zfvcpb zoienwcxg lforbt wmjbuh fscbuea ekxmwh jbsfx

Today’s Post Global GPB

http://www.secure-x-001.net/SecureGeo/Issue/SecureObservationComments.asp

And the topic of discussion is...

“Will Bush rescue the Annapolis accord as he visits the Middle East for essentially the first time?”

And the answer provided by the author is...

No Annapolis rescue...just another photo op to enable radical Islamists.

“Most analysts believe President Bush won't start crafting constructive policies now, in his last year, when he has had no vision for the region for 7 years. What most thought leaders are asking is whether the President has any real priority beyond an attempt to reach for some type of better legacy than he has now. Few believe he does and that will make it difficult for this trip to achieve much if anything other than photo ops. Unfortunately, it provides the opportunity for US opponents, particularly radical Islamists, to achieve much as they direct anger and rage toward the most unpopular US President in memory.”

I concur. Ata boy W!

Oops! I forgot the link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/01/jewish_identity_is_what_each_j.html

Robert,

Here is an essay by one of my favorite people, Susan Jacoby, a half-Jew and regular contributor to WPs On Faith section. Do you ever read it? Susan’s philosophy (atheist) and political orientation (fiercely anti-neocon and anti-Bush) closely match my own. I’m curious to know what you think of her writing if you have time to review it.

She says at one point “As far as I'm concerned, the neocons like Kristol and Wolfowitz have simply proved that a Jew can be just as stupid as anyone else--say, Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Only in America”.

I think that you regard me as a raving anti-Semite. Am I right? I don’t think that I am. In fact, my views match those of Susan almost perfectly, yet she is half-Jew and considers herself to be culturally Jewish. That’s why I would like for you (and Mara) to read and comment on Susan’s essay on Jewish identity: “Jewish Identity Is What Each Jew Makes of It”.

Peace.

Luke -
On the status of who's doing what to who in the war on terror, I recommend a regular read of " longwarjournal.org "

You should also read the following books:

The Pentagon's New Map - Thomas Barnett
The Looming Tower (Al Qaeda) - Lawrence Wright
Legacy of Ashes (CIA) - Tim Weiner
Imperial Grunts (Global counterinsurgency) - Robert Kaplan
The Crisis of Islam - Bernard Lewis

In case you wondered, none of these above are Bushie neo-cons and you should also read some or all of Thomas Friedman and Bob Woodward's stuff.

Surprised Rick Jones did not have a reading list for you, his would include "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (a perennial favorite) and a boxed DVD set of Ahmadenijad's speeches at UN, Columbia U, Holocaust denial conference, and World without Israel rally (actually I would recommend viewing closely the latter too!!! It is very informative once you know who the "perfect man" is and what the "invitation" foreshadows)

Luke,

Good luck in your journalism career. You are off to a good start. This is a good place to keep abreast of world events and sharpen your writing skills.

You say:

“…the United States has a huge amount of influence in the world right now…This status is not permanent and the position is rapidly being filled by China…”

How right you are, and don’t forget our old nemesis Russia. Russian power and influence is coming back by virtue of both:

1. Their military weapons development expertise which enables them to make a bundle exporting state of the art weapon systems to developing countries (like Iran, China and India).

2. Their oil, natural gas and electric power exports.

“…When a nation is a threat it has more power than when it actually uses its power as can be seen with the decline of the United States global reputation…”

Yes, how wise you are. Once we invade and occupy a country (as in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq), we no longer have any leverage. As Colin Powell says “if you break it you own it” (the pottery barn rule). We are then in a bad place, fighting guerilla warfare, where our overwhelming military might has no advantage. Powell’s doctrine of overwhelming military might is useless against the insurgent who “swims in the sea of the people” (Ho Chi Min quote). We have twice proven this concept now in Vietnam and Iraq.

“…encourage good relations with other nations and help to increase stability while (again a tricky part) attempting not to come across as imperialists…”

Yes, that is the difficult part. This is where we need charismatic leadership, like Barack Obama for example.

“…It is much more effective than…jumping the gun and declaring…unnecessary wars with undeveloped strategies…”

Yes, God forbid; thankfully we don’t know of anyone who would do such a thing!

“…Also, to some of the previous posters, modern war is not fought over social issues or even the lives of foreign private citizens, while these may be incentives the driving and constant factor is always related to economy…”

Well said, in other words as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has pointed out in his new book our lust for oil played a role in our preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. We covet their world’s second largest oil field. Also, the Brits wanted the Israelis to keep their access to the Suez Canal open. This was the incentive for the Balfour Declaration which opened the door to the Zionist invasion of Palestine and the foundation of the illegitimate “State of Israel (sorry Mara, but we must call a spade a spade).

Of course the wealthy Baron Rothschild greasing the skids with British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour and Winston Churchill didn’t hurt either. You will have much to learn about lobbyists.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/daoud_kuttab/2007/11/israel_lobby_makes_america_bli/all_comments.html

Oops! Please replace late 1980s with late 1880s in my previous post.

Mara

Thanks for the post.

You say:

“...repeated use of "Zionist invader" and "illegitimate State of Israel" completely negates ANY shred of rationality your argument MAY have contained...”

In my view, it is not irrational to state the truth. If you can find an untruth in my post, then you have a valid reply.

Why do I use the term “Zionist invader”? Because it was Theodore Herzl’s Zionist movement that was responsible for the European Jewish immigration to Palestine that began in the late 1980s, when the Jewish population was about 30, 000 (5%), and the native Palestinian population (Arab+Christian+Jew) was about 600,000. This immigration was strongly opposed by the native Palestinians, hence the term invader. This Zionist invasion has now grown to about 5.7 Million Jews.

Why do I say that the “State of Israel” is illegitimate; because it was founded by the British, the League of Nations and the UN, who gave the land belonging to the native Palestinians to the Zionist invaders? They had no right to do this, unless you subscribe to the doctrine of “Might Makes Right”. I consider this to be an illegitimate doctrine. Just because the League of Nations won WW I, did not give them the right to import hundreds of thousands of Zionists to displace the native population.

Apparently, we continue to operate by this doctrine today, since our government feels that we are entitled to commit any unprovoked act of aggression that we wish anywhere in the world; just because of our insatiable greed for oil.

And the fact that the holocaust happened has nothing to do with the Palestinians. If we wanted to protect the Jews from another holocaust, then we should have allowed them to immigrate to our land, not someone else’s.

repeated use of "Zionist invader" and "illegitimate State of Israel" completely negates ANY shred of rationality your argument MAY have contained. (Not that there was much, but at least your didn't include stupidity like "Jews use the blood of murdered Palestinian children to make the dough for the Purim pasteries")

I ask you all to remember that the Holocaust happened when the Jews WERE a minority in a (relatively) secular State. A condition James Brown is suggesting they voluntarily return to.

He suggests a single "secular" state (as if that could happen in the cradle of theocracy) where the Jew, inevitably, is relegated to the status of "hated minority" by a Arab majority that makes no bones about wanting to exterminate them all.

Would any of YOU be willing to put yourself or your family in that position?

I am currently a high school student and not a professional journalist yet, but I do follow world affairs and policies closely. There is no doubt that the United States has a huge amount of influence in the world right now, especially in developing countries. This status is not permanent and the position is rapidly being filled by China. As an American, I believe that candidates do not necessarily need to practice "equality" to other nations but need to implement smart foreign policy. My definition of a smart foreign policy would be one where other nations are aware that drastic actions (economic and military in nature) may occur if they attack or attempt to do some other form of damage (used loosely) to America or its allies, they should also feel confident that (here's one of the tricky parts)the consequences will not be done light-heartedly. When a nation is a threat it has more power than when it actually uses its power as can be seen with the decline of the United States global reputation. The third part is to encourage good relations with other nations and help to increase stability while (again a tricky part) attempting not to come across as imperialists. Of course this is a very general and simple version. An even simpler version would be create fear, use the fear not what is feared, encourage stability and friendly relations. It is much more effective than holding hands or jumping the gun and declaring relatively unnecessary wars with underdeveloped strategies. Which brings me to warfare. America has the power and ability to declare war on just about any nation but along with making sure the war is necessary, if possible a full plan should be made with subsequent plans for any possibility. The campaign should not end until the root of the problem has been taken care of and the nation in which the conflict took place has had a reasonable if not full level of stability restored. Also, to some of the previous posters, modern war is not fought over social issues or even the lives of foreign private citizens, while these may be incentives the driving and constant factor is always related to economy. I will be happy to explain any part of this in more depth but this is already way too long.

And we have the right as a sovereign nation to bomb the backyard of any nation hiding terrorists who seek our death, except of course IF it has nukes like Pakistan. That's why Iran will be so dangerous as a radical nuke power.

As you're a "drive them into the Mediterranean" advocate but in a nice way I'm sure, you have nothing to do with Mahmoud rhetoric of Israel's destruction and holocaust denial.

Have a good day, Rick

Robert:

Why do we care if Muslim citizens of Muslim countries demand equal rights in their own lands?

Why is that any of our business?

Why do we have the right to continue bombing their backyards for terrorists because they advocate genocide?

Who advocates genocide?

What good does our bombing their back yards do?

No, it is time for Muslim citizens of Muslim countries to demand equal rights in their own lands. No more excuses about Palestine, no more excuses about Iraq - there are 30 Arab and Muslim countries we have not occupied, no more excuses about petrodollars and corruption. Just do it, OK?
Then we will stop bombing your backyards for terrorists and threatening your tinpot theocrats "just because" they advocate genocide.

Alan Shapiro says:

“To Rick Jones:

when you say the "U.N. took someone elses land" , what do you mean ? Palestine was part of the ottoman empire before the Brits took it.Prior to this, it belonged to Mamluks who were from egypt, pre Mamaluks, Saladin took it from the european crusaders. If we go back to 63 BC the Romans took it from the last Jewish kingdom during the Macabean revolt, before this the Greeks had it under Alexander the great (we are now at 333BC), The greeks took it from the Persians who took it from the Babylonians in 586 bc. Arabs areant even native to Palestine.

Thus, our job is to find some way out of this historical morass.”

Thanks for the post Alan.

Yes, the land was overrun and conquered by many distant foreign colonial empires on many different occasions. However, the Jews were expelled from the region by the Romans as you point out almost 2,000 years ago, except for a very small minority. Just prior to the 20th century, “Palestine” contained about 30,000 Jews and 600,000 native Palestinians, whose ancestors had farmed the land and tended their flocks and orchards for at least 15 millennia. Thus the Jews made up about 5% of the population, and that is what they should still be.

Granted, they didn’t think of themselves as “Palestinians”, but they were the indigenous people of this area, which was a quiet backwater possession of Roman, Ottoman, Arab, British or whatever colonial empire that had last lain administrative claims to the region. Since the Arabs were the most recent (before the Brits) the people have adopted the Arab language and religion.

The British, or League of Nations, or UN had no right to give this land to the European Jews.

I agree, “Our job is to find some way out of this historical morass”, and it won’t be easy. I think that the best solution is a single secular state, with equal rights for all. However, we both know that this will be unacceptable to the Zionist invader. They want to force the Palestinians out into the desserts of Jordan. This is unacceptable to the Palestinians and most of the world. If the apartheid Zionist regime cannot bring itself to share a secular state with their Palestinian Semite brethren, then the Zionists should be expelled once again from the region.

By all means, we should stop our unconditional support of their cruel and criminal subjugation of the Palestinian people with my tax dollars.

Rick James says:

“The Jews were on the verge of extermination by a mad man and needed a place of their own and the world leaders at that time picked the area. It would seem to me that a religion that preaches brotherhood could take a step back and remember how this came to be. This is not meant to be a "bash Islam comment" by any means...”

Thank you for your post and the reasonable, courteous tone of your discussion. I would like to remind you, however, that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the mistreatment of the European Jews. Would your brotherly love extend to giving the Jews a piece of your country, say New Jersey if you are American?

Also, keep in mind how the Zionists have responded to the largesse of the super powers.

Here is what we are talking about:

1. The Zionist invader is occupying stolen land that it acquired by force, with an assist from the world’s superpowers, and so has no grounds for complaint when it is attacked in return by the displaced native population.

2. Israel continues to increase its illegal acquisition of Palestinian land in the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. It has withdrawn from Gaza (for the moment) but continues to suppress the economy and limit access to vital resources such as water, fuel and electricity.

3. Israel's policy regarding water supply in the West Bank is illegal and discriminates on racial grounds. It flagrantly breaches international law which requires Israel to ensure proper living conditions for the occupied population and to respect the Palestinians' human rights, including the right to receive a sufficient quantity of water to meet their basic needs.”

4. Israel is violating the international law on water since the water resources in the Occupied Territories were integrated into the legal and bureaucratic system of Israel, severely limiting the ability of Palestinians to develop those resources…

5. Israel’s use of groundwater of the Occupied Territories in the settlements is a breach of article 55 of the Hague Regulations.

6. Israel is in breach of Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which prohibits an occupying state from discriminating between residents of occupied territory; since the quantity of water supplied to the settlements is vastly larger than that which is supplied to the Palestinians.

7. Israel is in breach of article 6 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Examination of the current division of water between Israel and the Palestinians leads to the conclusion that this division violates Palestinian rights and contravenes international water law.

8. Even Israel’s own human rights organization considers them to be racist, illegal and “discriminates on racial grounds”.

9. Israel hogs 80% of the regions water supply to keep their swimming pools full and lawns green, while leaving the Palestinians less than half the amount considered necessary for minimum health requirements by the WHO and USAID organizations.

10. The Zionist war criminals have killed more than 6 times the number of Palestinian civilians, as Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

11. The Zionist war criminals have killed more than 17 times the number of Palestinian children, as Palestinians have killed Israeli children.

12. Your repeated excuses that the Zionists drop leaflets to warn civilian population centers that are about to be bombed back to the stone ages, and apologizes after the fact, are disgusting in the extreme.

13. Your constant whining that suicide bombers kill women and children, a tiny fraction of the women and children slaughtered by the Zionist war criminal, is disgusting in the extreme.

Mr. Kuttab suggests rewarding those who uphold human rights...so I ask, "what KIND of reward? Money? Trade concessions? A better seat at the State of the Union address?"

How would this work? Is he suggesting that despots be paid off NOT to commit genocide? That we pay a tribe NOT to go raping and murdering the neighbors? What about the OTHER tribe, the neighbor? THEY aren't out pillaging. Shouldn't THEY be rewarded too? Where does it stop?

Would SOME human rights abuses (like murdering homosexuals, condoning female genital mutilation, or imprisoning the victims of rape) be acceptable as long as it's deemed "cultural", not "juducial"?

How about abuses like the suicide bombing of ice cream parlors and public transportion? Would there be some kind of sliding scale where the "reward" for not indulging in one abuse is greater than the "reward" for not doing another?

How much would the American tax-payers be expected to shell out as "reward" for each human right not abused? How come WE always have to pay the bill when the rest of the world wants a "reward" for playing nice?

Shouldn't the satisfaction of doing what's right be reward enough?

Cher monsieur Daoud Kuttab,

" Act as the world leader that you are by showing understanding and respect for people of all colors, backgrounds and religions".

Yout list is short of the specificity of the equality of rights and also of liberties between women and men that always comes first in all declarations about the respect of the dignity of human beings.

Is it not the foundamental and specific principle of equality of rights and also liberties between men and woman inscribed in the charters of human rights and liberties of most of the Western democracies that makes problem with the Arab nations and Islam and with so many others nations of our reel world?

The respect of the dignity of all human beings where come first this declared foundamental specific principle of equality of rights and liberties between men and women and where only after comes the principles of equality in rights and also of liberties for the limited list of different groups of people that you cite , limited if compared to list of the Charter of human rights and liberties of the United Nations and others Charters inscribed in the constitution of most of the Western democraties.

You can ask of the president of United States actual and futur to be the El Cid of humanity but he needs the support of most nations and its people of the five continents to take the same direction as you ask of him to take and a little more so if he has to succeed in this beautiful human adventuous experience where all humans beings do not forget this , are all interconnected in the consequences of their actions.

Bien le bonjour chez vous.

To FUNTRAVEKADVENTLURE

Yes, we should get our troops out yesterday. But that doesn't mean that we 'leave' the area (that is isolationism). We need to convince the different groups that they have a future only if they learn to work together. This will not a quick way to a solution. First, they have to agree on one thing that is positive; Then they have to find something else to agree about. The time we are talking about is generations. Homo sapiens have had over 100,000 generations; That it takes a few more isn't important. It is the process that is important.

Thanks for the history lesson by Mr. Shapiro. What bothers me most are comments made out of ignorance. I also don't pretend to be an expert on the Islamic nations but I seem to remember a theme of brotherhood. The Jews were on the verge of extermination by a mad man and needed a place of their own and the world leades at that time picked the area. It would seem to me that a religeon that preaches brotherhood could take a step back and remember how this came to be. This is not meant to be a "bash Islam comment" by any means. People get wrapped up in rhetoric and look for leaders- whether it's a radical cleric or a war mongering chicken-hawk executive branch- all people need to be cognizant of the fact that both these wolves are not leaders.

Mr. Kuttab, thanks for providing your insight. However, I beleive you may want to consider learning more about our domestivc policy. It is a mess, it doesn't have the best interest of the people in mind and many candidates could care less. John Edwards stands out as the candidate who will focus on overhauling our domestic policy so that we treat our people with respect, provide futures for our kids and help others when we can. Right now, this is what we need in America because we spend over half our budget on the military and we have definitive proff that this sort of military diplomacy leads to the debacles we see around the world that have created a universal disgust with not only America, but Americans. When I start getting told to f off when I'm in Germany, you know it's time for serious change.

No the USA should lower their profile in the world and start letting other Nation take care of there problems. The USA should not be inferring in the internal affairs of other nations. Also American taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting the worlds citizens. Stop all foreign aid start taking care of Americans and let other Governments take care of their citizens!

Alan Shapiro: "Thus, our job is to find some way out of this historical morass."

No, our job is to finally wash our hands of that stinking money pit and let the parties involved work it out on their own.

Mr. Kuttab,

the Arab world should be very very afraid of a McCain win. He will not take the usual crap coming out of that region.

American politics is not formulated based on respect for other peoples views, it is formulated in government by consensus support and opposition that does not constitute respect, tolerance, it represents the tactical means by which cliques and the ruling elite divvy up their costs and profits. Of All industrial countries, it is the least representative for it does not even allow for the parliamentary excessives of the European models, it is stifling and abhorrent to thinking in a modern society hence it is an office bought and paid for by the rich.

In honesty praise the flag, criticize the people, piss on the institutions for the king and courtiers were the institutions and are again so.

American politics is not formulated based on respect for other peoples views, it is formulated in government by concensus support and opposition that does not constitute respect, tolerance, it represents the tactical means by which cliques and the ruling elite divy up their costs amd profits. Of All industrial countries it is the least representitive for it does not even allow for the parlimentary excessives of the European models, it is stiffling and abhorent to thinking in a modern society hence it is an office bought and paid for by the rich.

In honesty praise the flag, criticise the people, piss on the institutions.

Mr Kuttab , how about ending Islamic terrorism , suicide bombings, oppression of women and minorities in so called Islamic countries etc.

America has become the face of democracy - this is not a time for us to violate the trust of the world community.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/06/representing-us-to-the-world/

Many Iraqis pleaded for the US to invade Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam. The current Iraqi-on-Iraqi killings now seem to question the wisdom of that action -- US intervention in Iraqi internal affairs.

To Rick Jones:

when you say the "U.N. took someone elses land" , what do you mean ? Palestine was part of the ottoman empire before the Brits took it.Prior to this, it belonged to Mamluks who were from egypt, pre Mamaluks, Saladin took it from the european crusaders. If we go back to 63 BC the Romans took it from the last Jewish kingdom during the Macabean revolt, before this the Greeks had it under Alexander the great (we are now at 333BC), The greeks took it from the Persians who took it from the Babylonians in 586 bc. Arabs areant even native to Palestine.

Thus, our job is to find some way out of this historical morass.

I agree with Kofi Agadzi. Sometimes the US should intervene with military force. Not sending troops into Rwanda was a huge mistake. Darfur now begs for it. Unfortunately, we now can't intervene even in our own country (Katrina).

Our leaders need to realize that goodwill can be a powerful ally.

And, believe what you see, not see what you believe.

Although it certainly makes sense to consider the views of the rest of the world--or, perhaps, the elites--and at the risk of coming across as the "what's-in-it-for-me" person, the American people pay the American president's salary. Consequently, his or her first obligation is to the American people's welfare. Now, a wide-view of that welfare may incorporate a more mulitlaterist approach to foreign policy; it may be increasing foreign-aid assistance; and it may include either reducing or redirecting our military interventions. But ultimately, the American president owes his or her highest loyalty to those who empowered him to act in their stead in the first place.

I agree with Mars.

In response to today’s NY Times editorial page:

I don’t know why we should expect anything else from the NY Times, but I am greatly disappointed that there is hardly ever a mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict either in presidential debates or NY Times or Washington Post editorials. This is probably the preeminent foreign policy issue of our time and as our dear leader says is on the verge of bringing us to WW III.

It is a national disgrace that we continue our unconditional support for the apartheid Zionist invaders who continue their racist subjugation of the Palestinian people and illegal occupation of Palestine.

I intend to vote for Barack Obama in November, but I’m very disappointed in his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The problem is that this issue is not given an honest airing for the American people. As a result, the American people are basically ignorant of this issue, and it would be political suicide for an ambitious politician to address this issue fairly. Just as it would have been political suicide for Hillary to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Here is an article that shows what we are up against. It shows how Barack Obama executed his abrupt flip flop on Palestinian support when he began his campaign for a US Senate seat from Illinois:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel

"End US interventions around the world"?? No. It should be 'End US unnecessary interventions around the world".

US may seem like a bully sometimes -depending on the sitting president -but she is the only superpower and for that matter has a responsibility to ensure order, no matter how you look at it. The problem is, US has ignored all the peace that needs protecting whilst directing attention to the less important ones. US only intervenes whenever it serves its national interest. Iraq is an instance of such mistakes.

Whilst the genocide was in full-swing, President Clinton looked the other way. As we speak, Dafur genocide and carnage is going on. Yes, Africa has a plethora of witless corrupt and wicked dictators, but should it be ignored? No. This is a classic example of where a US military intervention is needed and should be directed. Military intervention is a necessity -though not all the time.

Mr. Kuttab,

"but de facto you are also the global leader"

Sir, the US President cannot be the global leader because the US constitution does not authorize him or her to assume that authority.

IMO, it would be better for the US government to be less politically involved in foreign affairs. US meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations is the cause of the hostilities that are directed toward America. I would substitute US Government intervention with cultural and commercial exchange between people.

Mr. Kuttab,

Of all the advisors comments on this site, your's was the sagest.

I especially liked your closing statement:

"Finally, whatever you do, apply the formula of saying what you mean and meaning what you say."

We Americans desperately need such a person right now.