarding the future of U.S. economic assistance to Egypt, indicating that the Obama administration has welcomed Cairo’s idea of ending traditional assistance in favor of creating a new endowment, “The Egyptian-American Friendship Foundation.” This idea has a long, checkered history and, if implemented, will be bad for both American taxpayers and the Egyptian people. The administration should work with Egypt to craft alternatives that advance common objectives, including democratic reform. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

————————————

Observations:

Iran Maneuvers to Delay Sanctions – Ronen Bergman (Ynet News)

• The agreement between Tehran and Ankara is a nice achievement for the Iranians that will somewhat delay the international sanctions against them and provide an alibi for the Russians and Chinese to maintain excellent economic ties with Tehran.
• Every time Iran feels that it’s approaching the point of no return in respect to Security Council or EU decisions on sanctions, it comes up with a “new initiative” and announces that it will in fact accept the international community’s conditions. Yet when it actually needs to sign an agreement, it presents new conditions.
• The Iranians agreed and reneged on this kind of arrangement eight times. Indeed, this is just part of the ongoing ritual of Iranian maneuvers aimed at buying time in order to get as close as possible to the bomb.

Iran’s Nuclear Coup – Editorial (Wall Street Journal)

• Iran said it would send 1,200 kg. of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month, and no more than a year later get back 120 kg. enriched from somewhere else abroad. This makes even less sense than the flawed October deal. In the intervening seven months, Iran has kicked its enrichment activities into higher gear. Its estimated total stock has gone to 2,300 kg. from 1,500 kg. last autumn, and its stated enrichment goal has gone to 20% from 3.5%.
• If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous UN resolutions. Removing 1,200 kg. will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.
• Only last week, diplomats at the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has increased the number of centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium. According to Western intelligence estimates, Iran continues to acquire key nuclear components, such as trigger mechanisms for bombs. Tehran says it wants to build additional uranium enrichment plants. The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved “toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles.” Monday’s deal will have no impact on these illicit activities.

But also says:  “Arab leaders failed to reach consensus on whether the Palestinians should resume stalled talks with Israel. Leaders rejected pressure from Syria and Libya on the Palestinians to abandon talks with Israel and resume armed resistance.”

And includes pieces from Riza Khan reporting: Please see it on:
 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middle…

Further – it includes also:

‘One-state solution’ Moussa, who said a day earlier that continued Israeli settlement building would end efforts to revive the stalled peace process, reiterated the warning on Sunday. “Within the next few weeks we have to decide what to do: whether to continue with the negotiations or to completely shift course,” he said. “If we find out that Israel is not leaving an opportunity to build two states, we are investigating the possibility of supporting a one-state solution. FROM THE BLOGS Back to sixties … Gaddafi style Gaddafi’s unpredictable summit “But such a decision will … come after serious investigation and study.” The leaders plan to hold an extraordinary meeting in September to discuss issues it was unable to resolve during the just concluded summit. Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Sirte, said Moussa’s statements indicated a call for a new regional reality to counter years of rhetoric. “He’s stating very specifically that in the past there has been lots of rhetoric, lots of talk, but it has not actually confronted what is the reality,” he said. “The reality is – as Arab states see it – continued support for Israel, by the United States in particular, despite the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian people. ‘Unresolved’ problems Our correspondent said: “Year after year these summits are held and yet the reality on the ground is that the situation is not resolved. “Amr Moussa is acknowledging this, probably publicly for the first time – saying, ‘Yes there is an element of truth behind this, we have been talking for too long’.” Our correspondent said the leaders also discussed exploring closer relations between the Arab League and Iran, possibly through a forum that would include Turkey. Leaders at the summit also discussed Iraq and the state of security in the country following its recent elections. Al Jazeera’s Anita McNaught, reporting from Baghdad, said the summit leaders pointed out that Iraq’s security is crucial to the region’s stability. “This election is at a crucial stage,” she said. “If Iraq gets it right, the implications for Iraq’s neighbors are very positive. If things dissolve into rancor and violence, the effect will be massive.”

———————– As we said these last few days, reading and listening to ALJAZEERA might turn into a positive learning experience of what is being said on the other side of the curtain. ========================= This is corroborated by the Jerusalem Post – what nice comparisons when trying to understand the Middle East. http://www.jpost.com/Middle East/Article.aspx?id=172004 JPost.com Middle East Photo by: AP Familiar disingenuity at a uniquely Gaddafi-esque summit. By KSENIA SVETLOVA 28/03/2010 23:31 Analysis: As usual, the Arab-Israeli conflict demonstrated yet again its necessity – what would the distinguished leaders discuss in its absence? Upon landing at Libya’s tiny Sirte international airport, Arab leaders must have quickly figured out that the Arab League’s 22nd summit was going to be a little different to the other annual gatherings held in various Arab cities over the years – in superficial terms that is, not in terms of context and focus. The host, Muammar Gaddafi, who presided over the League’s summit for the first time, insisted on a traditional Arab atmosphere and arranged for authentic entertainment for his guests – camel and horse riding. Pita bread and dry dates were served in Beduin tents, so beloved by the “Brother Leader,” as Gaddafi is often called by his compatriots. The choice of Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace, wasn’t a trivial one, as this modest city, although well-located between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, is hardly suitable for large conventions such as the Arab summit, attended by heads of states and hundreds of politicians, diplomats and reporters. By choosing it, Gaddafi was honoring himself and his tribe. Al-Jazeera reported on problematic hotel arrangements and dissatisfaction among the Arab delegations with the venue. Gaddafi opened the session with a joke, as he usually does, teasing the emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani, for being overweight. The guests, who by now are used to Gaddafi’s odd sense of humor, smiled politely. Besides the lack of five-star service in the hotel, Arab leaders were in unanimous agreement on another issue: Israel. Israel, of course, should be condemned strongly and vehemently, and its violations in east Jerusalem were completely intolerable, stressed the speakers, who called to “rethink” the their backing of indirect negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. The emir of Qatar, who hosted the last Arab summit, in Doha, wondered if  “condemnations are enough for Jerusalem and al-Aksa? Are we and our peoples convinced that all we can do is to condemn and denounce? Do we really have to wait for the Quartet regarding Jerusalem and al-Aksa? Can anyone believe that we are incapable of lifting the siege on Gaza?” Gaddafi added that Arabs were “waiting for actions, not words and speeches.” Amr Moussa, the League’s staunchly anti-Israeli secretary-general, asked the participants to “look for another solution if peace talks fail.” Joining the Arab chorus was Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who labeled Israeli construction in east Jerusalem “madness.” (Erdogan, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon accepted invitations to attend the summit). As usual, the Arab-Israeli conflict was in the limelight, demonstrating yet again its necessity for Arab summits – what would the distinguished presidents and kings discuss in its absence? The need to introduce reforms in Arab societies to meet the challenges of modernity? The bleak future of Iraq torn by sectarian struggle? The necessity of having a united Arab position on Iran’s push for hegemony in the Persian Gulf? The terrifying prospect of a nuclear Iran? True, this time Moussa managed to touch on the Iranian issue in his speech, calling for Arab-Iranian dialogue, but this proposal wasn’t met with much enthusiasm. Instead, the Arab leaders kept focusing on the necessary plan of action to rescue Al-Aksa and to stop the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. The first (and probably the last) step in this plan involves raising $500 million to aid the Palestinians in east Jerusalem. The Arab League hasn’t fulfilled many of its previous financial commitments to the Palestinians, while Gaddafi himself owes the League a sizable amount of cash – he hasn’t paid his country’s membership fees in years. The deep gap between the brotherly Arab nations continued to yawn during each and every session, not allowing the participants to even reach a common position on Palestinians. Gaddafi was visibly surprised by strong Syrian pressure to introduce a new initiative calling to support “the Palestinian resistance.” At one point the Libyans announced that if the final statement included any reference to this initiative, Tripoli would add a special clause outlining its reservations. And the Palestinians as usual found themselves caught in between, stressing that they were “ready to fulfill any decision of the Arabs.” It was no surprise then that 92 percent of participants in an Al-Jazeera online poll said they did not expect any important decisions from the Arab summit to protect Jerusalem or the Palestinians. Shortly before the summit began, Gaddafi loudly declared that he’d like to revive the spirit of the historic Khartoum summit in 1967, famous for its “3 No’s” resolution: No to recognition of Israel, no to talks with Israel, no to peace with Israel. While not going as far as nixing the prospects of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Libyan leader succeeded in presiding over an Arab League summit with the spirit of negativism of ’67’s Khartoum meeting. The unwritten resolution of the summit in Sirte might state: “No to discussing important issues, no to overcoming the gaps and the splits in the Arab world, and no to reforms and new ideas.

World Water Day

Monday, 22 March, 2010
12:30 p.m.
Dag Hammarskjöld Library Auditorium

H.E. President of the UN General Assembly , H.E. Prime Minister of Tajikistan

H.E. Jan Eliasson
Chair of WaterAid Sweden, Former President of the UN General Assembly,
Former Foreign Minister of Sweden

With almost 884 million people lacking access to safe drinking water, and over 2.6 billion people, or almost 39 per cent of the world’s population, living without improved sanitation facilities, the issue of water is critical for tackling today’s challenges related to health, food security, and sustainable development.

To promote the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life 2005 – 2015”, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special high-level interactive dialogue on water and its implications for the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, disasters, peace and security.

This high-level dialogue provides an important input to the preparatory process for the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals to be held on 20-22 September 2010, and feeds into the High-Level International Conference on water to be hosted by Tajikistan in June 2010.

General Assembly President Ali Treki, General Assembly President Ali Treki, Prime Minister Oqilov, and WaterAid Sweden Chair Jan Eliasson will brief the press on the significance of water-related issues and highlight the urgent need for action to fulfill international commitments on water by 2015.

————————-

The problem with the above press conference, which is part of the daily UN Spokesperson’s Briefing to the Press, is that the UN General Assembly President is Ali Treki, the Foreign Minister of Libya who was declared practically non-person by the Schengen countries, so he is unwelcome to Europe {a President of the UNGA – mind you – no less}, and Oqil Ghaybulloyevich Oqilov, Prime Minister of Tajikistan, just recently host to Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran,  and whose country is turning  into a pro-Iranian satellite. The fact that the UN water conference will be held in Tajikistan must have to do something with the push for legitimization by some of the world’s less palatable regimes.

That leaves the Honorable Jan Eliason, a friend from the days he served at the UN, and a friend of humanity, the only person worthwhile on that UN panel. We say this with full knowledge that water and climate change are indeed main problems for Libya and Tajikistan, but we just do not believe that the other two speakers on that dais have shown politically real interest in this topic.

We are curious what journalists will show up and how far can questioning be allowed by the UN,  and by the UN General Assembly,  Spokesmen.

————————-

Monday 04 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad lays wreath at Ismail Samani’s statue

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid wreath at the statue of Ismail Samani a former king here on Monday.
President Ahmadinejad arrived in Dushanbe Monday morning for a two-day stay in Tajikistan.

After welcome ceremony held by Tajikistan’s Prime Minister Oqil Oqilov, Ahmadinejad started talks with his Tajik counterpart Imomali Rakhmon.

During the talks, the two presidents signed three memoranda of understanding, two documents on cooperation and a statement on expansion of bilateral relations.

Later in the day, Ahmadinejad is planned to deliver speech to a group of resident Iranians at Ibn Sina Hospital, built by Iran’s private sector in the country. He is also due to inaugurate an Iranology center in the Tajikistan’s medical university.

——

Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad ends Central Asian tour

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left Turkmenistan for Iran Wednesday afternoon at the end of his two-nation tour to the Central Asia region.

The Iranian president was officially seen off by his Turkmen counterpart Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.

He was in Turkmenistan to attend the inaugural ceremony of the first phase of Iran-Turkmenistan’s second gas pipeline project.

The 182-km pipeline was inaugurated by the Iranian and Turkmen presidents earlier on Wednesday.

President Ahmadinejad was in the region on a three-day visit which had brought him earlier to Tajikistan.

He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.

A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capitals.

—–

Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad returns home

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concluded his two-nation tour to the Central Asian region and arrived in Tehran on Wednesday afternoon.

Upon his arrival, the Iranian president was welcomed by Supreme Leader’s Advisor for International Affairs Ali Akbar Velayati, 1st Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as well as a number of high ranking officials and ministers.

Speaking to reporters at the airport, President Ahmadinejad described his visits to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as very fruitful and promising.

He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.

A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capital cities.

—–

Saturday 09 January 2010
President:
World’s fate to be decided in Middle East.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that world’s destiny will be decided in the Middle East.

“Iran and Syria should in a joint mission establish new world order based on monotheism, justice and humanity,” President Ahmadinejad told Syrian parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash.

He said the world is on verge of big developments and the tyrannical systems are fading.

“Iran and Syria shoulder a crucial role in present juncture and their cooperation should further expand,” he added.

The 30-year resistance of Iran and Syria is almost close to the victory stage, said the President, adding, “Resistance of nations, including Iran and Syria, has thwarted all the conspiracies of the imperialistic system in the political, economic, military and ideological domains.”

The President went on to say that construction of the wall of separation in the occupied lands and of the steel war in Gaza all show the Zionist regime’s vulnerability. “The US government too will have to end up its interventions in the region and get its forces out of there.”

Al-Abrash said in return that expansion of relations and cooperation among Muslim states, including Iran and Syria, has nullified enemy conspiracies.
He said that Iran and Syria will as before move in the front of perseverance and campaign against global arrogance.

————————————

For more information and the full programme of the day, please see: www.un.org

Jonathan Rich, WaterAid, Tel.: +1 347 262 9115, Email:  jonathan at jcrcommunications.com

————————————-

Let the clean water flow

from: Trita Parsi.

With the February 11 demonstrations around the corner, Washington is increasingly torn on whether and how to support the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Reality is that Washington’s history of involvement in Iran’s political affairs is not a pretty one. But between doing everything and doing nothing, there is a safe, effective third way. Alireza Nader of RAND and I write about that third path in Foreign Policy Magazine today.

 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

Trita Parsi, PhD
 www.triataparsi.com

****************************
How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran:

For the Obama administration, there are dangers in doing too much and too little to help the pro-democracy movement in Iran. Here is how to chart a safe, effective third way.

BY ALIREZA NADER, TRITA PARSI | FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

Ever since last June’s disputed presidential election, Iran has been in the throes of change, with the nascent “green movement” protesting against an ever-more-authoritarian state. For months, Washington has asked itself: Should the United States actively push for regime change? Torn between the fear of ending up on the wrong side of history by being too cautious and the fear of ending up undermining the pro-democracy movement by being too aggressive, Barack Obama’s administration is playing a difficult balancing act.

History shows that intervention is easier said than done. Past U.S. attempts to sway Iranian internal affairs — such as the CIA-fomented 1953 coup d’état against a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh — have proven costly for U.S. interests. Most notably, Washington’s support for the shah fueled the 1979 Islamic Revolution, inspiring anti-Western movements in Pakistan, Egypt, and beyond.

To make matters worse, due to its absence from the scene during the last 30 years, the United States is not sufficiently equipped to understand and shape what appears to be a titanic struggle between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his opponents.

But between the extremes of doing nothing and doing everything, there is a middle ground: providing the Iranian pro-democracy movement with breathing space, rather than engaging in risky and imprecise exercises that would directly involve America as an actor on the Iranian scene. The United States can achieve this through a few simple steps:

First, the United States should tread carefully when it comes to issuing military threats. Under the shadow of a foreign military threat, the uphill battle of the Iranian pro-democracy movement becomes even steeper, as the Iranian regime is quite adept at exploiting foreign threats to stifle criticism at home. Moreover, the possibility of military conflict between Iran and the United States, or their respective “proxies,” might allow the Iranian regime to distract the population from the internal crisis.

Second, the United States should avoid sanctions that put a burden on the Iranian people, rather than the Iranian government. Broad-based sanctions that hit the entire economy hurt common citizens far more than the powerful elites. Any new sanctions should demonstrate not only international discontent with the conduct of the Tehran government, but also an effort by the United States to keep from harming average Iranians.

The shift toward targeted sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) — a 100,000-strong paramilitary and security force with significant business interests — is a welcome development. However, because the IRGC controls Iran’s official and underground economy, identifying sanctions that hurt only the IRGC while sparing the general population is difficult. Instead, U.S. and U.N. designation of specific individuals within the government and the IRGC responsible for the repression and human rights violations would make the sanctions both effective and truly targeted. Such designations would discourage foreign governments and companies from engaging with these individuals or conducting business with them and their affiliates, demonstrating to the regime that its domestic and foreign policies will have significant consequences.

Third, Washington should slow down the diplomatic process. Negotiation with Iran in and of itself is not the problem; engagement doesn’t legitimize the Iranian government, as only the people of Iran can do that. But in spite of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest offer to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear deal, Iran remains in political turmoil. It is questionable that Tehran can make enduring decisions on issues of this magnitude under these circumstances. Adopting unrealistic time frames for diplomacy is self-defeating, as time is needed to ascertain Tehran’s ability to come to an agreement as the Iranian political crisis unfolds. Avoiding an unhelpful and unnecessary rush toward an agreement also helps defuse demoralizing fears among the greens that their struggle for democracy is of no relevance to the United States.

Fourth, the international community, including the White House and U.S. State Department, should be vocal in excoriating Iran’s human rights abuses. Condemning abuses should not be confused with interfering in internal Iranian affairs. As a signatory of numerous international conventions, Iran has a legal obligation to uphold its people’s human rights. When it fails to do so, the United States and the world community has a responsibility to speak up. The Iranian government is, perhaps surprisingly, very sensitive in this area, due to its ambition to be perceived as a regional leader. This sensitivity should be utilized to make advances on the human rights front in Iran.

This would be helpful to the green movement in two ways. First, international focus on Iran’s human rights record makes it more difficult for Tehran to proceed with its abuses. For instance, the United States should support a special session on the human rights situation in Iran at the U.N. Human Rights Council. Second, it helps counter the Iranian government’s perception that the United States is willing to sacrifice the human rights and pro-democracy aspirations of the Iranian people for the sake of a nuclear deal.

Finally (Fifth), Washington should exercise patience and view Iran as a long-term factor in shaping U.S. national security interests across the Middle East. The green movement will not and cannot adjust its action plan to suit the U.S. political timetable. But if patience is granted — which includes avoiding a singular focus on the nuclear issue at the expense of all other considerations — Washington will access a far greater potential for change.

Ultimately, the Iranian opposition has shown tremendous strength and vitality without any material support from the United States. Iran’s people, not outsiders, will be the ones to achieve sustainable democracy. The Iranian opposition is not merely concerned about the June election, nor is it a simple creature of Iran’s factional politics. Rather, it represents a historic struggle for democracy and human rights. Between the all or nothing approaches, the United States can best help by providing Iran’s democrats with breathing room.

——————-
Alireza Nader is an international affairs analyst at the RAND Corporation and co-author of Mullahs, Guards, and Bonyads: An Exploration of Iranian Leadership Dynamics.

Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

========================

UPDATED: Washington will do just that !!!

U.S. plans sanctions to hit Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
The U.S. is building a portfolio of sanctions against Iran that specifically targets the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in response to Iran’s announcement it will continue efforts to enrich uranium — a process that could contribute to a nuclear weapons development program. Russia joined the U.S. with an atypically harsh response, while China, which has said it opposed sanctions against Iran before, was mute on the announcement. The goal of the sanctions, which would affect a large number of companies that does business with the Revolutionary Guards, would be to drive a wedge between Iranians and the security forces by making it too expensive for companies to do business with Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/middleeast/10sanctions.html

One note: a transcript of our talk, provided by Assad’s office, was generally accurate but it did not include an exchange we had about intelligence. A senior Syrian official had told me that, last year, Syria, which is on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, had renewed its sharing of intelligence on terrorism with the C.I.A. and with Britain’s MI6, after a request from Obama that was relayed by George Mitchell, the President’s envoy for the Middle East. (The White House declined to comment.) Assad said that he had agreed to do so, and then added that he also has warned Mitchell “that if nothing happens from the other side”—in terms of political progress—“we will stop it.”

Quotes from our conversation follow.

President Barack Obama:

Bush gave Obama this big ball of fire, and it is burning, domestically and internationally. Obama, he does not know how to catch it.

The approach has changed; no more dictations but more listening and more recognition of America’s problems around the world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. But at the same time there are no concrete results…. What we have is only the first step…. Maybe I am optimistic about Obama, but that does not mean that I am optimistic about other institutions that play negative or paralyzing role[s] to Obama.

If you talk about four years, you have one year to learn and the last year to work for the next elections. So, you only have two years. The problem, with these complicated problems around the world, where the United States should play a role to find a solution, is that two years is a very short time…. Is it enough for somebody like Obama?

Hillary Clinton:

Some say that even Hilary Clinton does not support Obama. Some say she still has ambition to be President some day—that is what they say.

The press conference of Hillary with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu [in which she appeared to walk away from the Administration’s call for a freeze on settlements] was very bad, even for the image of the United States.

Israel and the United States:

To be biased and side with the Israelis, this is traditional for the United States; we do not expect them to be in the middle soon. So we can deal with this issue, and we can find a way if you want to talk about the peace process. But the vision does not seem to be clear on the U.S. side as to what they really want to happen in the Middle East.

Negotiations with Israel:

I have half a million Palestinians and they have been living here for three generations now. So, if you do not find a solution for them, then what peace you are talking about?

What, I said, is the difference between peace and a peace treaty? Peace treaty is what you sign, but peace is when you have normal relations. So, you start with a peace treaty in order to achieve peace…. If they say you can have the entire Golan back, we will have a peace treaty. But they cannot expect me to give them the peace they expect…. You start with the land; you do not start with peace.

The Israelis:

You need a special dictionary for their terms…. They do not have any of the old generation who used to know what politics means, like Rabin and the others. That is why I said they are like children fighting each other, messing with the country; they do not know what to do.

[The Israelis] wanted to destroy Hamas in the war [in December, 2008] and make Abu Mazen strong in the West Bank. Actually it is a police state, and they weakened Abu Mazen and made Hamas stronger. Now they wanted to destroy Hamas. But what is the substitute for Hamas? It is Al Qaeda, and they do not have a leader to talk to, to talk about anything. They are not ready to make dialogue. They [Al Qaeda] only want to die in the field.

Europe and the Iranian nuclear negotiation:

This is not European but Bush’s initiative adopted by the Europeans. The Europeans are like the postman; they pretend that they are not like this but they are like a postman; they are completely passive and I told them that. I told the French when I visited France.

Iran:

Imposing sanctions [on Iran] is a problem because they will not stop the program and they will accelerate it if you are suspicious. They can make problems to the Americans more than the other way around.

If I am Ahmadinejad, I will not give all the uranium because I do not have a guarantee [in response to American and European insistence that most of Iran’s low-enriched uranium be sent abroad for further enrichment to make it usable for a research reactor, but not for a bomb]…. So, the only solution is that they can send you part and you send it back enriched, and then they send another part…. The only advice I can give to Obama: accept this Iranian proposal because this is very good and very realistic. [Note: the Iranian position appeared to be shifting this week.]

Lebanon:

The civil war in Lebanon could start in days; it does not take weeks or months; it could start just like this. One cannot feel assured about anything in Lebanon unless they change the whole system.

Cooperating with the United States in Iraq:

They [American officials] only talk about the borders; this is a very narrow-minded way. But we said yes. We said yes—and, you know, during Bush we used to say no, but when Mitchell came [as Obama’s envoy] I said O.K.… I told Mitchell by saying this is the first step and when find something positive from the American side we move to the next level…. We sent our delegation to the borders and [the Iraqis] did not come. Of course, the reason is that [Nouri] al-Maliki [the Prime Minister of Iraq] is against it. So far there is nothing, there is no cooperation about anything and even no real dialogue.

George Mitchell:

I told him, you were successful in Ireland, but this is different…. [Mitchell] is very keen to succeed. And he wants to do something good, but I compare with the situation in the United States: the Congress has not changed…. But the whole atmosphere is not positive towards the President in general. And that is why I think his envoys cannot succeed.

Criticisms of some Israeli policies at the J-Street founding conference:

Ahh … that is new!… But we should educate them that if they are worried about Israel, then the only thing that can protect Israel is peace, nothing else. No amount of airplanes or weapons could protect Israel, so they have to forget about that.

Pakistan’s government:

They supported [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai and realized he cannot deliver. I do not know why they supported him and why—nobody knows why.

American power:

Now the problem is that the United States is weaker, and the whole influential world is weak as well…. You always need power to do politics. Now nobody is doing politics…. So what you need is strong United States with good politics, not weaker United States. If you have weaker United States, it is not good for the balance of the world.

“The banking sector in general will take several years to recover and rebuild the regulatory capital that it’s lost over the past several years combined with higher regulatory capital requirements expected in the near future,” says John Dunlop, who heads the London Energy Project Finance desk at HSH Nordbank, a leading financer of renewable energy projects. “The effect will be to reduce the overall amount of debt finance coming from banks and going to all sectors, including renewables.”

Some analysts, however, point out that concerns over climate change and declining fossil fuel reserves have resulted in government stimulus packages that could help project developers overcome the short-term financing drought. “There are certainly concerns about the economy, but I think that renewable energies are going to be a priority because they represent the future,” says Helene Pelosse, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). “Countries have to make choices and, since energy resources are limited, then this is the first field where they should invest.”

Industrial nations meeting in Copenhagen last month offered 30 billion dollars over the next three years to assist developing countries in establishing and implementing procedures to reduce their emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change. They also pledged to mobilise international support to raise 100 billion dollars annually, starting in 2020.

Yet critics have charged that the Copenhagen Accord conspicuously failed to establish the source and mechanisms of this funding – an oversight that could ultimately derail efforts to mobilise financial resources. “Many who were not enthusiastic about the outcome of the conference have considered the talk about funding just a transient one,” Rashid Ahmed bin Fahad, the United Arab Emirates minister for environment and water, said during the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi last week. “The Accord did not clarify the sources of such funding, how the money is to be distributed and the systems by which these funds operate.”

Kilian Baelz, acting director of the Regional Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (RCREEE), a Cairo-based energy policy think tank, says clean technology is “still high on the agenda” of many Middle East nations, though not all have the same political will or financial means.

Oil-rich United Arab Emirates has shown no sign of abandoning its clean energy ambitions, which include the 22 billion dollar carbon-neutral Masdar City project. Other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia) appear to be proceeding with caution. “The small Gulf states have taken a more conservative approach towards lending to renewable energy projects,” says Baelz. “They have seen that their wealth is not guaranteed and that they are vulnerable to developments in the international market.”

Poorer Arab states such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt have less capital, but Baelz does not foresee any significant scaling back of current projects. “Most of the projects in the pipeline right now are either financed from public budgets or donor funded,” he says. “In addition, many renewable energy projects are comparatively small, that is they are below the 100-200 million euro threshold that has been the lending limit for many banks.” According to Dunlop, the de-leveraging of the banking sector has put priority on consolidation and quality lending. Small-scale project developers and independent power purchasers (IPPs) will still need to field clean deals if they hope to obtain financing.

There may be a Jamaican convert to Islam who preached terrorism in the UK
and resides now in Kenya – a case in point. Kenya does want him either and
he will be sent back to Jamaica a second time. yes, this is a problem if you
are American and Jamaica does not cooperate – but he is a Muslim and no
Anti-Defamation league is enrtitled to tell you Mr. President that he should
not be stripped and searched if he wants to travel via the US to Jamaica.
This is simple.

But what about Cuba? Fidel Castro is more atheist then Catholic, surely
no Muslim. Whatever went on in the past is history to me and I do not believe
prologue to Mr. Castro. So why mix him and his country up with 13 Islamic
States involved in Islamic Terrorism? That is unless someone in the US longs
to see him give cover to such terrorists in the future so they get new reasons
to be after him? If the Jamaica case has anything to teach us – it is that the
US is better off reinsuring its rear parts from anger caused by mistreatment
and friendship is not achieved by mulling over past grief. Specially, as several
hundred former sugar baron families living in Florida should not be allowed to
hold hostage the US when it comes to real US interests.

Mr. President, I watched Bolivia and Venezuela leaders speak in Copenhagen,
they fumed and brimmed with words – no stones or missiles. Their ALBA is,
I think, the natural ally of a US that manages to disengage from the Islamic
world of oil. So, it is the US self interest that calls for you, Mr. President, to
invite Fidel Castro to Washington for a tete-a-tete and start on a way that
eventually will give the US the wall of safety it needs when addressing the 21st
Century centers of terror – the Islamists’ terror cancer that will continue to ooze
as long as we use oil.

Please start by taking him of that list!

The thirteen on that list include the obvious Iran – Syria – Lebanon
trio of the Shii’a Islam, it includes the Afghanistan/Pakistan US
theater of operations and Iraq, as well as the other US theater Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan that misses Egypt and the Gaza strip. A
fourth historic region includes Libya and Algeria, then with Nigeria,
these are newer sources of oil for the US, and as such clear potential
sources of unhappy Islamists who complain about the changes in their
countries as fueled by oil money. In very few countries terrorism
against the US was actually started by rulers decree. Libya, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Somalia may be the exceptions, but Saudi Arabia and
Yemen may have seen rulers who deflected anger against themselves into
anger against foreigners. In the majority of cases the terrorist is a
person of convictions and the situation could have been avoided had
the US and the rest of the Western World, tried to be less squanderous
with the oil we got addicted to.

Having said the above – let us get now to the point – MR PRESIDENT -
PLEASE – TAKE CUBA OFF THAT LIST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELONG ON THAT
LIST IN 2010.

* * * *

Please look – I am posting here four reference – links to news
articles of today’s New York Times.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05t…

New Air Security Checks From 14 Nations to U.S. Draw Criticism
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

In Yemen, U.S. Faces Leader Who Puts Family First
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Behind Afghan Bombing, an Agent With Many Loyalties
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/…

Kenya Seeks to Deport Muslim Cleric to Jamaica

————————

THE UPDATE:

We have received a comment on this post and it presents a very valid point supposedly made at the UN General Assembly by the Foreign Minister of Cuba: “I mean if they were going to include us, then they should have at least thrown in North Korea.”

Even if the e-mail we received from ajay -   akazif at gmail.com  as presented by www. eggplantpost.com in http://eggplantpost.com/2010/01/05/cuba-… were a made up story, the argument holds water nevertheless. DID THE US INCLUDE CUBA ON THAT LIST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS GOING AFTER A RAG-TAG OF ISLANIC COUNTRIES? Now, we believe that US security should be spoken here – not again US appeasement-for-oil please!

Green Shoots in Palestine II

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 8, 2009
Ramallah, West Bank

Ever since the collapse of the Oslo peace accords in 2000, and the horror-show violence that followed, there has been only one thing to say about the West Bank: Nothing ever changes here, except for the worst. That is just not the case anymore — much to my surprise.

For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.

Because the West Bank today is largely hidden from Israelis by a wall, Israelis are just starting to learn from their own press what is going on there. On July 31, many Israelis were no doubt surprised to read this quote in the Maariv daily from Omar Hashim, deputy chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Nablus, the commercial center of the West Bank: “Traders here are satisfied,” said Hashim. “Their sales are rising. They feel that life is returning to normal. There is a strong sense of optimism.”

Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.

The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.

“I have had a 70 percent increase in sales,” Maariv quoted a Nablus shoe store owner as saying. “People are coming from the villages nearby, and from other cities in the West Bank and from Israel.”

But men and women do not live by shoe sales alone. The only way the Palestinian leadership running this show can maintain its legitimacy is if it is eventually given political authority, not just policing powers, over the West Bank — or at least a map that indicates they are on a pathway there.

“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me. Khalil Shikaki, a leading Palestinian pollster, added that Abbas and Fayyad want “to be seen as building a Palestinian state — not security without a state.” That is why “there has to be political progress alongside the security progress. Without it, it hurts them very much.”

America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come.

Report: Iran Plane that Crashed Was Carrying Arms for Hizbullah – Nir Magal (Ynet News)
An Iranian plane crash two weeks ago which left 168 people dead was caused by the explosion of sophisticated fuses slated to be delivered to Hizbullah, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Saturday.
Sources said the plane was meant to transfer the fuses from Iran to Armenia, and from there to Syria through Turkey, and then on to Lebanon.
According to the report, the transfer of arms was a special operation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and some of its members were among the crash victims.

BY NATHAN GUTTMAN

Freezing the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was once seen as a unilateral Israeli obligation. But the Obama administration is now treating this as part of a package that will require concessions from Arab states as well.

An intensified and more public focus on this idea appears to be one of the byproducts of U.S. President Barack Obama’s July 13 pledge to American Jewish communal representatives to address perceptions that he is pressuring only Israel.

So far, the Arabs have been resistant. Still, in the wake of Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish delegation, Israeli, American and Arab leaders have, to varying degrees, shifted their rhetoric in ways that reflect acceptance of a new principle of reciprocity.

“The Americans now understand that if they get anything from us on the settlement issue, it will only be in the broader context of some kind of Arab return,” said an Israeli diplomat, echoing other similar comments from Israeli officials recently. The official added that talks between U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have focused on components of a two-sided deal that will include both a settlement freeze and reciprocal steps by Arab countries.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to confirm this in a policy speech two days after Obama’s White House meeting with the Jewish representatives.

“Progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.”

A U.S. State Department official told the Forward that steps by the Arab parties were fundamental to Mitchell’s mission.

“Special envoy Mitchell continues to engage in constructive conversations with all parties, including Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states, on steps they could take to help create a climate in which to re-launch negotiations,” he said.

At least some Arab parties to the peace process also now appear to accept this.

“The price we pay will depend on what kind of a deal we get on the settlement issue,” said an Arab diplomat in response to questions about Israel’s stand. “In return for a symbolic compromise on the settlements, some Arab states will be willing to pay with some symbolic gestures.”

But so far, the Obama administration appears stymied in its efforts to obtain a commitment to new concessions toward Israel by Arab states, even in the event of an Israeli commitment – nonexistent up to now, even conditionally – to a settlement freeze.

The administration has been frustrated in particular in its quest for flexibility from Saudi Arabia. According to experts and diplomats, tensions between Washington and Riyadh were building even prior to Obama’s meeting with Jewish leaders, as a result of a June 3 meeting between Obama and King Abdullah in the Saudi capital. The meeting ended with a clear disagreement over the issue of Israel.

“Why should the king of Saudi Arabia, who is the leader of the Muslim world and the imam of his Muslim community, give something of this nature to the Israelis for free?” asked Jamal Khashoggi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan. “This is a new idea that was probably developed by Israel’s friends in Washington.”

Khashoggi said the Saudi monarch believes his 2002 peace initiative, supported by the entire Arab League, already offered concessions and showed the kingdom’s wish for peace.

Israel never responded to the Saudi initiative. But in her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said that embracing the 2002 Arab peace plan is not enough, and that concrete initial steps are needed now.

The initiative, which Obama has cited as a helpful basis for discussion, commits the Arab world to an official peace agreement with Israel and normalized relations with it if Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, accepts the establishment of a Palestinian state and resolves the issue of Palestinian refugees in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

Those U.N. resolutions, however, appear to require the refugees’ return to homes in present-day Israel, constituting one of Israel’s principal objections to the proposal.

No handshakes or visas

America’s request for signs of normalization with Israel is now focused on symbolic steps. According to Arab and American diplomatic sources, Washington is now asking for the reopening of commercial interest offices of Oman, Qatar and Morocco in Israel and for permission for Israeli commercial airliners to fly over Gulf states, shortening flights from Israel to East Asia by several hours. Public overtures, such as a handshake with Israeli leaders, or providing tourist visas to Israelis seeking to visit Arab countries, are not on the table now, said an Arab diplomat with close knowledge of the talks. The diplomat stressed that such public gestures are viewed as being at the top of the scale of normalization and therefore will be kept for the final phase of the peace process.

“The Arab consensus is that normalization is the last card they have to play,” the diplomat said.

Prior to the emerging emphasis on reciprocity, Israel’s obligation to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank was understood to be an independent requirement of the so-called road map for Middle East peace. The 2002 road map, forged by the Bush administration with international partners, required Israel to “immediately” dismantle settlement outposts that even Israel classifies as unauthorized, and to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth.

The road map also requires the Palestinians to take concrete steps to halt terrorism and violence. But this, too, appears as an independent obligation, untied to any action by Israel.

The new Sadat:

The most significant sign thus far of Arab willingness to adopt America’s call for normalization has come from the small Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. In a July 16 op-ed published in The Washington Post, Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Bahraini crown prince, called on Arab countries to reach out and communicate with Israel.

“Essentially, we have not done a good enough job demonstrating to Israelis how our initiative can form part of a peace between equals in a troubled land holy to three great faiths,” Khalifa wrote.

He went on to criticize Arabs who wish to perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that Palestinian victims “can be manipulated as proxies.” The Bahraini leader also urged Arabs not to waste more time in waiting for Israelis to take the first step, calling this approach “small-minded.”

Samuel Lewis, a former American ambassador to Israel who was directly involved in the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks in the late 1970s, equated Khalifa’s article to peace gestures made by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat before signing the treaty with Israel 30 years ago.

“This is exactly the kind of message that an Arab leader gives both to the United States while at the same time aiming at other Arab leaders,” Lewis said in a July 17 conference call organized by Israel Policy Forum.

But Bahrain is still a lone voice among Arab countries. Letters that Obama sent out in June to Arab leaders calling on them to be forthcoming in the peace process have remained largely unanswered. This prompted the president to reportedly state, in his meeting with Jewish leaders, that “there is not much courage” within the Arab leadership.

Experts argue that the roots of the disagreement with Saudi Arabia, considered a linchpin for progress, go deeper.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the Saudis are disappointed with many aspects of Obama’s policy: His drive for ending America’s dependency on foreign oil, the decision not to appoint a close confidant as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and choosing the route of diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“There is a Saudi feeling that this administration does not recognize the importance of Saudi Arabia and does not appreciate them,” Alterman said.

—————

further, Daniel Levy, Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation and Senior Fellow, Prospects for Peace Initiative, The Century Foundation, informs us of a recent debate on the Economist’s website. The motion in question was:

“This house believes that Barak Obama’s America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs.”

The content can be found at: http://www.economist.com/debate/overview…

WASHINGTON, Jul 12 (IPS) – Two key U.S. allies in the Arab world, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are now both facing succession crises that may absorb, or even split, their political elites. This promises a period of political unpredictability ahead in both countries.

It may well also complicate Pres. Barack Obama’s Israeli-Arab peace diplomacy, which is based centrally on the role these two large allies – and one smaller one, Jordan – can play in solving inter-Arab problems, reassuring Israelis, and helping to tempt everyone to the peace table.

Since January, the head of Egypt’s military intelligence, Lieut.-Gen. Omar Suleiman, has been in charge of three key Middle East mediations. He has been mediating between Israel and the Palestinian movement Hamas over both strengthening the Gaza ceasefire and winning a prisoner exchange between them. He’s also been mediating a chronically elusive reconciliation between Hamas and the other big Palestinian movement, Fatah.

Meanwhile, Washington is hoping this year, as always, that Saudi Arabia can buttress U.S. diplomacy with cash and some political leadership. Saudi Arabia has now won the support of all the relevant Arab leaderships, including Hamas’s political bureau, for a key 2002 peace initiative that promises Israel normal political and economic ties in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967 and a fair resolution of Palestinian refugee claims.

The Saudi king, Abdullah ibn Abdul-Aziz, will be 85 this August. His longstanding crown prince (and half-brother) Sultan ibn Abdul-Aziz, is 83, and was recently hospitalised for several weeks with suspected cancer.

The big question regarding the Saudi succession hangs over whether, and how, the kingship will ever be transferred from the numerous ageing brothers and half-brothers who stand in line after Crown Prince Sultan, to the “next generation” of princes – some of the more senior of whom are already nearing 70 years old.

Earlier this year, King Abdullah named his 76-year-old half-brother Naif ibn Abdul-Aziz as “second deputy prime minister”, a position that places him a likely – but not certain -second in line to throne after Sultan.

When King Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud, the founder of the modern Saudi state, died in 1953, he left some 37 sons from his 22 wives. Various of these sons have ruled the kingdom in turn since then.

Many of Abdul-Aziz’s sons had a dozen or more sons of their own. Saudi Arabia has no system of “primogeniture” (first-son succession.) Thus, there are hundreds of possible eventual claimants to the throne. Indeed, the youngest of Abdul-Aziz’s sons, Prince Muqrin, is, at 64, some years younger than several of the next-generation princes who now hope to become king.

There have been no reports that any possible successor monarchs might want to change a foreign policy stance that, since the 1930s, has aligned Saudi Arabia very closely with Washington. But among the country’s political elite, including its princes, there are many differing views on domestic affairs, including oil policies, economic policies, the role of the country’s powerful religious institutions, and the role of women.

These differences are inevitably hard fought over at times of succession, and could at the least distract Riyadh from playing the role in regional diplomacy that Obama wants it to play. (At worst, the kingdom could see a struggle between its many power centres that is even deeper and more debilitating than the one now rocking nearby Iran.)

In Egypt, meanwhile, there have been many recent reports that the country’s 81-year-old president, Hosni Mubarak, is ailing and finally eager to quit. Some reports say he has already told the Saudi monarch he may not even finish serving his current six-year term in office, which ends in 2011.

Mubarak has led Egypt’s 76 million people since 1981. Throughout those years he has always refused to name a vice-president.

Now, one of the two main contenders to succeed him is his 45-year-old second son, Gamal, who has held an important post in the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) since 2002.

(It is not wholly strange that, even in a republic, a son might succeed his father as president. It has happened in North Korea, Syria, several African countries and even -with an eight-year interlude – when George W. Bush became president of the United States.)

Behind the scenes in Egypt, though, the military is still almost the same big force in the political system – and economy – that it has been since 1952. There is a considerable question whether the shadowy power centres in the Egyptian military will support Gamal Mubarak, an investment banker who has no record of service in the military.

The leading military man mentioned for possible next president is none other than Omar Suleiman, the intelligence chief who has been conducting so much of Mubarak’s sensitive Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. (It also remains possible that the military might throw its weight behind another “insider” candidate, not Suleiman.)

The fact that Suleiman has been tasked by Pres. Mubarak with diplomatic jobs that are so important to the broader progress of Washington’s regional peace diplomacy means this diplomacy may well become entangled in any succession struggle that occurs in Cairo.

For example, if – as many well-placed Egyptians claim – Pres. Mubarak strongly wants his son to follow him in office, he may be less than eager to see Suleiman gain public kudos as a successful negotiator. There has been some questioning whether Mubarak may have set Suleiman up for failure by giving him overly strict parameters for his diplomatic chores.

Certainly, though Suleiman has been heading all three of these building-brick negotiations since late January, he has not succeeded in any of them yet.

Egypt’s succession struggle is connected to the broader diplomacy in another way, too. Hamas has nearly always been closely aligned with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB), a broad, nonviolent Islamist movement that is the main challenger to Mubarak’s NDP.

Mubarak has never allowed the MB to participate freely in Egypt’s regime-dominated politics, though during a brief and very partial democratic opening in 2005, its candidates won 88 of the 444 elected seats in the Egyptian parliament.

If Suleiman succeeds in one or more of his diplomatic tasks, then Hamas would immediately gain much more international legitimacy as a valid participant in the broader peacemaking. Many NDP insiders fear that could reflect well on the MB, too.

Ominously enough, the most recent round of reports about Mubarak’s failing health has been accompanied by new arrest campaigns against MB leaders and activists. It is possible that Egypt might see additional political heat during the coming summer months. Jordan is smaller and weaker than Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There at least, the ruling monarch, Abdullah II, has laid to rest – for now – the questions that once swirled around his succession. On Jul. 2 he appointed his son Prince Hussein as crown prince.

Prince Hussein is only 15 years old. But since the king is only 47, there is a good chance the crown prince will not be taking over any time soon. (Or perhaps, ever. Back in 1999 when Jordan’s King Hussein died of cancer, in his very last days he revoked the appointment that his brother, Hassan, had held as crown prince since 1965; and he named Abdullah II his successor, instead.)

But in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, political succession issues are now taking centre stage.

*Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author. She blogs at www.JustWorldNews.org.

————–

NORTH KOREA LEADER KIM JONG IL REPORTED TO HAVE PANCREATIC CANCER.
The San Francisco Sentinel, 12 July 2009
BY RICHARD LLOYD PARRY

North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Il, is suffering from cancer of the pancreas and is in danger of dying of the disease, South Korean television reported this morning, the latest and most specific in a series of reports on the dictator’s health.

The information, which was attributed by Yonhap Television News to unidentified Chinese and South Korean intelligence sources, is consistent with a report in a Japanese newspaper over the weekend that Mr Kim has a “serious pancreatic disorder”, and with television images from North Korea last week, in which he appeared a frail-looking Kim Jong Il, emaciated and slow on his feet.

Mr Kim disappeared from public view for three months last year after what intelligence agencies assume was a stroke last August. Since then, judging from television footage of him, his health has declined.

The South Korean intelligence agency has reported signs that Mr Kim is paving the way for his youngest son, Kim Jong Un to succeed him; unconfirmed reports have even had the 25-year old visiting Beijing to get to know officials of the closest thing North Korea has to an ally – China.

All year, Pyongyang has staged a series of verbal and physical provocations, including the launch of an intercontinental rocket and an underground nuclear test, which suggest that it has abandoned expectations of negotiation with the international community in favour of whipping up nationalist fervour at home.

Thee are no obvious signs are that Kim Jong Il is in anything less than complete control, but close examination of recent internal developments leads many Pyongyang-watchers to the conclusion that he is leaning towards military hardliners, and away from the more reform-oriented advisers whom he favoured in the middle of the present decade.

————

For Immediate Release from ETE ON THE UN:
July 12, 2009, by Anne Bayefsky

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.
 info at EYEontheUN.org

President Obama in Ghana: What He Refused To Say in Cairo.
Stroking Muslim and Arab nations has become the hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy.

Speaking in Ghana on Saturday President Obama lectured Africans on local repression, corruption, brutality, good governance and accountability. The startling contrast to his June speech in Cairo was revealing. Stroking Muslim and Arab nations has become the hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy.

In Egypt, he chose not to utter the words “terrorism” or “genocide.” In Egypt, there was nothing “brutal” he could conjure up, no “corruption” and no “repression”.

In Ghana, with a 70% Christian population, he mentioned “good governance” seven times and added direct calls upon his audience to “make change from the bottom up.” He praised “people taking control of their destiny” and pressed “young people” to “hold your leaders accountable.”

He made no such calls for action by the people of Arab states–despite the fact that not a single Arab country is “free,” according to the latest Freedom House global survey.

Before the Muslim world Obama donned the role of apologist-in-chief. Over and over again his examples of shortfalls in the protection of rights and freedoms were American: the “prison at Guantanamo Bay,” “rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation,” impediments to the “choice” of Muslim women to shroud their bodies.

Christian Africa was to be treated to no such self-flagellation. In a rare tongue-lashing for Africans from any American president, he chastised: “It’s easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict … But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy … or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants … tribalism and patronage and nepotism … and … corruption.”

He might equally have said to the Arab and Muslim world: “It’s easy to scapegoat Israel and blame your problems on the presence of Jews–albeit on a fraction of 1% of the territory inhabited by the Arab world–but Israel is not responsible for poverty, illiteracy, torture, trafficking, slavery and oppression rampant across your countries.” But he did not.

In Ghana he pointed to specific heroes that had exposed human rights abuse, singling out by name a courageous investigative reporter. In Egypt, though journalists and bloggers are routinely threatened, jailed and worse, no such brave soul came to mind.

In a Christian African nation he said, “If we are honest, for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.”

To the Arab and Muslim world he could have said: “Since the day of Israel’s birth Arab and Muslim countries have made conflict with Israel a part of life, warring over land and manipulating whole communities into fighting in the name of Islam to render the area Judenrein.”

Instead, he turned on the only democracy in the Middle East and said the presence of Jews on Arab-claimed territory–settlements–is an affront to be “stopped.” It didn’t matter that agreements require ultimate ownership of this territory to be determined by negotiation or that apartheid Palestine is hardly a worthy pursuit.

From Ghana he chided Africans: “No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.”

For an Arab and Muslim audience he cooed: “America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened.”

Ghanaians will likely turn the other cheek, secure enough to take it and even be grateful for the spotlight. But Obama’s double-standard is not a victimless crime. The disparity between the scolding he gave in Ghana and the love-in he held in Cairo illuminates an incoherent and dangerous agenda.

In his lofty, but empty, rhetoric in Ghana, Obama promised “we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst,” pledged “a commitment … to sanction and stop” warmongers and embraced the Zimbabwe non-governmental organization that “braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person’s vote is their sacred right.”

These are devastating words for Iranians struggling valiantly to keep the hope of democracy alive but forced to bear witness to the contradiction. Betrayed, they have watched the Obama administration pledge to move forward on negotiations with illegally ensconced Iranian thugs–at the very same time their victims are being rounded up, tortured and readied for show-trials in advance of certain execution.

On Friday, Obama, and the rest of the G-8 with his blessing, announced that thinking about more sanctions on Iran can wait until September. And then we can expect yet another round of Security Council dickering over minimalist responses to more Iranian stalling tactics–until an Iranian nuclear weapon is inevitable. Though it is 2,202 days since the U.N.’s atomic energy agency first declared that Iran was violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Obama pretends legitimizing those same nuclear-proliferating fascists makes it more likely the clock will stop ticking.

Iranians standing up for their allegedly “sacred rights” know Obama has it exactly backwards. Speechifying about “our interconnected world” and “common interests” in Ghana was cold comfort to the voices of Muslim dissidents and Jewish victims deserted in the Obama wilderness.

Amano signals goal is to fight proliferation

By GEORGE JAHN
VIENNA (AP) The International Atomic Energy Agency picked Yukiya Amano as its next chief, ending a months-long succession battle to replace Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei for the watchdog’s top post.

After the agency’s 35-nation board made its decision Thursday, Amano touched on the devastation that U.S. atomic bombs wreaked on his country in pledging to do his utmost to prevent the spread of nuclear arms.

ElBaradei saw his agency vaulted into prominence during a high-profile 12-year tenure.

North Korea left the nonproliferation fold to develop a nuclear weapons program on his watch, and his agency later launched probes to get to the bottom of suspicions it was trying to make atomic weapons.

ElBaradei’s activist approach often rankled Washington, which had a strong preference for Amano, who was viewed by the United States as a technocrat amenable to pursuing a hard line on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Amano’s allusions to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki pointed to a deep commitment to nonproliferation. And Japan keenly shares the U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear threat.

Developing countries supported Amano’s rival, South African Abdul Samad Minty, who was considered ready to challenge the U.S. and the other nuclear powers on issues such as disarmament. They are generally supportive of Iran’s claims to having a right to nuclear power.

An initial session in March ended inconclusively, and Thursday’s meeting went down to the wire, with Amano, 62, winning only in the fourth round.

That and the fact that Amano barely eked out his victory, just clearing the required two-thirds majority, reflected a continuing divide between the two camps. The divisions have served as an obstacle in one of its key tasks — probing nations suspected of secret, possibly weapons-related, nuclear activities.

While Amano was born after the U.S. nuclear strikes that ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, he alluded to those events in brief comments to reporters, suggesting that as a “national coming from Japan” he would work particularly hard to reduce the threat from atomic arms.

Expanding on that theme in recent comments to Austrian daily Die Presse, he said he was “resolute in opposing the spread of nuclear arms because I am from a country that experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

Now his country’s chief delegate to the IAEA, Amano was previously his country’s senior official for disarmament and related issues.

Amano will be taking control of the IAEA at a particularly difficult time. Its nuclear investigations of Iran and Syria are both deadlocked, and it has no overview of North Korea, which is forging ahead with its nuclear arms program.

———–

Saturday, July 4, 2009

VIENNA (Kyodo) Amano was voted in as first Asian head of IAEA in sixth round of ballots.   Yukiya Amano, Japan’s ambassador to the Permanent Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna, was elected the next director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday.

Yukiya Amano

Amano, 62, won against South Africa’s Abdul Samad Minty after six rounds of voting, making him the first IAEA chief from Asia.

“I am very pleased with this support,” Amano told journalists after the final vote, adding that as the next director general he will do his utmost to enhance the welfare of human beings, ensure sustainable development through the peaceful use of nuclear energy and try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

“For that, the solidarity of all the member states, countries from North and South, from East and West, is absolutely necessary,” he said.

Amano also said he will demonstrate Japan’s efforts to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

He will take the helm at the nuclear watchdog in December, after formal approval at its annual general meeting in September.

Challenges facing him after taking up the post will be the Iranian nuclear issue and the nuclear threat of North Korea, which conducted a second nuclear test recently.

Luis Echavarri from Spain dropped out of the voting process after the first round as he garnered the fewest votes.

Neither Amano nor Minty could secure enough votes in each of the four following rounds to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, with Amano falling just one vote short.

However, in the sixth round, which was a straight yes and no vote on Amano, he finally managed to get a two-thirds majority, with 23 countries voting in favor and 11 voting against. One of the 35 countries eligible to vote abstained.

Thursday’s balloting was the second attempt to find a successor to Mohamed ElBaradei, who will leave office after 12 years at the head of the organization when his term expires in November.

Amano, who is married and speaks English and French fluently, joined the Foreign Ministry in 1972 and was appointed deputy director of its Disarmament Division in 1982.

He held several different positions in the ministry, including director of the Nuclear Energy Division and director general for the Disarmament, Nonproliferation and Science Department, before being appointed to represent Japan at the International Organizations in Vienna in 2005.

Japan backing was vital: The government was quick Friday to pledge full support to newly elected International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano, and may also make a financial endowment to the nuclear watchdog.

Also of interest, in the President’s the chair at the time at the UN Geneal Assembly sat an Arab Muslim woman -H.E. Sheikha Haya Rasheed Al Khalifa of the Royal Bahrain rulling family.

The UN Resolution Against Holocaust Deniers: A Litmus Test To The Integrity Of The UN.

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 27th, 2007
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2007/01…

As my colleague Jeff Zeleny reported last week, immediately after his speech in Cairo last week, President Obama sat down for a group interview with reporters from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Malaysia and Indonesia. On Friday, Politico’s Ben Smith noted that the roundtable was supposed to have included reporters from two other Arab countries, Lebanon and Syria, but they apparently passed on the chance to sit down Mr. Obama when they realized that they would be sitting next to Nahum Barnea, an Israeli columnist.

According to a translation of the Hebrew-language column Mr. Barnea wrote for the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Friday, three other Arab reporters were happy to sit next to him around a circular table and fire questions at Mr. Obama:

The original group had eight. The Syrian did not show after hearing that a reporter from Israel had been invited. The Lebanese, Naoum Sarkis, had been sitting with us all at the front of the hall but when he realized where I was from and whom I was representing, he passed on the opportunity and fled.

The others accepted the edict with respect, and some even happily. They included Jamal Khashoggi of Saudi Arbaia, Fahmi el-Awadi and Magdy el-Galad of Egypt, Wafa Amr, a Palestinian woman who works in Israel, Shahnaz Habib of Malysia and Bambang Harimurti of Indonesia, who were flown by the Americans all the way from the Far East.

A transcript of the group interview on the White House Web site makes no mention of the missing reporters, but it does reveal that Mr. Obama answered a question about “dealing with the hawks in the current Israeli government,” by suggesting that Israel’s new, conservative prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, might have an opportunity to play a more constructive role than a more liberal leader:

I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu will recognize the strategic need to deal with this issue. And that in some ways he may have an opportunity that a labor or more left leader might not have. There’s the famous example of Richard Nixon going to China. A Democrat couldn’t have gone to China. A liberal couldn’t have gone to China. But a big, anti-communist like Richard Nixon could open that door. Now, it’s conceivable that Prime Minister Netanyahu can play that same role.