Remarks to the American Jewish Committee’s National Energy Committee.

… Remarks to the American Jewish Committee’s National Energy Committee.
Reported by Robert F. Cekuta Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs.

www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/rem/2012/189212.htm

posted the same day also by the US Consulate in HongKong  as:

http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn_state_2012050206.html

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

The Bureau of Energy Resources takes a broad view of what is integral to U.S. and global energy security. Doing so means focusing on three areas. The first is what we have traditionally thought of as energy security, going back to the days of the Arab oil embargo and before: the flow of traditional hydrocarbons, in particular oil and gas. Hydrocarbons today still make up 85% of the world’s fuel resources. We continue to use our diplomacy to ensure that access to oil, gas, and coal is adequate, reliable, and affordable. However, we need to be aware even this traditional aspect of energy security is changing as new markets and new technologies alter the traditional energy landscape. For example emerging market economies such as China and India are driving tremendous growth in the world’s demand for resources. New technologies — shale oil in North Dakota or the revolution in unconventional gas — and new producers, such as Brazil or countries in East and West Africa, are affecting the supply picture. The realities of climate change are also a factor.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

There is a third focus in addition to the energy world that we have long known and the energy world of the future — that is the access to energy for the 1.3 billion people around the world today who do not have it. We are already seeing the effects of expanding access in those who only a few years ago had no access to energy in Brazil, China, India, or the other rapidly industrializing economies have had on global energy markets and the expectations regarding supply and demand.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

———————————————-

by -

Washington, DC
May 2, 2012

beginning as -

Let me thank the American Jewish Committee (AJC) very much as well for organizing this event and for offering this opportunity to talk with you about improving America’s energy security.

Since President Obama took office, U.S. domestic oil and gas production has increased each year. Our reliance on foreign oil has decreased, and that trend is expected to continue thanks in part to the historic fuel economy standards established by President Obama, effectively doubling the efficiency of the cars we drive and saving consumers thousands at the pump. In 2009, the United States produced 5.3 mmbd. Current U.S. crude production is 6.1mmbd, a figure which is equal to the production we saw at the close of 2011, when U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003. The 6.1 mmbd U.S. production figure is also an increase over 2010 levels by an estimated 120,000 barrels per day.

———-

Yes, but the above was only the introduction, the meat of the presentation was that America is also front-runner in Renewable Energy as this is needed for many reasons, and he focused clearly on something this audience is very keen interested in – the decreased dependence on Middle East oil – though it is framed in the increased need for energy because of the emerging economies. So you have it – America, for its own good and for the global good, is bound to decrease the blown out of any logical proportion – the importance of the Middle East “Oilocrats” that got a hold of the world by its tail since that famous 1945 visit between President Roosevelt and the Saudi King.

For the full article please go to the link –  www.state.gov/e/enr/rls/rem/2012/189212.htm

You get these by putting the link in your browser.

April 30, 2012, From Rio De Janiero, to Capetown, South Africa – to Paris – the world’s focus was on a dawn concert in New Orleans’ Congo Square, kicking off the first International Jazz Day, organized by UNESCO, the United Nations education division, to use the uniquely American music born in New Orleans to inspire the teaching of jazz, and cultural exchange worldwide.

“International Jazz Day is already becoming a world event,” said in New Orleans UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova.  “At this very moment we have in more than fifty countries in the world jazz events. Jazz is what unites different cultures and people together.”

The idea came from Herbie Hancock who prompted the Thelonios Monk Jazz Institute to get American Backing for a UNESCO event that peaked at night at the UN Headquarters in New York – at the end of the last day of the month that the US chaired the UN Security Council. Was it all planned this way? Or was this something like a last reminder of a great Nation?

A Latin theme Jazz band was introduced as the band of the Americas performing North American, Latin American and Caribbean Jazz. US Main Representative to the UN, Ms. Susan Rice, beamed on stage introducing the event. Will this historic day be remembered as a new realignment of a US embracing its main founding culture mix that includes Latin and African elements and can thus be a bridge to emerging economies like Brazil and Africa?

Starting International Jazz Day in Congo Square was jazz legend Herbie Hancock’s idea.

“If you thnk about the fact that New Orleans was really the birthplace of jazz, and particularly Congo Square, there is no other place that would truly represent the birthplace and sunrise and so forth,” said Hancock.

Four students joined him on stage, including two from the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts, who found it the chance of a lifetime.

For Herbie Hancock, jazz is more than just music. It is a unifying life force. And one so important that he has led a movement to celebrate it with its own day:  today, Monday, April 30, 2012,  the first-ever International Jazz Day, and the United Nations as stage of a concert  simulcast on the Internet to millions, and on Channel 150 on Manhattan TV.

All star co-hosts for the night included Robert De Niro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and Quincy Jones.

Among the performers joining Hancock were Tony Bennett, Terence Blanchard, Jimmy Heath, Chaka Khan, Wynton Marsalis, Christian McBride, Dianne Reeves, Esperanza Spalding, Stevie Wonder – those are names we know in New York – but then there was also  a slew of music greats from around the world whose names did not say much to me but whose greatness was obvious to the ear and the eye. It was indeed a terrific event and I hope it was filmed and will be recycled in the media. Also – let us hope now for a yearly repeat. This might turn into the yearly highlight at a rather otherwise very dull United Nations enterprise.

Hancock,  has been the UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for Intercultural Dialogue since July and we feel that he took on this honor for no other reason then to create this historic event.

Irina Bokova said: “I think there is a lot of symbolism around jazz and the multiculturalism and diversity of which it speaks – If you ask what jazz is for me, I’d say it’s freedom, human dignity and boundless spirit, which makes it a very very powerful universal force. We say around here that jazz was born in the United States, but is owned by the world.”

Several of the foreign musicians playing on Monday’s program echoed those sentiments, saying that they were originally drawn to jazz by its spontaneity, which they associate with personal freedom. The Japanese pianist Hiromi Uehara said that she had originally set out to be a classical pianist but changed course when she heard records by Erroll Garner and Oscar Peterson in her piano teacher’s collection.

“I was 8 back then, and my teacher explained to me that it’s all improvised, just like conversation, and that was my favorite part, that I felt this very elastic quality that changed every day,” said Ms. Uehara, who is now 33 and has recorded a duet CD with Chick Corea. “Because jazz is such an improvised music, you can really show and expose yourself, and that is what I love most about playing it even now.”

In Panama, the pianist Danilo Pérez, a member of Mr. Shorter’s quartet for more than a decade, had a similar reaction when first exposed to jazz. Hearing improvised solos on records by Louis Armstrong, Freddie Hubbard and George Benson “connected me to a sound of originality and freedom, of having a personal voice,” he said.

“What jazz brings to the table is collective improvisation and tolerance, respect and freedom, and when you mix that up with every world musical style, you are creating a cultural passport,” he added. “I really believe that what jazz has given to the world is a window, a paradigm of how countries should be interacting with each other.”

Will it be crass to hope that the day may come that  Ambassadors to the UN are allowed by their governments to improvise as well, so they can be part of a globalized band that makes music rather then produce obvious dissonance reported in tomes of hundreds of pages?

Would it not have been more productive, for the crews of officers from the world foreign ministries, to spend the evening learning  jazz in the Assembly Hall rather then over-controlled by their governments work hopelessly at the texts they must reduce to a digestible number of pages – so they are presentable to the Round-tables of Heads of State in the Rio Conference Center? Instead, it was the UN staff that had a first stab at getting tickets to this high-level Jazz event that was set up so higher levels can have a demonstration of what freedom of expression is able to produce.

Also, as an afterthought: The US- UNESCO cooperation is at a time Congress cut off $70 million it intended for UNESCO – in retaliation for UNESCO having conferred membership to a UN non-member Palestine. That is 22% of the UNESCO budget that we do not think the US will reinstitute ahead of moves towards Middle East official agreements that give recognition to a Palestinian State with agreed upon borders. This despite the fact that there might be indeed joint jazz playing of Israeli and Palestinian musicians. Israel was, as well,  one of the countries where the International Jazz day had performances.

GLOBAL JOBS CRISIS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE FOR SOME TIME, WARNS UN REPORT.

The global employment situation is alarming, says a new United Nations report released today, which also warns that recovery is not expected any time soon.

The World of Work Report 2012: Better Jobs for a Better Economy – published by the UN International Labour Organization (ILO) – says that around 50 million jobs are still missing compared to the situation that existed before the global economic crisis.

It also warns that the global jobs crisis is likely to get worse due to several factors, including the fact that many governments, especially in advanced economies, have shifted their priority to a combination of fiscal austerity and tough labour market reforms.

Such measures are having “devastating” consequences on labour markets in general and job creation in particular, ILO stated in a news release.

“The narrow focus of many Eurozone countries on fiscal austerity is deepening the jobs crisis and could even lead to another recession in Europe,” said the Director of the ILO Institute for International Labour Studies and lead author of the report, Raymond Torres.

“Countries that have chosen job-centred macroeconomic policies have achieved better economic and social outcomes,” he added. “Many of them have also become more competitive and have weathered the crisis better than those that followed the austerity path. We can look carefully at the experience of those countries and draw lessons.”

Another factor leading to a worsening jobs crisis is that many jobseekers in advanced economies are demoralized and are losing skills, something which is affecting their chances of finding a new job. In addition, small companies have limited access to credit, which in turn is depressing investment and preventing employment creation.

“In these countries, especially in Europe, job recovery is not expected before the end of 2016 – unless there is a dramatic shift in policy direction,” according to ILO.

Other factors include the fact that, in most advanced economies, many of the new jobs are precarious and there exists the possibility of increased social unrest in many parts of the world. According to the report’s Social Unrest Index, 57 out of 106 countries with available information showed a risk of increased social unrest in 2011 compared to 2010. The regions with the largest increases are sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa.

The report argues that if a job-friendly policy-mix of taxation and increased expenditure in public investment and social benefits is put in place, approximately two million jobs could be created over the next year in advanced economies. {please remember Krugman and Stiglitz articles – see how vindicated they are!}

Among the other findings of the report is that employment rates have only increased in six of the 36 advanced economies since 2007 – Austria, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, Malta and Poland – and that youth unemployment rates have increased in about 80 per cent of advanced countries and two-thirds of developing countries.

India and the Middle East
Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 17:30
Beck Auditorium, Building 410, Bar-Ilan University

Prof. Efraim Inbar, BESA Center, Opening Remarks
Prof. P. R. Kumaraswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru U., India and Iran
Mrs. Sharon Rapaport, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, India-Israel Relations

This event will be held in English and is open to the public

Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Political Studies

besa.center@mail.biu.ac.il

tel: (972) 03-531-8959
www.besacenter.org

This Sunday, the New York Times has two excellent political articles that in our eyes should be read in tandem. So – please – go to the originals and please remember our recommendation.

—-

www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/dowd-come-back-sarah-palin.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120415

Come Back, Sarah Palin! By  OP-ED COLUMNIST MAUREEN DOWD

“Having defined Mitt Romney as the “Eh, I guess” candidate, “Saturday Night Live” writers wonder if there’s anything else to say.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 15, 2012, on page SR11 of the New York edition with the headline: Come Back, Sarah Palin!.

“SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE” writers have devastatingly lampooned Mitt Romney as a corny, coreless candidate who evokes an “Eh, I guess” response in voters. Now they’re worried that we’re heading, comedy-wise, toward an “Eh, I guess” election.

“The fun thing with Mitt Romney is, here’s a guy who has to look in the mirror every day and see that he looks exactly the way a president should look,” Meyers said, and yet he can’t catch fire.

“People are perfectly willing to accept people different from them as long as they don’t try to pretend otherwise.”

and

www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/magazine/the-soft-middle-of-francois-hollande.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120415

The Magazine article - The Soft Middle of François Hollande – by Steven Erlanger.

Even after a precampaign diet last year — less wine, less cheese and especially less chocolate — François Hollande, the Socialist who is currently favored to become the next president of France, still has a soft face and looks slightly sloppy in his medium-gray suits. He used to be referred to as “Flanby,” after a brand of wobbly caramel pudding, just one of a string of insulting nicknames for a convivial man considered always at the second rank of politics. He has been called “a living marshmallow” and “Mr. Little Jokes,” and just last year, Martine Aubry, the head of the Socialist Party, described him as a couille molle, a nasty way of saying he has no guts. Recently, a frustrated Nicolas Sarkozy, fighting hard to be re-elected,  fumed:  “Hollande is useless! He’s useless, do you understand?”

BUT – Nicolas Sarkozy’s unlikely challenger may possess precisely what the French now want in a leader: A comforting reflection of themselves.

The previous article proves that Romney is no Hollande – in ways that Mitt Romney did not even consider important -the Department of Straight-Talk.

===========

The Editorial picks up with: More Help for the Wealthy

“Under the guise of helping small businesses, Republicans want new high-end tax cuts that would favor the wealthy and starve the government of needed revenue.”

Let us start first with a Thomas Friedman article-conclusion first!

If you ask “what are the real threats to our security today,” said Lester Brown of The Earth Policy Institute, “at the top of the list would be climate change, population growth, water shortages, rising food prices and the number of failing states in the world.

As that list grows, how many failed states before we have a failing global civilization, and everything begins to unravel?”

Hopefully, we won’t go there. But, then -

we should all remember that quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”   —- Well, you may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you.

Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about.

Please go to the link for a very interesting article that tells us that the Arab Spring did happen in part because of the lack of attention to climate change on the part of government officials that were racking it all in to themselves – those official rapists of their countries.

Thomas Friedman is not the only one asking why Arab Spring now, and why the Arab World has not produced any democracies like other Islamic Countries – non-Arabs – actually did. Why is there no Arab State like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Bangladesh? This last version of the Question was posed by Fareed Zakaria on today’s CNN/GPS show.

Seemingly – all Arab States that are within the huge North-Africa Middle-East area of the Arab conquests in the 12th and 13th Centuries have no real Civil Society. In all these States the economy is run by the people of the ruling Monarchy or by those close to the Government.
The people as such were kept low by an alliance of the rulers with the heads of the religion and the goal of this alliance was to fight another religious group – and here comes in the military that is completely loyal to the ruling power that is also the economy’s leader. This kind of socio-economic system did neither allow for the development of a meaningful Civil Society, nor a really forward looking Middle Class.

To above obervation by Fareed Zakaria we see the add-on by Thomas Friedman:  “The Arab awakening was driven not only by political and economic stresses, but, less visibly, by environmental, population and climate stresses as well. If we focus only on the former and not the latter, we will never be able to help stabilize these societies.”

Thomas Friedman tells us of draught in Syria and North Africa and how this draught pushed the societal lid and was part of the reason for this present day upheaval.

And a Warning – 12 of the world’s 15 most water-scarce countries — Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and Palestine — are in the Middle East, and after three decades of explosive population growth these countries are “set to dramatically worsen their predicament.

Then think also about the observatio – “Alot more mouths to feed with less water than ever. As Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of “World on the Edge,” notes, 20 years ago, using oil-drilling technology, the Saudis tapped into an aquifer far below the desert to produce irrigated wheat, making themselves self-sufficient. But now almost all that water is gone, and Saudi wheat production is, too. So the Saudis are investing in farm land in Ethiopia and Sudan, but that means they will draw more Nile water for irrigation away from Egypt, whose agriculture-rich Nile Delta is already vulnerable to any sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.

The Link to Thomas Friedman:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-spring.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120408

by Thomas Fuchs

The Other Arab Spring.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Published in The New York Times  April 7, 2012 as an OP-ED Column.

ISN’T it interesting that the Arab awakening began in Tunisia with a fruit vendor who was harassed by police for not having a permit to sell food — just at the moment when world food prices hit record highs? And that it began in Syria with farmers in the southern village of Dara’a, who were demanding the right to buy and sell land near the border, without having to get permission from corrupt security officials? And that it was spurred on in Yemen — the first country in the world expected to run out of water — by a list of grievances against an incompetent government, among the biggest of which was that top officials were digging water wells in their own backyards at a time when the government was supposed to be preventing such water wildcatting? As Abdelsalam Razzaz, the minister of water in Yemen’s new government, told Reuters last week: “The officials themselves have traditionally been the most aggressive well diggers. Nearly every minister had a well dug in his house.”

As we wrote in our posting www.sustainabilitank.info – the ZERO DRAFT text for the RIO+20 outcome document included a paragraph  (#57) in its form that went into the informal-informals March 2012 meeting wording as follows:

“57. We agree to further consider the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development.”

It also had two versions of Paragraph 49 – one titled “Commission on Sustainable Development” – the other titled Sustainable Development Council.

These paragraphs are to be found PART IV of the draft — INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

The draft  left the March Informal-informals with the wording as follows.

- – - – - – - -

57.       We agree to further consider the establishment of an Ombudsperson or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development.

[57.     We agree to further consider the establishment of [an Ombudsperson, or / the position of - Liechtenstein] High Commissioner for [Future Generations / Intergenerational Solidarity - Holy See]. to promote sustainable development [at global, regional, and national level - Bangladesh]. – G77, Japan, Russian Federation, New Zealand delete; Canada, Norway reserve; EU delete and propose language in 49 alt quint; Montenegro, Liechtenstein move to para. 49 alt sext]

We like the addition by Liechtenstein – “the position of” because it makes it clear that this should be a small body.

We are neutral about the inclusion in the outcome document the recommendation to have similar positions at lower levels as we think that is going to be the task of those other levels to decide on this.

Obviously we are shocked by the opposition to the paragraph by groups like the G77 minus Bangladesh – ( but most probably many more member States of the G77 that did not go on the record yet ) Japan and New Zealand that have not yet understood that it should be a small office like Liechtenstein is proposing and thus not have major monetary implications, and the Russian Federation.

——–

Now let us see the EU  and the Montenegro suggestions for Paragraph #49:

[49  alt  quat (former para 57) [We support the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or Higher Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development and the integrated approach at the highest level of decision, policy, and program making within the UN. We call upon the member states to establish similar institutions in their own national laws, which would be independent from the executive and have a mandate to consider petitions from the public and advocate for the interests and needs of future generations.  -- Montenegro]

[49 alt quint   We agree to further consider the establishment or appointment, of a High-level Representative for Sustainable Development and Future Generations, possibly to be held within an existing office as the high-level voice called upon to promote an integrated and coherent approach to sustainable development through continuous dialogue with policy-makers, the UN system and civil society.  -- EU, former para 57 as amended]

We find the Montenegro version stronger as it does not have the added wording of the possibility of placing the position within an existing office. Independence must be the ground rule, and if it is not guaranteed this new position can not succeed. On the other hand, if this is what it takes to get on board those that want to make sure that the creation of this position will not carry large financial burdens, we feel, mandating it to be small should answer these fears.

EU Fails To Resolve Dispute Over UN Climate Fund Seats.

Date: 02-Apr-12
Country: UK/BELGIUM
Author: Nina Chestney and Charlie Dunmore from Reuters.

European Union ambassadors failed to resolve a dispute over the allocation of seats on the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund (GCF) board on Friday, possibly undermining the bloc’s credibility in international climate talks.

The EU envoys were meeting for the second time in a week to decide which European nations will be represented on the governing board. This has 12 seats for developing countries and another 12 for developed countries.

“Despite willingness to compromise and adequately share board seats, it has, unfortunately, not been possible to come to an agreement within the EU,” the EU’s Danish presidency said in a statement.

As a result, the EU will miss a March 31 deadline for making a joint proposal on board membership, and EU governments and the bloc’s executive will now have to negotiate directly with other developed countries over who gets the seats.

“For this reason, respective nominations from the group of developed country parties will be withheld until these discussions have taken place,” delaying the entire process, the Danish presidency said.

U.N. climate talks in Durban last year agreed on the design of the fund, which is aimed at channelling up to $100 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Disputes of this kind could both slow the process towards the launch of the fund in 2013 and give other countries the impression that the EU is stalling on climate finance. “It shows that the EU unity we had in Durban has been eroded and that could damage Europe’s image in global climate change talks,” Danish presidency spokesman Jakob Alvi said.

The fund’s first board meeting is due on April 25 to 27, a U.N. spokesman said, subject to confirmation next week.

Despite the EU’s failure to reach an agreement, it should not affect the number of seats it will be allocated on the GCF board, he added.

SEAT DISPUTE

Thirteen of the 27 EU countries had requested a board seat, to ensure they had a say in funding decisions.

A draft EU document, seen by Reuters this week, shows that EU member states and Switzerland might together be able to obtain seven full seats plus associated alternating seats between them. Denmark had proposed that Britain, Germany and France, as the likely biggest financial contributors, should hold a full seat each and share three further alternating seats with another EU country.

But an EU source involved in the discussions said Germany – backed by France – refused to share its seat with any other EU country and insisted on a permanent position on the board, ending any chance of an EU compromise.

Poland also insisted on having a full seat, and told the meeting that in the absence of a joint proposal it would put itself forward to the U.N. in a separate bid outside the EU, sources said under condition of anonymity.

Poland, which relies heavily on coal production for its energy needs, says its economy would develop much more quickly if it wasn’t for the EU’s climate policy, which aims to make coal power generation more expensive.

“(The Commission) has tried to rob us so many times before. This time around we want to wear a second jacket – just in case – and let nothing we are eligible for miss us,” a Polish government source told Reuters.

Please see point 57.

The idea is there  in practice – a High Commissioner for Future Generations in Parliament  - Hungary has now an Ombudsman – Dr. Sandor Fülöp, Ombudsman for Future Generations in Hungary,  and Israel has had a High Commissioner for Future Generations in its Parliament - Retired Judge Shlomo Shoham was that Commissioner 2001-2006.

PART IV of the draft — INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

A. Strengthening/reforming/integrating the three pillars

44. We recognize that strong governance at local, national, regional and global levels is critical for advancing sustainable development. The strengthening and reform of the institutional framework should, among other things:

a) Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities.

b) Provide cohesive, government-driven policy guidance on sustainable development and identify specific actions in order to fulfil the sustainable development agenda through the promotion of integrated decision making at all levels.

c) Monitor progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and relevant outcomes and agreements, at local, national, regional and global levels.

d) Reinforce coherence among the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system, including the International Financial and Trade Institutions.

B. GA, ECOSOC, CSD, SDC proposal

General Assembly

45. We reaffirm the central role of the General Assembly as the highest policy-making body, and call for it to further integrate sustainable development as a key element of the overarching framework for United Nations activities.

Economic and Social Council

46. We reaffirm that the Economic and Social Council is a central mechanism for the coordination of the United Nations system and its specialized agencies and supervision of its subsidiary bodies, in particular its functional commissions.

47. We also reaffirm that ECOSOC is a central forum for intergovernmental deliberations on economic and social issues, and provides guidance and coordination to the UN system’s operational activities for development in the field.

48. We agree to promote the role of ECOSOC in the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development including by making better use of the coordination segment of ECOSOC for monitoring implementation of agreements on sustainable development and, similarly, making use of the ECOSOC operational activities and humanitarian segments to promote mainstreaming of sustainable development into programmes of UN agencies and programmes.

Commission on Sustainable Development

49. We reaffirm the role of the Commission on Sustainable Development as the high level commission on sustainable development in the United Nations system. We agree to consider options for improving the working methods, the agenda and programme of work of the Commission to better facilitate, promote, and coordinate sustainable development implementation, including measures to ensure more focused, balanced and responsive engagement with a more limited set of issues, and enhanced implementation of its decisions. We also agree to consider means to enhance the review function of the Commission, including through a voluntary review process.

OR

Sustainable Development Council

49 alt. We resolve to transform the CSD into a Sustainable Development Council that will serve as the authoritative, high-level body for consideration of matters relating to the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development

49 alt. bis The work of the Council should be based on fundamental documents on sustainable development such as Agenda 21, the Rio principles and related outcomes. The Council should, inter alia, fully carry out the functions and mandates of the Commission for Sustainable Development. It would be guided by the need to promote integration of the three pillars of sustainable development, promote effective implementation at all levels and promote effective institutional coherence. It should help in enhancing the involvement of all stakeholders, particularly major groups, in the follow-up of Rio+20.

49 alt ter. We request the President of the General Assembly to conduct open, transparent and inclusive negotiations, with the aim of establishing the mandate, modalities, functions, size, composition, membership, working methods and procedures of the Council and report on the outcome before the end of the 67th session of the General Assembly.

C. UNEP, specialized agency on environment proposal, IFIs, United Nations operational activities at country level

50. We reaffirm the need to strengthen international environmental governance within the context of the institutional framework for sustainable development, in order to promote a balanced integration of the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development, and to this end:

51. We agree to strengthen the capacity of UNEP to fulfil its mandate by establishing universal membership in its Governing Council and call for significantly increasing its financial base to deepen policy coordination and enhance means of implementation.

OR

51 alt. We resolve to establish a UN specialized agency for the environment with universal membership of its Governing Council, based on UNEP, with a revised and strengthened mandate, supported by stable, adequate and predictable financial contributions and operating on an equal footing with other UN specialized agencies. This agency, based in Nairobi, would cooperate closely with other specialized agencies.

52. We stress the need for a regular review of the state of the planet and the Earth’s carrying capacity and request the Secretary-General to coordinate the preparation of such a review in consultation with relevant international organizations and the UN system.

53. We call for the scientific basis for decision making to be strengthened across the UN system and recognise that the interface between science and policy-making should be enhanced.

54. We recognize that sustainable development must be given due consideration by the International Financial Institutions, especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the regional development banks, UNCTAD and the World Trade Organization in regulating global trade. In that regard, we request the international financial institutions to review their programmatic strategies to ensure the provision of better support to developing countries for the implementation of sustainable development.

55. We recognize that coordination and cooperation among the MEAs are needed in order to, inter alia, address policy fragmentation and avoid overlap and duplication. We welcome the work already undertaken to enhance synergies among the three conventions in the chemicals and waste cluster. We call for further measures to enhance coordination and cooperation among MEAs in other clusters.

56. We emphasise the need to strengthen operational activities for sustainable development, especially the delivery of the UN system in the field.

57. We agree to further consider the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development.

58. We agree to take steps to give further effect to Rio Principle 10 at the global, regional and national level, as appropriate.

D. Regional, national, local

59. We reaffirm that overarching sustainable development strategies incorporated in national development plans are key instruments for the implementation of sustainable development commitments at regional, national and sub-national levels.

60. We call for the strengthening of existing regional and sub-regional mechanisms, including the regional commissions, in promoting sustainable development through capacity building, exchange of information and experiences and providing expertise.

61. We underline the need for more coherent and integrated planning and decision-making at the national level. We therefore call on countries to establish and strengthen, as appropriate, national sustainable development councils to enable them to coordinate, consolidate and ensure the mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues in the highest decision-making bodies, with the integration and full participation of all stakeholders.

62. We recognise the need to integrate sustainable urban development policy as a key component of a national sustainable development policy and, in this regard, to empower local authorities to work more closely with national governments. We recognize that partnerships among cities have emerged as a leading force for action on sustainable development. We commit to support international cooperation among local authorities, including through assistance from international organizations.

In the Maldives,  an Islands-State former monarchy, that was a late convert to Islam (only 12th century while Indian sub-continent regions already had Muslims 500 years earlier, it was Arab merchant-seafarers   that converted the last Buddhist king of the Maldives), a republic since 1965, and after the totalitarian rules of Presidents Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a true  democracy was established in rather clean elections in 2008, it existed only for three and a half years, and was ended by a coup January 2012.

Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, the new ruler, was sworn in as President of the Maldives on 7 February 2012, in connection to the forced resignation of President Nasheed amidst weeks of protests and demonstrations led by local police dissidents who supposedly opposed Nasheed’s 16 January order for the military to arrest Abdulla Mohamed, the Chief Justice of the Criminal Court. Dr. Waheed came out against the arrest order and supported the opposition that forced Mohamed Nasheed to resign by telling him that if he resigns there will be no further violence. Nevertheless, since then prisons for the opposition have been reopened, and Mr. Nasheed claims that it is a return to the Gayoom – Nasir competition days when Nasheed himself was imprisoned.

It seems that  economic issues are behind the upheaval, and as we heard from Mr. Nasheed he proposes that the US and India recognized Mr. Waheed in an attempt to acknowledge a new status quo that they like.

We bring this up here because of Mr. Nasheed’s global fame as supporter of  global action to halt climate change which obviously pitted him against fossil fuels interests – world-wide but pin-pointed against the Arab Oil-States as well.

Interesting that there is now talk of building a coal fired power plant, like in India, while under Nasheed there was an effort to go for renewable energy – solar and wind power – in these blue paradise islands still blessed with clean air and clean water and open for tourism.

Mr. Nasheed predicts that by 2030 16 of the Maldive Islands will go under if the world continues on the path of business as usual – “we always can relocate as persons but not as a civilization,” he says.

Mr. Nasheed, post-Copenhagen meeting of 2009, where he became a global leader just one year after taking office in his own State, back home arranged for his cabinet to have an “under-water” government cabinet meeting for the sake of the global media. This is part of the documentary film ‘The Island President’ that was released this week in New York City, and the film tour brought him also to a Columbia University event where he met students including backers of his from 2009. Mr. Nasheed, when asked about the road to RIO+20 said that the UN cannot do it because they will pick always the lowest common denominator among Nations – and this is not enough.

He said that in the end the US will have to act it alone like Germany started to do it. To my question about a government’s responsibility to protect its citizens he answered that the Maldive military behind the coup is interested in business projects and not in the future of the islands. His interest is in replenishing coral reefs and fish stock.

ON POLITICS IN GENERAL MR. NASHEED REMARKED THAT IT IS EASY TO REMOVE A DICTATOR BUT NOT TO FLUSH OUT HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF THE OLD SYSTEM. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE MALDIVES IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST, he said. THE COME-BACK OF DICTATORSHIP MUST BE AVOIDED, he said.

Now that brings me to the major part of this posting  which deals with a major full day event at the New York based Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) cooperative effort with the St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford and the Conservative Middle East Council (MEC) of the UK.

The Event started in the evening of Thursday March 29th with the introductory “THE ARAB UPRISING: HOW DID WE GET HERE?” presented by Professor Margaret MacMillan, Warden, St.Antony’s College and Professor of History, University of Toronto. Her full presentation can be found on the website of the CFR as are all other presentations of this meeting.     I must confess that I did not stay for the presentation because I left before Professor MacMillan started as I wanted to listen across town to Mr. Nasheed. This cost me dearly the following day, when at lunch I did not recognize Professor MacMillan who sat at my table and I stated my point of view that we are forced to deal with the Arab World, that we created, by our insistence to make them our oil suppliers. I also said that there are no US National interests in Foreign Policy except for Oil Interests – and I was rebuked strongly – in an effort to put me back in my place. Now I say that I deserved it as I did not know what she said the evening before the full meeting. Also, as my history of the Middle East starts with the 1945 Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin meeting at Yalta, the stop at Port Said on the way home, and President Roosevelt striking the deal with King Ibn Saud, I did not know that after finishing her book on the causes that led to World War I, Professor MacMillan turns to the resulting  WWII new world order as established at Yalta -
I promise herewith to be an anxious reader when her book is released by the publisher.

Had the oil-men of Texas not told President Roosevelt that the US oil reserves are not sufficient to fight again a war of liberation in Europe, then I felt Yalta’s division of the World that gave the Soviets East Europe, Britain Iran, and the US Saudi Arabia, might not have taken place, and global warfare may have evolved differently – perhaps not the cold way.

—

Friday, March 30, 2012 the  CFR Conference sessions were: (1) Prospects for Democracy,  (2) Monarchies,  (3) Islam and Politics, (4) Regional Consequences – The Geopolitics of the Changing Middle East, (5)  Policy Responses for the United States and Europe.

It was clear that the pre-lunch three panels were intended to provide the background for the after-lunch two up-date panels about the changing Middle East and the place of the non-Arab States of the larger Middle East – specifically Turkey, Israel and Iran. Interesting, in the morning sessions were present also Ambassadors of Arab States – I did not see them in the afternoon. Did their presence in the morning session somehow make for reduced forwardness on the part of the speakers? I did not hear the word oil from the speakers while the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the UN was present, neither were there complete answers to questions. Nevertheless, the picture came out clearly thanks also to the ample time allowed for questions.

Going to the last two sessions first – let us say that Turkey is now a main player in the Arab Middle East.

The November 3, 2002 elections in Turkey brought a landslide victory for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) – a party with an Islamic pedigree – which received almost two-thirds’ of the parliamentary seats with 34.2 percent of the vote.

These elections ushered in a major realignment of the Turkish political landscape, bringing in the AKP —  winning 363 of the 550 seats in the Turkish parliament. Of the eighteen parties running in the elections, the social democrat Republican People’s Party (CHP) was the only other party to win parliamentary representation, garnering 19.4 percent of the vote and 178 seats (the remaining 9 seats went to independent candidates).

On the other hand, the major parties that ran the country in the 1990s, the center-left Democratic Left Party (DSP) of outgoing Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and former President Turgut Ozal’s centrist Motherland Party (ANAP) failed to pass the ten percent threshold needed to enter the parliament. Islamist opposition Felicity (previously Welfare) Party (SP), and former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller’s center-right True Path Party (DYP) were also unsuccessful in winning representation in the parliament.

Looking back at material from 2002 I found:

Although the AKP is an offshoot of the Islamist Welfare Party (RP), which was banned in 1997 for Islamist activities, the electorate sees the party as a new force and not necessarily Islamist.

Various secular parties, courts, media outlets, and nongovernmental organizations view the party with suspicion due to its leaders’ past affiliation with RP. Yet, AKP’s moderate, non-confrontational rhetoric over the last year has made it attractive to a diverse array of voters ranging from Islamists to rural nationalists and moderate urban voters.

A second factor explaining AKP’s success is that the party has been able to channel some of the profound anger that characterized the November 3 elections.

AKP appealed to middle and working class voters, who were unsatisfied with the economic plans of the outgoing government that were backed by the International Monetary Fund. Such anger in Turkey has traditionally been concentrated at the lower ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. After the February 2001 economic meltdown, however, even the middle classes became angry.

Accordingly, AKP attracted many moderate urban voters, who were appalled by the inefficient and corruption-ridden governments of the 1990s, as well as by the political instability and economic downturns that characterized this decade. Many voters turned to AKP, which marketed itself as new and untainted by the legacy of the 1990s. AKP promised to deliver growth and stability, as in the Turgut Ozal years of the 1980s, a decade to which most Turks now look back with nostalgia.

What above evaluation did not say in 2002 is that many Turks were hurt by the way the EU did not accept Turkey for its membership, and these Turks decided to retreat to what they consider closer to Turkey’s background – away from European secularism back to Islamic heritage of the Arab Middle East or  Central Asia. That is how AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan looked at making common cause with the Arab Middle East/North Africa. With Egypt – the Central State that sits on the Suez Canal – facing problems – Turkey is now the natural leader of this potential bloc.  Only Saudi Arabia has the possibility to interfere, and that was settled by now with having a Turk as head of the Saudi Arabia based OIC ( Organization of Islamic Cooperation.) So Turkey plays to win. I tried to introduce this as a question but it was not picked up.

Israel seemingly played to lose. With the role of the Global powers playing in the region being diminished, the Israelis did not move ahead to recognize an opportunity to welcome the regimes that are borne in the ashes of the Arab Spring. The Israelis saw only the potential dangers and ignored any possible benefits from the Arab Spring. This because Israel, perhaps by necessity, regarded itself as belonging to the West and ignored the possibility to belong to the neighborhood of the East. Real Politik was the relationship with the winter dictators for regional Security, and for their own security. Mubarak was the enforcer of an unpopular Sadat agreement that favored Israel, and Israel was ready to shelter Mubarak before his forced resignation.

The Syrian revolution is about Syria and not about Israel – but the occupied territories cloud is in the background. Egypt cooperated with Israel in blocking Gaza, the Turks opposed this – so the Turks are now the big winners Marwa Daoudy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, and Avi Schlain, Emeritus Fellow at St Antony College, U. of Oxford, agree that it was not a bright idea for Ehud Barak saying that Israel is a “Villa in the Jungle” – this did not leave much hope for rapprochement.

In Egypt it is now about “National Dignity” and the perception that Mubarak was an Israeli stugge – when the revolution started the military and government crushed CDs and shreded government documents – we will never know the truth.

Syria started out in as a democracy but a 1949 coup by the CIA ended this.  Nasser talked about Positive Neutralism” in order to get money from all sides, but I did not get a full answer about the fate of Nasserism that was Pan-Arabism.
The short answer was that people in the Arab States worry about their own condition and not InterArabism.

The consensus after this panel was that if the Arabs don’t want us there – the best we can do is step out.

For the future – Hamas is now residing in Egypt and after listening to Egypt in forming a National Government, the Palestinians will be able to declare a cease fire with Israel and push for negotiations. The Egyptians will continue the agreements with Israel but declare they will not repeat the mistake of being one sided in favor of Israel.

The Last panel was about Policy Responses for the United States and Europe and here the cat came out from hiding, and it was that the war in Libya was easy for the West because it promised large riches of Oil – and as always, those that get involved will also bring in their oil corporations in tow. Eugene Rogan of St. Antony said YES-BUT – in Libya case it was also a military consideration because we (the US) could not afford another Sarajevo. Yes, but what about Syria? All right – they do not have oil in such quantities. So What?

Gideon Rose, Editor Foreign Affairs, said Reve Back the rhetoric or Increase Policy? We must make clear what kind of friends we are and what red lines we have. We should not be ashamed of promoting democracy added Robert Danin the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies. He continued – it has to be indigenous and we should be able to support it via institutions like Freedom House.

There is a lot of Unemployment and Underemployment in the Arab lands, and there is a lot of money in the Gulf States. Things went worse during this last year of upheaval. The extreme haves must support the extreme have-nots in the region he said. I told myself that this will be the day.

Asked what are the three major problems in the White House after November? The Answer was Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

Eugene Rogan, Faculty Fellow and University Lecturer in the Modern History of the Middle East, St. Antony, addressing the UN, said that the Kofi Annan Moral Mission to Syria has no chance to succeed. What is needed is a UNIFIL operation to make space between the fighting sides in Syria. Only then can start negotiations.

Other speakers included:

Elliott Abrams from CFR and Michael J. Willis from St. Antony on PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRACY — James M. Lindsay, Director of Studies at CFR – presider of that panel;

Mohamad Bazzi, CFR and NYU, and Columnist Raghida Dergham as Presider at the panel on MONARCHIES.

Isobel Coleman of CFR, Ed Husain of CFR, and Michael J. Willis of St Antony with Deborah J. Amos of National Public Radio on the panel on ISLAM AND POLITICS.

One last comment – The Monarchies fared better then the secular Dictatorships because they have some sort of legitimacy. On the other hand, the secular politicians were viewed as corrupt thieves and treated accordingly when people decided finally to hit the streets.

The UPDATE is for two reasons:

1, on March 13th we had looked at the appointment of former UN Secretary Kofi Annan with hope that his persona could influence events, then we realized that the UN Department of Political Affairs burdened him with a very bad team that we called tainted because all its members were tainted one way or the other. Among them was also Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa, former UN representative of Palestine and former Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority.

2. We had also personal misgivings with the inclusion of retired UN employee Ahmad Fawzi who seemingly had a close contact to politically active UN Arab partisans. Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwah was not let in by the Syrians.

Today we learned that  though al-Kidwah was appointed as Deputy to Mr. Annan, now someone who was not an Arab, but part of The Kofi Annan UN Administration – his Under-Secretary-General for Peace-Keeping Operation during the whole eight years two terms – 2000-2008, Columbia University Professor and Frenchman, Jean-Mariw Buehenno, got to be a second Deputy Special Envoy to this Joint Mission of the UN and the Arab League.

Otherwise, it is clear that nothing has been done todate by the UN to help the Syrian citizens who are under siege from their own Government.

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

We posted earlier:

The 2011 class of the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna will be known as Class Kofi Annan in recognition of the 1997-2006 UN Secretary General.
 http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2011/01…

That was BEFORE the UN appointment of Mr. Kofi Annan as negotiator in the Syria internal conflict that bares worries in other UN Member States were governments do not want to lose out to an uprising of their own people like Hosni Mubarak lost out to the people of Egypt. In the case of Libya it was the people plus external intervention by France and Britain that cleared the country of its leading pest, that is why China and Russia do not want any part in international intervention in case of internal strife – they just think of their own regimes – would you expect them to allow external involvement in what they consider their own affairs? How far can you indeed push the idea that democracy ought to be the way of government? Do you expect them to adhere to the two UN niceties of The Declaration on Human Rights and The Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

In the case of Syria these issues come to the forefront and it was Mr. Kofi Annan who was chosen to be the UN standard bearer to confront Mr. Bashar al-Assad with his responsibilities to his own citizens who rightfully detest him.

We liked Mr Annan when he was UN Secretary General, and indeed think he was the best Secretary General since Dag Hammarskjold. We also agree that with his understanding of R2P he is the best man to confront the Syrian establishment, but is he the best negotiator when coming in with a 100% understanding of the truth? Can he reach the needed compromise that stops the shooting? We know he is a skilled negotiator – but here he comes in with all the cards open on the table and this just cannot convince the Syrian regime that time has come to find a way out – something like assuring Mr. al-Assad a datcha in the Caucasus and ranches in Brazil to his Alawite henchmen.

With fighting going on – who will chase out whom? Syria has become home to Sunnis that escaped Iraq, but Syrian Sunnis are now themselves an endangered species even that they are in the majority and not like in iraq where the Sunnis were the minority. If they lose will it mean a strengthening of an anti-Sunni situation or rather a continuation of a secular situation where religious extremes from both ends – Sunni and Shi’a  - present danger to the rest of Islamic Western Asia? Is Saudi Arabia really interested in clearing out the Alawites who are sort of a secular Shi’a group that held Syria together until now?

With above thoughts in mind we read our friend – Anne Barnard’s report from the Middle East and decided to post our doubts that Mr. Kofi Annan can pull it off, and our feeling that he was sent there not with the intent to succeed, but rather as a way to allow the UN to continue to sit on its hands, while the Syrians go on killing their own, and eventually force more people to flee – this as the only way to attempt to quiet down this pesky event – the peace of the dead and gone.

Anne Barnard writes from Beirut for the New York Times:

Massacre Is Reported in Homs, Raising Pressure for Intervention in Syria.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, March 12, 2012 — Syrian opposition activists said on Monday that soldiers and pro-government thugs had rounded up scores of civilians in the devastated central city of Homs overnight, assaulted men and women, then killed dozens of them, including children, and set some bodies on fire. Syria immediately denied responsibility.

The attacks prompted a major exile opposition group to sharpen its calls for international military action and arming of the rebels. Some activists called the killings a new phase of the crackdown that appeared aimed at frightening people into fleeing Homs, an epicenter of the rebellion that the Syrian government had claimed just a few weeks ago it had already pacified after a month of shelling and shootings.

The government reported the killings as well but attributed them to “terrorist armed groups,” a description it routinely uses for opponents, including armed men, army defectors and protesters in the year-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

Syria’s restrictions on outside press access made it impossible to reconcile the contradictory accounts of the killings, which appeared to be one of the worst atrocities in the conflict. But accounts of witnesses and images posted on YouTube gave some credence to the opposition’s claims that government operatives were responsible.

An activist in Homs, Wael al-Homsi, said in a telephone interview that he had counted dozens of bodies, including those of women and children, in the Karm el-Zeitoun neighborhood of Homs while helping move them to a rebel-controlled area in cars and pickup trucks. He said residents had told him that about 500 athletically built armed men, in civilian clothes and military uniforms, had killed members of nine families and burned their houses, adding, “There are still bodies under the wreckage.

“I’ve seen a lot of bodies but today it was a different sight, especially dismembered children,” Mr. Homsi said.
“I haven’t eaten or drunk anything since yesterday.”

In a video posted on YouTube, a man being treated for what appeared to be bullet wounds in his back said he had escaped the killings in Karm al-Zeitoun. “We were arrested by the army, then handed over to the shabiha,” he said, using a common word for pro-government thugs. After two hours of beating, he said: “They poured fuel over us. They shot us — 30 or 40 persons.”

Both activists and the Syrian government described the attacks as “a massacre,” a day after a special emissary of the United Nations and the Arab League, Kofi Annan, a former United Nations secretary general, left the country without reaching a deal to end the fighting.

News of the killings came as the United Nations Security Council debated in New York, where the United States and Russia, Syria’s main international backer, tangled over how to address the Syria crisis.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called on Russia and China, which have vetoed previous resolutions aimed at holding Mr. Assad accountable and beginning a political transition, to join international “humanitarian and political efforts” to end the crisis, which she attributed directly to Mr. Assad.

Mrs. Clinton added, referring to shelling and other government military action in Syrian cities over the weekend, “How cynical that, even as Assad was receiving former Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Syrian Army was conducting a fresh assault on Idlib and continuing its aggression in Hama, Homs and Rastan.”

Her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov, agreed that any solution in Syria “requires an immediate end of violence.” But he said armed elements of the opposition in Syria were also responsible for the crisis there, and that the Security Council must act “without imposing any prejudged solutions.”

Mrs. Clinton had a separate meeting with Mr. Lavrov, calling it “constructive.” She told reporters he would deliver to Moscow her “very strong view that the alternative to our unity on these points will be bloody internal conflict with dangerous consequences for the whole region.”

The Syrian National Council, the main expatriate opposition group, held a news conference in Istanbul and issued a statement that intensified longstanding calls by some of its members for outside military action. George Sabra, an executive board member and a spokesman for the council, told reporters that it was a moral imperative for the international community to stop the killing and to arm the opposition Free Syrian Army.

“Words are no longer enough to satisfy the Syrian people. Therefore, we call for practical decisions and actions against the gangs of Assad. We demand Arab and international military intervention,” he said. The council, however, does not represent the entire opposition, which has struggled to agree on a unified message and includes people who oppose further militarizing the uprising, which has come to resemble a civil war.

—========================—

From the UN:

Toll of Syrian conflict: 8,000 deaths, 230,000 displaced

The ongoing conflict in Syria has claimed the lives of more than 8,000 people, according to UN officials, and forced at least 230,000 Syrians to flee their homes.

Kofi Annan, the United Nations-Arab League envoy to the country, said he was expecting a response today from the regime of President Bashar al-Assad that included “concrete proposals” to end the violence.

—————

From the Turkish Ambassador:

His estimate is that more then 10,000 is the number of the dead.

Egypt’s grief-stricken Christians fear a new wave of persecution.

Hundreds of thousands of mourners, many crying, packed the streets around St Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo yesterday as they waited to file past the body of Pope Shenouda, dressed in ceremonial robes and sitting in the papal chair. Ashraf, 26, a blacksmith, said as he stood beside the outer wall of the cathedral that “the very existence of Shenouda made us feel protected”.

A tired-looking woman, who would not give her name, was sitting on the pavement holding a child. She said: “I wish I could get in to see the body. I feel worse that our protector has gone. God knows what is going to happen.”

Egypt’s Copts, estimated to number 10 to 12 million, complain that they are treated as second-class citizens and denied top jobs. They had hoped that the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak last year would reduce discrimination, but now fear their condition may worsen as the Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Salafi movement, which together have 70 per cent of the seats in the newly elected parliament, gain greater influence.

Pope Shenouda, 88, was famous as a cautious Coptic leader, all-powerful within his community, who for four decades had dealt with the Egyptian government. Born in Assiut, in upper Egypt, he was careful to give support to President Mubarak. He was briefly stripped of his temporal powers by President Anwar Sadat in 1981, for accusing the government of being tolerant of extreme Islam.

His successor, to be chosen by a synod of bishops, is unlikely to exercise the same authority in defence of Egypt’s embattled Christian minority. The bishops will choose three candidates, whose names are written on pieces of paper and placed in a box. The final choice is made by a blindfolded boy, who picks one of the names.

There have been a series of violent attacks on Copts and their churches in the past year. In fighting between Copts and Muslims in the central Cairo slum of Imbaba in May, 15 people were killed, 242 injured and the Virgin Church was burned out. A demonstration by Copts in October saw 27 killed, many of them by a security vehicle driven at full tilt into the crowd.

“In the last week alone we have had a schoolteacher in upper Egypt sentenced to six years in prison for allegedly insulting the Prophet,” says Ihab Aziz, president of the Coptic American Friendship Society, who lives in Cairo. “A priest was given six months for violating the building code. Copts are being targeted and defamed without state action.” Mr Aziz says there are between 15 and 16 million Copts in Egypt, out of a total population of 85 million, but the state claims the number is smaller and has refused to release official census figures. The opening of new churches without permission has been a constant source of friction and violence.

The Copts fear the fall of President Mubarak may open the door to the imposition of Islamic Sharia law and to sectarian persecution. They are worried that Egypt will become more like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and that they will share the fate of Iraqi Christians, many of whom have been forced to flee. Mr Aziz says Copts are asking “What benefits were there from this revolution?” He adds that some 200,000 Egyptian Christians have sought visas to the US in the past year as a first step to immigration.

Islamic parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, have issued condolences over the death of Pope Shenouda. But Copts are suspicious that a new constitution will be more Islamic than before.

Mounir Yehia, 54, an agricultural engineer who was a student of Pope Shenouda at the Coptic Divinity School, said: “We have been suffering in this country for the past 1,400 years, and not only the last year or the 30 years before that. The death of Pope Shenouda will have a further negative effect on our lives and on Egypt in general.”

Other Egyptians are more optimistic. Marie Daniel, 41, a Coptic activist whose sister Mina was killed in a demonstration last October, says: “The Islamists are exposed after coming to parliament and now the Egyptians know the reality. I am not worried, because Egyptians would not accept any biased or discriminatory government either in parliament or the presidency.”

——————————————-

Minority in a Muslim nation

The Coptic Orthodox Church is a branch of Christianity founded in Egypt, but has devotees across the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The apostle Mark is believed to have visited Egypt country in 50AD.

The Pope of Alexandria, formerly the late Shenouda III, below, leads the church from Cairo. About 10 per cent of Egypt’s 80 million people are Christian, and have endured bouts of sectarian violence in the mostly Muslim nation for four decades.

Egypt’s former leader, Hosni Mubarak, allowed the church a greater role in public life in return for Shenouda’s support. However, since Mubarak’s fall last year, Copts have protested against discrimination amid fears that Islamic figures rising to political power will impose strict Sharia law.

—————————————-

And from a Jerusalem based source with Christian Evangelical links:

What is the alternative to Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria? Just consider which groups in Syria are especially for or against Assad—and why.

Christian minorities, who, as 10% of the Syrian population, have the most to gain from a secular government and the most to suffer from a state run by Islamic Sharia law, have no choice but to prefer Assad. They are already seeing aspects of the alternative. A recent Barnabas Fund report, “Christians in Syria Targeted in Series of Kidnappings and Killings; 100 Dead,” tells how “children were being especially targeted by the kidnappers, who, if they do not receive the ransom demanded, kill the victim.” In one instance, kidnappers videotaped a Christian boy as they murdered him in an attempt to frame the government; one man “was cut into pieces and thrown in a river” and another “was found hanged with numerous injuries.”

Accordingly, it is understandable that, as an earlier report put it, “Christians have mostly stayed away from the protests in Syria, having been well treated and afforded a considerable amount of religious freedom under President Assad’s regime.” After all, “Should Assad fall, it is feared that Syria could go the way of Iraq, post-Saddam Hussein. Saddam, like Assad, restrained the influence of militant Islamists, but after his fall they were free to wreak havoc on the Christian community; hundreds of thousands of Christians were consequently forced to flee the violence. Many of them went to Syria.”

In short, should “rebels” get their way and topple the Assad regime, the same brutal pattern experienced by Iraq’s Christian minorities—who have been likened to, and killed off like, dogs, to a point nearing extinction—will come to Syria, where an anti-Assad Muslim preacher recently urged Muslims to “tear apart, chop up and feed” Christians who support Assad “to the dogs.” From last week alone, some 70 additional Christian homes wereinvaded and pillaged, and “for the first time in the history of the conflict in Syria, an armed attack has been made on a Catholic monastery,” partially in search of money.

And who are these “rebels” who see and treat Christians as sub-humans to be exploited and plundered to fund the “opposition” against Assad? Unfortunately, many of them are Islamists, internal and external, and their “opposition” is really a jihad [holy war]; moreover, they are acting out anti-Christian fatwas that justify thekidnapping, ransoming, and plundering of “infidel” Christians.

As in Libya, al-Qaeda is operating among the Syrian opposition; Ayman al-Zawahiri himself “urges the Syrian people to continue their revolution until the downfall of the Assad regime, and stresses that toppling this regime is a necessary step on the way to liberating Jerusalem.” Both the influential Yusif al-Qaradawi and Hamas — the latter supported by Assad’s ally, Iran— back the “rebels.” This overview should place the “opposition” — who they are, what they want — in a clearer context.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama, who was remarkably reticent when Iranians seeking Western-style freedom tried to revolt against the oppressive Islamist regime of Iran, made it a point during his recent State of the Union Address to single out Assad by name as needing to go (not that the Republican presidential candidates seem to know any better; see Andrew McCarthy‘s recent article where, drawing on America’s other misadventures in Islamic nations, he shows how the U.S. has little to gain and possibly much to lose by supporting the anti-Assad opposition).

The lesson here is clear: while it is true that not all of Assad’s opposition is Islamist—there are anti-Assad Muslims who do not want a state that will be run by Islamic Sharia law —the Islamists are quite confident that the overthrow of Assad will equate with their empowerment. And why shouldn’t they be? Wherever Arab tyrants have been overthrow—Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and so on —it is Islamists who are filling the power-vacuums. Just ask Syria’s Christian minorities, who prefer the dictator Assad to remain in power—who prefer the devil they know to the ancient demon their forefathers knew.

Raymond Ibrahim is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Israel, Iran, Jordan and Turkey join forces for multimillion-dollar science project.

Each of the four countries has pledged $5 million toward the SESAME facility, which is being built near Amman.

By Asaf Shtull-Trauring, Published  15.03.2012 by HAARETZ of Israel.
 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/new…

In an extraordinary act of regional cooperation, Israel, Iran, Jordan and Turkey are to jointly provide funds for a particle accelerator as part of their commitment to a UNESCO-sponsored scientific project, it was announced on Wednesday.

Each of the four countries has pledged $5 million toward the SESAME facility, which is being built near Amman. SESAME stands for Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East.

According to the UNESCO website, the project aims to “foster scientific and technological excellence in the Middle East and neighboring countries (and prevent or reverse brain drain ) by enabling world-class research,” and to “build scientific and cultural bridges between neighboring countries.”

The project is slated to go online in 2015.

Egypt was originally meant to be one of the sponsors, but the past year’s instability there made it difficult to secure its commitment. From Wednesday’s announcement, it appears that Iran is taking Egypt’s place.

The $20 million isn’t enough to cover the accelerator project. Another $15 million is being sought from Europe and the United States. The SESAME center will ultimately cost $100 million.

“This announcement is a breakthrough in terms of the financial infrastructure,” said Prof. Eliezer Rabinovici, a physicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who has attended SESAME planning meetings.

“SESAME had enough money to build the building to house the accelerator, and to install its first components, which are being donated by the Germans. Now this commitment will enable the purchase of a light source for the accelerator,” he said.

Moshe Vigdor, who heads the Planning and Budgeting Committee of Israel’s Council for Higher Education, said that without this agreement the project would have collapsed.

As for Iran’s involvement, he said, “Science crosses borders and Israel participates in many international scientific forums that include Iran.”

SESAME also includes representatives from the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan, Bahrain and Cyprus.

According to Rabinovici, SESAME’s seeds were sown at a meeting that took place in Dahab, Sinai, three weeks after Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. Scientists from Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Morocco, as well as Palestinian scientists, were at the meeting.

While terror attacks in the late 1990s moved the working meetings to Europe, work on the project continued, getting a major boost with the donation of a German synchrotron, which will serve as the base for the new accelerator.

Unlike accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, the synchrotron is not based on particle collisions but on the cyclic beaming of electrons within the accelerator. When the electrons are accelerated they radiate, and this radiation can be used for screening in archaeology, physics, life sciences, pharmacology and other fields.

There are 60 such synchrotrons in the world, but none in the Middle East.

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

Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom says cutting Iran off from SWIFT clearinghouse will almost totally paralyze Iranian imports and exports, hours after most severe sanctions ever leveled against a sovereign country take effect in Iran • “Everything is done through international clearinghouses these days. What will they do?  Carry gold in suitcases?” says Shalom.

Shalom spoke less than a day after the most severe sanctions ever leveled against a sovereign country went into effect as Iran’s banking system was disconnected from the international SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network – a secure electronic system used by banks all over the world to communicate money transfers and other transactions.

Officials in Jerusalem have said that the impact of this move should become apparent within a few weeks. Many officials voiced satisfaction with the move.

“This is a real ratcheting up of the pressure,” Shalom told Israel Radio on Friday. “Israel has wanted this for a long time.”

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

	Shimon Peres talking with CERN Director general Rolf Heuer at the particle accelerator in Geneva.
	Photo by: CERN

This morning I marched at 8:30am to the East 68 Street entrance of the Park East Synagogue, and when I left at about 3pm I entered on the a sea of green – I immediately congratulated an elderly lady for the green antennae she was wearing on her head and I quickened my pace when I saw some green bunnies standing at the crossroad at Lexington Avenue.

The reality must be nevertheless noted – this is that the US has had already its first Catholic President (JFK), but the Jews got closest only when Senator Jacob Javits would have been happy even with the nomination for Vice President in the days the US still had a Liberal Republican wing of the Republican Party, but he was blocked by the Ambitions of New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

The United States were started by Anglo-Saxon Protestants and the thing to be was – be a WASP – White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male in order to get ahead.

In 1962 the Zichron Ephraim Congregation hired for its leadership position the Holocaust survivor Rabbi Arthur Schneier who was born in Vienna, on March 20, 1930, and whose Grandfather, in whose house he lived, was a Rabbi in Budapest who ended up in the extermination Camp Auschwitz in Poland. He belongs to a long line of Rabbis of East Europe and eventually young Arthur Schneier reached the US, after the war, in 1947, and did his studies in the United States. Ordained by Yeshiva University in New York City, he is by now the recipient of ten honorary doctorates. Under his leadership Zichron Ephraim became PARK EAST, and a main Jewish and New York Center for interaction with the United Nations here in New York, and at home capitals all over the world.

Rabbi Arthur Schneier  took his Congregation from being the quiet Park East Synagogue and placed it at the center of World attention for everything that has to do with oppression of Jews and Human Rights for all.

Starting with his first visit to Moscow in 1966, he has intervened with Soviet and Eastern European governments to ease the plight of religious believers; headed interfaith missions to Europe, Central Asia, Middle East, and Latin America; convened six international conferences with government and religious leaders from the former Yugoslavia and Southeast Europe to halt ethnic conflict and further reconciliation.

In April 2008, Rabbi Arthur Schneier hosted Pope Benedict XVI at Park East Synagogue, the first visit of a Pope to a synagogue in the United States. In February, 2009, he had a private audience with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican to reaffirm Nostra Aetate adopted by Vatican Council II, and was the Keynote speaker in 2008, at an Interfaith Conference convened by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Madrid.

Rabbi Schneier is the recipient of The Grand Decoration of Honor in Gold with Star for Service to the Republic of Austria; Commander’s Cross with the Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary; Dr. Karl Renner Prize of the City of Vienna, Grand Decoration of Honor in Gold for Special Services to the Province of Vienna; Order of St. Daniel of Moscow (Moscow Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Church); Religious Liberty Award. He is a member of Council on Foreign Relations; Asia Society; United Nations Development Corporation; United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Committee on Conscience; Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations; Joint Distribution Committee; Past President and Honorary Chairman, Religious Zionists of America, Honorary Chairman, World Jewish Congress American Section.

Rabbi Arthur Schneier was one of three American religious leaders appointed by President Clinton to start the first dialogue on religious freedom with President Jiang Zemin and other top Chinese leaders. As part of President Clinton’s delegation to China, Rabbi Schneier was privileged to present the Ohel Rachel Synagogue’ in Shanghai,  with the first Torah scroll in more than 50 years, donated by Park East Synagogue. He has served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the International Forum for Prevention of Genocide held in Stockholm in 2004, and Chairman of the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad from 1991-1995.

Rabbi Arthur Schneier also served as U.S. Alternate Representative at the U.N. General Assembly in 1988 and as a member of the U.S. Delegation for Return of the St. Steven Crown to Hungary in 1979. He was appointed as a member of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations High-Level Group in 2006, by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and in 2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon named him as United Nations Ambassador to the Alliance of Civilizations High-Level Group.

Rabbi Arthur Schneier was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Clinton, who praised him for “his service as an international envoy for four administrations, and as a Holocaust survivor, devoting a lifetime to overcoming forces of hatred and intolerance and set an inspiring example of spiritual leadership by encouraging interfaith dialogue and intercultural understanding and promoting the cause of religious freedom around the world.”

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, in October 2011, introduced a bill to award Rabbi Schneier the Congressional Gold Medal for his multifaceted humanitarian work.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation, founded by Rabbi Arthur Schneier in 1965, has worked on behalf of religious freedom and human rights throughout the world. This interfaith coalition of business and religious leaders promotes peace, tolerance and ethnic conflict resolution. The Foundation believes that freedom, democracy and human rights are the fundamental values that give nations of the world their best hope for peace, security and shared prosperity.

Appeal of Conscience delegations have met with religious and government leaders in Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Bulgaria, People’s Republic of China, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Cuba, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Holy See, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Morocco, Panama, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the former Yugoslavia. The Foundation also hosts delegations from abroad to acquaint them with the diversity of American religious life and its contribution to a civil society.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation has long held that “a crime committed in the name of religion is the greatest crime against religion.” The struggle for human rights is ongoing and tolerance can be achieved by promoting open dialogue and mutual understanding. After September 11th, the foundation has rallied religious leaders worldwide to take a stand against terrorism and to use their influence to halt violence and promote tolerance.

But for the Congregation itself, the most important institution is its Day-School intended to help the survival of a Jewish culture in a free and democratic America – a very hard feat in itself these days.

The Rabbi’s son, now Rabbi Marc Schneier, was born in 1959 and has now a Congregation with two seats – one in Westhampton Beach, Long Island, New York State – the The Hampton Synagogue founded in 1990 with a New York City branch – the New York Synagogue in Manhattan – with at the time people asking if the two were the Hampton Synagogue in Manhattan, or the New York Synagogue in the Hamptons – whatever the answer, above was a case of an independent  son following the grand ideas of his father.

While Rabbi Arthur Schneier was looking at the World at large – Rabbi Marc Schneier started to work with people like  Russell Simmons, who as Hip-hop’s master impresario brought marginalized voices to a mass audience. The two created the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU) that works between Jewish and Muslim Communities in the United States, but as the following photo shows also with the President of Israel in even larger circles. Russsell Simmons is the Chairman of FFEU. With them works Martin Luther King III, President and CEO, “Realizing the Dream Foundation.” (I have in front of me my notes  at a January 14-15, 2007 meeting)

The photo actually was taken when Schneier and Simmons explain to President Shimon Peres the ways they work against prejudices of one community against the other and for Peace.

A third member in the Marc Schneier – Russell Simmons team is Imam Shamsi Ali of  New York’s largest mosque, the Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) on East 96th Street at Third Avenue – and their coooperation is a ray of hope that at least here in the US – Muslims and Jews can cooperate for mutual understanding.

I mention the above because we were involved in this effort at start, but I will not go beyond this here, simply, because the topic of this posting is the father and not the son – this except to mention that the father managed somehow to help bring up a son that will follow his family line, albeit in his own ways.

Rabbi Marc Schneier is already counted like his father, as one of the most influential Rabbis in the United States, and held positions with the North American Board of Rabbis and with the World Jewish Congress.

-———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Now to this Saturday service at the Park East Synagogue – the first half of the HALF CENTURY CELEBRATION OF RABBI ARTHUR SCHNEIER. Some specifics that made this Saturday service different then any other Saturday:

The two sections read as add-ons to this Saturday service – one from the book of the Prophet Ezekiel (36:16-38), and the other from the book of Numbers (19:1-22) contain the following excerpts:

I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the countries, and I will bring you back to your own land.  I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes.  And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh;  and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules.  Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God.

And when I have delivered you from all your uncleanness, I will summon the grain and make it abundant, and I will not bring famine upon you.  I will make the fruit of your trees and the crops of your fields abundant, so that you shall never again be humiliated before the nations because of famine.  Then you shall recall your evil ways and your base conduct, and you shall loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abhorrent practices.  Not for your sake will I act — declares the Lord God — take good note! Be ashamed and humiliated because of your ways, O House of Israel!

Thus said the Lord God: When I have cleansed you of all your iniquities, I will people your settlements, and the ruined places shall be rebuilt;  and the desolate land, after lying waste in the sight of every passerby, shall again be tilled.  And men shall say, “That land, once desolate, has become like the garden of Eden; and the cities, once ruined, desolate, and ravaged, are now populated and fortified.”  And the nations that are left around you shall know that I the Lord have rebuilt the ravaged places and replanted the desolate land. I the Lord have spoken and will act.

Thus said the Lord God: Moreover, in this I will respond to the House of Israel and act for their sake: I will multiply their people like sheep. As Jerusalem is filled with sacrificial sheep during her festivals, so shall the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. And they shall know that I am the Lord.

The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying – This is the ritual law that the Lord has commanded:

Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.  You shall give it to Eleazar the priest. It shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. The cow shall be burned in his sight — its hide, flesh, and blood shall be burned, its dung included —  and the priest shall take cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff, and throw them into the fire consuming the cow.  The priest shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water; after that the priest may reenter the camp, but he shall be unclean until evening.  He who performed the burning shall also wash his garments in water, bathe his body in water, and be unclean until evening.  A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, to be kept for water of lustration for the Israelite community. It is for cleansing.  He who gathers up the ashes of the cow shall also wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

This shall be a permanent law for the Israelites and for the strangers who reside among you.

He who touches the corpse of any human being shall be unclean for seven days. He shall cleanse himself with it on the third day and on the seventh day, and then be clean; if he fails to cleanse himself on the third and seventh days, he shall not be clean.  Whoever touches a corpse, the body of a person who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the Lord’s Tabernacle; that person shall be cut off from Israel. Since the water of lustration was not dashed on him, he remains unclean; his uncleanness is still upon him.

This is the ritual: When a person dies in a tent, whoever enters the tent and whoever is in the tent shall be unclean seven days;  and every open vessel, with no lid fastened down, shall be unclean.  And in the open, anyone who touches a person who was killed or who died naturally, or human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.  Some of the ashes from the fire of cleansing shall be taken for the unclean person, and fresh water shall be added to them in a vessel. A person who is clean shall take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle on the tent and on all the vessels and people who were there, or on him who touched the bones or the person who was killed or died naturally or the grave.  The clean person shall sprinkle it upon the unclean person on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day. He shall then wash his clothes and bathe in water, and at nightfall he shall be clean.  If anyone who has become unclean fails to cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the congregation, for he has defiled the Lord’s sanctuary. The water of lustration was not dashed on him: he is unclean.

That shall be for them a law for all time. Further, he who sprinkled the water of lustration shall wash his clothes; and whoever touches the water of lustration shall be unclean until evening.  Whatever that unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the person who touches him shall be unclean until evening.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

On the eve of the opening of the yearly AIPAC Washington we consider also the reality mix of AIPAC preference for the Republican party (big business and America at large), and  the invocation by the US Administration of an unrealistic reliance on the United Nations as it is known to us.

The article we re-post here appeared in the Sunday New York Times, March 4, 2012,  ahead of the presentation President Obama was going to make at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC 2012, a Washington DC, yearly Conference.

We have also the actual presentation by the President, and some scant reactions besides our own evaluation. We give that material at the end. Here we first explain our own title for the posting.

The Holocaust was mentioned by President Obama in the negative about Iran’s Government – this because of President Ahmedi-Nejad’s denial of the Holocaust – his intended  provocation to infuriate the civilized world – makes the Iranian Government unacceptable to the rest of the world – again – the civilized part of the world.

But what is not talked about is the fact that during WWII the Jewish leaders in America, those close to the Government and/or to the economic life of America, did not push at that time the Roosevelt Administration to bomb the transport lines to the extermination camps. That Jewish leadership was just not pushy enough to stand up for their brethren while they were being exterminated. The memory of this is the unspoken push for a stronger Jewish US position on Iran. This plus the economic interest of the leaders today, like what was probaby also the interest of the very upper part of Jewish leadership of the WWII days, prefer a more business oriented US Presidency – the Republicans rather then the Democrats. This is our old argument – this because of our material on environment, sustainable energy, and climate change, convinced us in years past that AIPAC stands up for petroleum energy – the American Oil lobby under a cover of National Energy production rather then of clean energy production. The money interests of this lobby rather then Israel’s real National interests; but now Israel feels it depends on AIPAC help because of Iran, and AIPAC prefers a change of Administration for many unrelated reasons when it comes to Israel.

Having said this we will now take a more conventional look at the news of the day – March 4, 2012.

Then, at the end of the posting we will update the long week-end’s events by adding how Washington looks on Tuesday, March 6, 2912 after the beatings of the drums on the subject Israel/Iran.

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

U.S. Backers of Israel Pressure Obama Over Policy on Iran

By MARK LANDLER

Published: March 3, 2012 – in print March 4, 2012.

WASHINGTON — On the eve of a crucial visit to the White House by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, that country’s most powerful American advocates are mounting an extraordinary public campaign to pressure President Obama into hardening American policy toward Iran over its nuclear program.

From the corridors of Congress to a gathering of nearly 14,000 American Jews and other supporters of Israel here this weekend, Mr. Obama is being buffeted by demands that the United States be more aggressive toward Iran and more forthright in supporting Israel in its own confrontation with Tehran.

While defenders of Israel rally every year at the meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, this year’s gathering has been supercharged by a convergence of election-year politics, a deepening nuclear showdown and the often-fraught relationship between the president and the Israeli prime minister.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu will both speak to the group, known as Aipac, as will the three leading Republican presidential candidates, who will appear via satellite from the campaign trail on the morning of Super Tuesday. Republicans have seized on Iran’s nuclear ambitions to accuse Mr. Obama of being weak in backing a staunch ally and in confronting a bitter foe.

The pressure from an often-hostile Congress is also mounting. A group of influential senators, fresh from a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem, has called on Mr. Obama to lay down sharper criteria, known as “red lines,” about when to act against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“We’re saying to the administration, ‘You’ve got a problem; let’s fix it, let’s get back on message,’ ” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who took part in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and said the Israeli leader vented frustration at what he viewed as mixed messages from Washington.

“It’s not just about the Jewish vote and 2012,” Mr. Graham added. “It’s about reassuring people who want to avoid war that the United States will do what’s necessary.”

To give teeth to the deterrent threat against Iran, Israel and its backers want Mr. Obama to stop urging restraint on Israel and to be more explicit about the circumstances under which the United States itself would carry out a strike.

Specifically, Israeli officials are demanding that Iran agree to halt all its enrichment of uranium in the country, and that the suspension be verified by United Nations inspectors, before the West resumes negotiations with Tehran on its nuclear program.

The White House has rejected that demand, Israeli and American officials said on Friday, arguing that Iran would never agree to a blanket ban upfront, and to insist on it would doom negotiations before they even began. The administration insists that Mr. Obama will stick to his policy, which is focused on using economic sanctions to force the Iranian government to give up its nuclear ambitions, with military action as a last resort.

Despite the position of the Israelis and Aipac, the American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

In his tone, at least, Mr. Obama is working to reassure Israel. In an interview published on Friday, Mr. Obama reiterated his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon — with force, if necessary — and ruled out a policy of accepting but seeking to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. The Israeli government, he said, recognizes that “as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.”

The White House’s choice of interviewer — Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the magazine The Atlantic — was carefully calculated. Mr. Goldberg is closely read among Jews in America; in 2010, he wrote an article exploring the situations under which Israel would attack Iran.

American Jews are anything but monolithic. More dovish groups, like J Street, are trying to make a case against a pre-emptive Israeli strike. But for the next few days, Aipac will set the tone for an intense debate over the Iranian nuclear threat.

Mr. Obama will not lay down new red lines on Iran, even if he discusses them with Mr. Netanyahu, administration officials said. And he is not ready to accept a central part of Israel’s strategic calculation: that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be warranted to stop it from gaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon, rather than later, to stop it from actually manufacturing one.

In the interview, Mr. Obama warned Israel of the consequences of a strike and said that it would delay but not prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon. He also said he did not know how the American public would react.

Israel’s supporters said they believed that a majority of Americans would support an Israeli military strike against Iran. But polling data paints a murkier picture: while close to 50 percent of Americans say in several polls that they would support Israel, a slightly larger number say they would stay neutral. In some surveys, there is strong support for continuing diplomacy.

Supporters of Israel argue that in the American news media, Iran’s nuclear program has been wrongly framed as Israel’s problem, rather than as a threat to the security of the whole world.

“This is about the devastating impact on U.S. and Western security of a nuclear-armed Iran bent on bullying the region into submission,” said Josh Block, a former spokesman for Aipac.

Turnout for this year’s Aipac conference is expected to surpass all previous records. And the roster of speakers attests to the group’s drawing power. In addition to Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta will speak, as will Congressional leaders including Senator Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s Republican leader, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House.

On Tuesday, the screens in the Washington convention center will light up with the Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are likely to fault Mr. Obama as not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a weapon. {The three compete among themselves for the title of hawkishness towards Iran. The fourth GOP candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, is less sanguine about a US military involvement and was thus not asked to participate at AIPAC’s gathering in the capital. Ron Paul made his ideas known via an interview on the Candy Crawley CNN show today. He seems rather to express in full the same ideas that President Obama seems to have, but for the time being cannot express in full because of the possibility that they might be contorted by the Republican media at large. – this is our comment at SustainabiliTank.info}

“Aipac is the spearhead of the pro-Israel community’s efforts to move the American government’s red lines closer to Israel’s red lines,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former American envoy to Israel.

Officials at Aipac declined to comment about the conference or their strategy. But Mr. Block and other former Aipac officials said that, as in previous years, the group would blanket Capitol Hill with its members — all of whom will carry a message about the Iranian nuclear threat. {this will happen Tuesday and Wednesday next week.}

They will be pushing on an open door. Democrats and Republicans {in Congress and thanks in large part to the AIPAC pressure}, divided on so much, are remarkably united in supporting Israel and in ratcheting up pressure on Iran.
The Senate voted 100 to 0 last year to pass legislation isolating Iran’s central bank, over the objections of the White House.

There are four bills in the House and Senate that call for tougher action against Iran or closer military cooperation between Israel and the United States. Mr. Graham is one of 32 Republican and Democratic sponsors of a resolution that calls on the president to reject a policy of containing Iran.

“The Senate can’t agree to cross the street,” Mr. Graham said. “Iran has done more to bring us together than anything in the world.”

To counter Aipac’s message, J Street has circulated a video on Capitol Hill, highlighting American and Israeli military experts who have voiced doubts about the efficacy of a strike on Iran.

“We are saying there needs to be time for enhanced sanctions and diplomacy to work,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street. “We’re trying to calm down the drumbeat of war.”

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

President Obama’s prepared remarks to AIPAC’s policy conference this morning.

March 4, 2012 – Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

AIPAC Policy Conference, Washington, D.C.

As Prepared for Delivery – but we watched the delivery and found no deviation. Obviously, the colors are our own addition and the green honors the attention to the Iranian issue.

Good morning. Rosy, thank you for your kind words. You have long been a friend to me, and a tireless advocate for the unbreakable bonds between Israel and the United States. As you complete your term as President, I salute your leadership and commitment.

I want to thank the board of directors. As always, I’m glad to see my long-time friends in the Chicago delegation. I also want to thank the members of Congress who are with us here today, and who will be speaking to you over the next few days. You have worked hard to maintain the partnership between the United States and Israel. And I especially want to thank my close friend, and leader of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I’m glad that my outstanding Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, is with us. I understand that Dan is perfecting his Hebrew on his new assignment, and I appreciate his constant outreach to the Israeli people. I’m also pleased that we’re joined by so many Israeli officials, including Ambassador Michael Oren. And tomorrow, I’m looking forward to welcoming Prime Minister Netanyahu and his delegation back to the White House.

Every time that I come to AIPAC, I’m impressed to see so many young people here – students from all over the country who are making their voices heard and engaging in our democratic debate. You carry with you an extraordinary legacy of more than six decades of friendship between the United States and Israel. And you have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to make your own mark on the world. For inspiration, you can look to the man who is being honored at this conference – my friend, President Shimon Peres.

Shimon was born a world away from here, in a shtetl in what was then Poland, a few years after the end of the first World War. But his heart was always in Israel, the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and when he was just a boy he made his journey across land and sea – towards home.

In his life, he has fought for Israel’s independence, and he has fought for peace and security. As a member of the Haganah and a Member of the Knesset; as a Minister of Defense and Foreign Affairs; as a Prime Minister and as a President – Shimon helped build the nation that thrives today: the Jewish state of Israel. But beyond these extraordinary achievements, he has also been a powerful moral voice that reminds us that right makes might – not the other way around.

Shimon once described the story of the Jewish people by saying it proved that, “slings, arrows and gas chambers can annihilate man, but cannot destroy human values, dignity, and freedom.” He has lived those values. He has taught us to ask more of ourselves, and to empathize more with our fellow human beings. I am grateful for his life’s work and his moral example, and I am proud to announce that later this Spring, I will invite Shimon Peres to the White House to present him with America’s highest civilian honor – the presidential Medal of Freedom.

In many ways, this award is a symbol of the broader ties that bind our nations. The United States and Israel share interests, but we also share those human values that Shimon spoke about. A commitment to human dignity. A belief that freedom is a right that is given to all of God’s children. An experience that shows us that democracy is the one and only form of government that can be truly responsive to the aspirations of citizens.

America’s Founding Fathers understood this truth, just as Israel’s founding generation did. President Truman put it well, describing his decision to formally recognize Israel only minutes after it declared independence: “I had faith in Israel before it was established,” he said. “I believe it has a glorious future before it – as not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.”

For over six decades, the American people have kept that faith. Yes, we are bound to Israel because of the interests that we share – in security for our communities; prosperity for our people; and new frontiers of science that can light the world. But it is our common ideals that provide the true foundation for our relationship. That is why America’s commitment to Israel has endured under Democratic and Republican Presidents, and congressional leaders of both parties. In the United States, our support for Israel is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay.

AIPAC’s work continually nurtures this bond. And because of AIPAC’s effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next few days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But as you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last three years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture – at every fork in the road – we have been there for Israel. Every single time.

Four years ago, I stood before you and said that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” That belief has guided my actions as President. The fact is, my Administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every year. We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology – the type of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

This isn’t just about numbers on a balance sheet. As a Senator, I spoke to Israeli troops on the Lebanese border. I have visited with families who’ve known the terror of rocket fire in Sderot. That’s why, as President, I have provided critical funding to deploy the Iron Dome system that has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes, hospitals, and schools in that town and others. Now our assistance is expanding Israel’s defensive capabilities, so that more Israelis can live free from the fear of rockets and ballistic missiles.  Because no family, no citizen, should live in fear.

Just as we’ve been there with our security assistance, we have been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism. When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to help save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to de-legitimize the state of Israel, my Administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.

So if during this political season you hear some question my Administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts. And remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important.

Of course, there are those who question not my security and diplomatic commitments, but my Administration’s ongoing pursuit of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. So let me say this: I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel’s own leaders understand the necessity of peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Barak, and President Peres – each of them have called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state.

I believe that peace is profoundly in Israel’s security interest. The reality that Israel faces – from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment – demands a resolution of this issue. And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values – because of our shared belief in self-determination; and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected.

Of course, peace is hard to achieve. There’s a reason why it has remained elusive for six decades. The upheaval and uncertainty in Israel’s neighborhood makes it that much harder – from the horrific violence raging in Syria, to the transition in Egypt. And the division within the Palestinian leadership makes it harder still – most notably, with Hamas’s continued rejection of Israel’s very right to exist.

But as hard as it may be, we should not give in to cynicism or despair. The changes taking place in the region make peace more important, not less. And I have made it clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. That is why we continue to press Arab leaders to reach out to Israel, and will continue to support the peace treaty with Egypt. That’s why – just as we encourage Israel to be resolute in the pursuit of peace – we have continued to insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements. And that is why my Administration has consistently rejected any efforts to short-cut negotiations or impose an agreement on the parties.

Last year, I stood before you and pledged that: “the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations.” As you all know, that pledge has been kept. Last September, I stood before the United Nations General Assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of Israel and its security concerns. I said that America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, our friendship with Israel is enduring, and that Israel must be recognized. No President has made such a clear a statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one – not the General Assembly.

There wasn’t a lot of applause. But it was the right thing to do. And as a result, today there is no doubt – anywhere in the world – that the United States will insist upon Israel’s security and legitimacy. That will also be true as we continue our efforts to our pursuit of peace. And that will be true when it comes to the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran’s nuclear program – a threat that has the potential to bring together the worst rhetoric about Israel’s destruction with the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction.  And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders.

A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia.

That is why, four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is what we have done.

When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant – increasingly popular, and extending its reach. In other words, the Iranian leadership was united and on the move, and the international community was divided about how to go forward.

And so from my first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t. In fact, our policy of engagement – quickly rebuffed by the Iranian regime – allowed us to rally the international community as never before; to expose Iran’s intransigence; and to apply pressure that goes far beyond anything that the United States could do on our own.

Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before. People predicted that Russia and China wouldn’t join us in moving toward pressure. They did, and in 2010 the UN Security Council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions.

That is where we are today. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally – the Assad regime – is crumbling.

Of course, so long as Iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unsolved. The effective implementation of our policy is not enough – we must accomplish our objective.

In that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed. The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. Now, the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July – thanks to our diplomatic coordination – a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold. Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.

Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.

Moreover, as President and Commander-in-Chief, I have a deeply-held preference for peace over war. I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency. For this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country.

We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

Moving forward, I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program.  For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick.  As we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve, and that our coordination with Israel will continue.

These are challenging times. But we have been through challenging times before, and the United States and Israel have come through them together. Because of our cooperation, citizens in both our countries have benefited from the bonds that bring us together. I am proud to be one of those people. In the past, I have shared in this forum just why those bonds are so personal for me – from the stories of a great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald, to my memories of returning there with Elie Wiesel; from sharing books with Shimon Peres, to sharing seders with my young staff in a tradition that started on the campaign trail and continues in the White House; from the countless friends I know in this room, to the concept of tikkun olam that has enriched my life.

As Harry Truman understood, Israel’s story is one of hope. We may not agree on every single issue – no two nations do, and our democracies contain a vibrant diversity of views. But we agree on the big things – the things that matter. And together, we are working to build a better world – one where our people can live free from fear; one where peace is founded upon justice; one where our children can know a future that is more hopeful than the present.

There is no shortage of speeches on the friendship between the United States and Israel. But I am also mindful of the proverb, “A man is judged by his deeds, not by his words.” So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done – to stand up for Israel; to secure both of our countries; and to see that the rough waters of our time lead to a peaceful and prosperous shore. Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel. And God bless the United States of America.

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

Dr. Ron Paul said to Candy Crawley from his campaign place in Fairbanks, Alaska: It does not make sense to bomb one that makes threats but has done nothing to us but might do something someday.” But he also said that as President he would not tell Israel what to do about their own defence. Further, he said that sanctions will give the incentives to Iranians to build that bomb.

Also, confronted with questions about his three Republican opponents criticism of President Obama excusing himself before the Afghans for the burning of Koran books that were desecrated first by Afghan prisoners – the Republicans saying that there was no reason to show remorse by the US President, Dr. Paul said that indeed there should not have been an apology but rather a change of policy in the Middle East with less American involvement and more left to the locals to do for themselves.

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

The CNN foreign affairs reporter – Elise Labott, like Israeli reporter Ronen Bergman of Yedioth Aharonot, said that Israel wants not to rely on the United States and will just want to bomb Iran now – when they still can do it by themselves. Bergman predicted that this will still happen in 2012. Israel believes Iran is only 9 month away from weaponizing with nuclear capacity. For Israel, a containment policy is not on the table and they know that till November it is US election time – but then there is still time left to the end of the year to avoid a rain of missiles in 18 t0 36 months even though some military analysts in Israel themselves plead for time.

To above General Barak told Bergman that those military people when they look up se Messrs Netanyahu and himself, but when Nethanyahu and Barak look up – they see only blue sky – so this is it that they have been left as decission makers and will take the needed responsibility to decide.

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

Dr. Trita Parsi, in an e-mail to us, writes that what was crucial in the Obama presentation before AIPAC was that it remains weaponization, and not nuclear capability, that is crucial to the United States. It is not the nuclear enrichment and capability issue that will send the US to war – but only the weaponization stage – and there is really no indication that Iran is now pursuing weaponization.

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

Obama to AIPAC: ‘Too Much Loose Talk of War’

By Michael Hirsch, National Journal

04 March 2012

President Obama told the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC that while containment of a nuclear Iran was not an option, there was “already too much loose talk of war.”

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee which began its annual convention Sunday, Obama told the audience to look at the last three years of his tenure as President, and his administration’s support of Israel.

“Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every year,” Obama said. “We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology – the type of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

President Obama said he preferred to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran through diplomatic and economic means. “I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already there is too much loose talk of war.”

Obama will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday where Iran will be the focus of discussions.

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

And President Obama has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House.

THE VERDICT – OBAMA, BIBI SHOW NO SIGN OF NARROWING GAP ON IRAN.

But also as Helen Cooper writes for the New York Times –

“Candidates Hammer Obama Over Iran, but Approaches Differ Little.”

To rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Mitt Romney says he would conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to remind Iran of American military might. He would try to ratchet up Security Council sanctions on Iran, targeting its Revolutionary Guards, and the country’s central bank and other financial institutions. And if Russia and China do not go along, he says, the United States should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place.

As it turns out, that amounts to what President Obama is doing.

As their tone on Iran escalates in advance of appearances via satellite Tuesday morning before AIPAC the Republican candidates for president have tried to draw stark contrasts between themselves and Mr. Obama when it comes to stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama’s Iran strategy,Rick Santorum said recently on “Meet the Press” on NBC, risked turning the United States into a “paper tiger.” Newt Gingrich said that on Iran, “we’re being played for fools.”

On Sunday, Mr. Romney, appearing in Atlanta, offered this: “If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” And on Monday, he wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post comparing Mr. Obama to President Jimmy Carter, who he said “fretted in the White House” as Iran held American hostages for 444 days.

Mr. Obama and his backers have cried foul, saying the Republican candidates, in the quest to appear tough, are playing a dangerous game that could end up driving Iran closer to a nuclear weapon, as Mr. Obama implied in his own address  to AIPAC on Sunday.

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

And on Tuesday the 5th –

Pro-Israel Delegates Have Washington’s Ear on Iran.

After two days of listening to politicians talk about the issue, Aipac members got a chance to talk back on Tuesday. Conference leaders scheduled a record 530 meetings with lawmakers over about four hours, with delegates from all 50 states fanning out across Washington bearing talking points.

Bret Baier of Fox News delivered a mostly accurate but extremely one-sided description of the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey by saying that since his “Islamist-oriented party took over .?.?. the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. [Erdogan] has embraced Hamas, and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cyprus.” Then he asked former Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry:  “Do you believe Turkey still belongs in NATO?”

Perry answered – and this surely was one of the lows of this year’s campaign –  “Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.?.?.”

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post writes:

“Islamic terrorists? This, mind you, is about a government that has just stationed an advanced radar on its territory that could be used to track and shoot down missiles from Iran; that joined the NATO operation against Moammar Gaddafi in Libya; that has become the host of the opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad;  and that, having repeatedly won free democratic elections, amended Turkey’s constitution to expand rights for women, ethnic minorities and unions.

Okay — that, too, was a one-sided account of the Erdogan record. But that is precisely the point: Turkey has become a complex, dynamic, difficult, sometimes infuriating, sometimes very helpful and indisputably important ally of the United States. In that sense, Erdogan’s government is a paradigm of the relationships U.S. administrations will be managing — if we are fortunate — in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab Middle East during the coming decade.”

The reality is that, like it or not, “Islamist-oriented” governments are about to become the new normal in a region dominated for decades by secular autocrats and pro-American generals.

So the crude bias about Muslim movements that is baked into the worldview of many U.S. conservatives — that they are inevitably fundamentalist, anti-democratic, anti-Israel and anti-American, if not explicitly “terrorist” — has become a serious liability. If heeded, it will make it impossible for this administration and future ones to navigate the region’s new politics and preserve crucial alliances.

Some Islamic movements may turn out like Hamas and Hezbollah — implacably hostile. But others, like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, are likely to weave through an ambiguous middle ground, trying to balance the need for Western investment and the secular aspirations of their populations with their religious ideology.

The right way to respond to them is to be nimble: tolerate some turbulence, roll with some punches, push back against others and keep pressing leaders to stick to democratic principles.

This is pretty much how Barack Obama has handled Erdogan and his government — with a net result that, for now at least, looks positive. I’ve written recently about Obama’s failureson several of his signature foreign policy initiatives. But his handling of Turkey, and its mercurial leader, may stand as one of his best accomplishments.

Fortuitously, Obama began courting Erdogan from the beginning of his administration, making Istanbul the site of one of his first foreign trips and delivering a speech in which he pledged to build stronger relations between the United States and Turkey as well as the Muslim world more generally.

Some big disappointments followed. Erdogan turned on Israel even before Israeli commandos’ disastrous interception of a Turkish ferry trying to break the Gaza blockade in 2010. He tried to undercut, and then voted against, Obama’s attempt to win U.N. Security Council approval for sanctions against Iran. At home, his attacks on critical journalists and the jailing of hundreds of military officers and secular activists on dubious charges of coup plotting prompted public criticism from the U.S. ambassador and eventually, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But Obama kept working on the Turkish leader, calling him more often than any foreign partner other than Britain’s David Cameron. A relatively close personal rapporthas been the result. Asked about his foreign relationships in an interview last week, Obama named Erdogan among five world leaders with whom he said he had forged “bonds of trust.”

Administration officials say they see a convergence of U.S. and Turkish policies in the past year — on Libya, Syria, Iran and the Arab Spring more generally. While Erdogan’s drift toward domestic autocracy remains a major concern, some officials believe a new constitution his party is drafting will lead to better checks and balances, and fewer journalists in prison.

This will not make Turkey an ideal ally, or remedy its still-troubled relations with Israel. But it’s much better than turning its Islamists into adversaries — or failing to distinguish them from terrorists.

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

This is based on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tukeys-government-is-the-new-normal-in-the-middle-east/2012/01/19/gIQA5GRaJQ_story.html

and the point is that Turkey will do what the government headed by Tayyip Erdogan thinks is the interest of Turkey, which he think is to head the Sunni Arab World of the Middle East and North Africa – the MENA.

We wrote about this after the boat of Marmara collision with the Israelis in front of the coast of the Gaza Strip. That was Turkey’s attempt to RESET from an European direction to a direction closer to home – to the Islamic World.

We said at the time that after trying for the attention of the Arab World, Turkey will eventually have to show what they intend to do with their newly created position after the RESET. Turkey will not back anti-American terrorism, and we shall see if the on-going fight in Syria will be seized by Turkey in order to appear as peace makers, or as one more group of trouble makers. Turkey’s behavior in regard to Syria will show their intent. Lukily the US will not be headed by Rick Perry, and our hope is that next US Presidency, hopefully again under President Obama, will find the way to collaborate with the Turkish Government in order to come up with acceptable results.

The Government of Jordan is accused of a vicious attack on a beautiful Palestinian activist

Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
972 (0)54 441 3252