Blog @ MoreWhat.com

McDonough report - Download MP3 (482k) audio clip
Listen to McDonough report audio clip

The secretary general of the Arab League says he is heading for Beirut this week for talks on a new plan to end the Lebanese political crisis. VOA Middle East Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.

Arab League foreign ministers have approved a new proposal to end the political stalemate that has left Lebanon without a president for more than six weeks.

At a special session in Cairo, they endorsed the choice of army chief General Michel Suleiman as Lebanese president, and called for his immediate election.

The two feuding political factions in Lebanon have agreed that Michel should be the next president, but the parliamentary vote to elect him has been repeatedly delayed as factions continue fighting over other political issues, including the shape of the next government.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the league’s proposal to end the standoff is based on three points.

He said it calls for election of a president, agreement on a national unity government, and other measures including a new electoral law to be passed after the government is formed.

The plan says the national unity government should be structured so that no one faction can impose or block a decision. It also strengthens the powers of the president, giving him the role of settling contested cabinet decisions.

Secretary General Moussa said he would be going to Beirut in the next few days for talks on the proposal.

He said the Arab League will move seriously, and will not allow the matter to drag on from week to week, from delay to delay, or from tension to tension.

The plan has wide support among Arab states and was welcomed by a number of key factions in Lebanon.

Moussa said it is supported by Syria, which is a main backer of the Lebanese opposition.

In Beirut, the ruling March 14 coalition’s leader, Saad Hariri, said it gives Lebanon a new chance to elect a consensus president.

Lebanese media quoted the parliamentary speaker and key opposition figure Nabih Berri as also approving of the plan. But reports said the opposition group Hezbollah was responding more cautiously, and asking for clarification on some points.
By Challiss McDonough
Cairo, Egypt
06 January 2008

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

A scarred reputation from the oil for food program, the failing Millennium Development Goals, another lame example of international intervention featured prominently in Burma as well as the abuses of sex scandals and general corruption now lay the back drop for a budget increase at the United Nations.

By Patrick Worsnip
Thu Oct 25
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed on Thursday a rise in the U.N. budget for the next two years, seeking extra funding to head off conflicts and promote human rights amid new demands on the world body.

By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
Thu Oct 25
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Secretary-General proposed a two-year budget of $4.2 billion on Thursday, saying the small increase isn’t much in light of the growing demands on the United Nations to address a range of diplomatic and security challenges.

What a preposterous notion noted in the two news reports. Ban Ki-Moon apparently cites heading off conflicts, growing demands and addressing diplomatic, security and human rights issues as reasons for a budget increase. In the private sector, bottom line and key performance measures commonly dictate funding parameters for future allocation of resources. Not unlike most governments, public sector organizations in general draw no attention to the fact that no budget decisions reflect the effectiveness of the entity seeking more money. School boards and other local government bodies as well as state and federal governments routinely raise budgets without the corresponding justification of successful past performance.

In the UN’s case, the Millennium Development Goals alone are sufficient cause to deny budget increases. The little that will prove successful over a minimum of two decades demonstrates clearly that the UN has never possessed the ability to be effective. Certainly there are numerous other examples of the organizations futility but the MDG have special significance. The initiative was to benefit all people of the world who suffer from common deficiencies related to poverty, hunger, disease and similar difficulties not related to the benefit of any particular country or group. So even programs that remove any suggestion of favoritism are beyond the UN’s ability to achieve success.

“That is not much, considering the demands upon us,” he said, naming conflicts and potential crisis areas as well as longer-term challenges of alleviating poverty, providing humanitarian aid and fighting climate change and HIV/AIDS.

Listening over and over again to the identical sounds of each United Nations pronouncement…. last year …. $3.8 Billion. Price of allowing this scam to continue….. limitless. Let’s see Mastercard do an ad on this. There are many voices echoing the call for an end to the United Nations and it is not limited to any one website. Whether campaign rhetoric or not, several US Presidential candidates have made equivalent statements. It may be necessary to engage in the typical demeaning activities characterized by radical public protests. Thoughtful communication focusing attention toward the flaws of the United Nations may already having the needed impact, one post at a time.

One last note on the words of Ban Ki Moon. An example of his budget increase justification specified an amount for an extremely vague purpose. $18 Million dollars to ’strengthen the Department of Political Affairs.’ How about using at least that much money to do some good for the people you are charged with serving, e.g., helping. And by that it is not meant that the money should be given to those within the United Nations organization. That is the biggest problem. All that money that never gets to a legitimate destination.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hamas closes in on BBC hostage stronghold

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

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

Hamas, Islamic group swap prisoners in Gaza

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

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

Kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston released

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

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

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

NEWSWEEK Cover: Why Gaza Matters

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

NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 06/16/2007

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

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

SOURCE Newsweek

from VOA News
By Jim Teeple
Jerusalem
14 June 2007
Teeple report - Download (mp3) 677k audio clip
Listen to Teeple report audio clip

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas late Thursday dismissed the three-month-old Palestinian unity government and declared a state of emergency as Hamas militants consolidated their control over the Gaza Strip. More than 100 people have died since violence erupted between Mr. Abbas’ Fatah faction and Hamas several days ago. VOA’s Jim Teeple has more from our Jerusalem bureau.

After nearly a week of escalating violence that has seen Hamas Islamic militants seize control of much of the Gaza Strip, President Abbas issued decrees late Thursday abolishing the Palestinian unity government and dismissing Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas.

Presidential Secretary Tayeb Abdel Rahim read out the decrees at the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Abdel Rahim said Mr. Abbas is declaring a state of emergency across the Palestinian territories because some Palestinian groups are engaging in crimes and acting outside the law. He said Mr. Abbas will form a new government, and is also considering holding new elections.

A spokesman for Hamas called Mr. Abbas’ move “practically worthless,” and it is unclear what effect the decrees will have on the violence raging in the Gaza Strip. Hamas militants have seized control of the Fatah-run Intelligence services building and the headquarters of the Fatah Preventive Security Force, where witnesses say the militants executed several Fatah officials after they had surrendered.

Fatah retaliated in the West Bank, where Hamas is much weaker, by rounding up a number of Hamas militants.

Close aides to Mr. Abbas such as Yasser Abed Rabo, the deputy head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which is allied with Fatah, warned that if Hamas does take complete control of Gaza, Palestinian democracy will suffer.

“What they are doing now is they are trying to solidify their grip over Gaza by all means, including military means,” he said. “They do not believe in the democratic process where you can change the government every four years. They believe it is a divine mission granted to them, and they should seize the opportunity.”

Since fighting dramatically escalated on Wednesday, Fatah forces have been routed by more disciplined Hamas militants. Reporter Mohammed Dawass in Gaza says unlike Hamas, Fatah was unprepared for all-out conflict.

“They [Fatah] were not really preparing themselves like Hamas did,” he said. “Hamas has been preparing itself for a long time. Especially after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, they [Hamas] managed to get weapons from across the borders. Fatah did not really expect this to happen actually.”

If Hamas does take complete control of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian territories will be effectively split between Hamas and Fatah, which largely controls the West Bank. Israeli officials are expressing concern over the developments in Gaza, saying they might soon be faced with two Palestinian entities, one run by Hamas and one run by Fatah.

Word of disputed truce comes hours after call for Fatah to surrender

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 3:52 p.m. ET June 13, 2007

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas agreed on Wednesday to end a surge of factional fighting in Gaza, a television station linked to Abbas’ Fatah group reported.

Hamas denied that a truce had been reached, saying it agreed only that violence should end.

Peres wins Israeli presidency

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday June 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

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

Apparently, Alabama is much more tolerant than one might suspect. An Iranian-born, British citizen identified as an Imam and the religious leader of a group in Alabama, was delayed in departing the US with his passport for overstaying a visa ‘waiver’.

As stated in the excerpt below, the US is no longer using the honor system after apprehending those who violate the terms of their visas. Just why that has not always been the case is a nagging question. It would also be worthwhile to know the other details of this story. Such as what was the reason for the ‘visit’? Does the Imam live here also? Has his background been checked? But then that would bring out all the liberal complaints that we should just let everyone come and go as they like. Even though so many with the same general description of this British citizen have constantly reminded us of their intentions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Imam’s U.S. departure slowed by immigration delay

The Associated Press
Published: May 31, 2007

The U.S. government no longer allows visa violators to be released and leave the country on their own because many of those released and ordered to leave simply did not go, said Behruz Rahmati, another lawyer who has worked on the case. He said immigration officials have given him no estimate of when Razavi will be taken to the airport.

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

The following is certainly an oversimplified appraisal. But the order of the news reports lent itself to an almost automatic response. The events themselves may have played out somewhat differently. At least as far as timing is concerned. But nevertheless there chronological publishing times may be in proper order. The point is this.

We all know that Iran was on President Bush’s ‘D’ list. They were not likely to get invited to any parties. And if you are old enough to remember the dagger in the heart of Jimmy Carter’s Administration or had some history classes in school, you are familiar with 444 days worth of agony suffered by Americans at the hands of Iranian hospitality.

Then there was the Reagan Administration basking in the glory of the return of the American hostages and later the Iran-Contra scandal and I’m getting crazy just thinking about it. That is over twenty-five years ago and the process has not improved. It appears more complicated than the simple explanation that every country is looking out for their own agenda and benefit.

With the Memorial Day concluding earlier this week, thoughts of WWII and the greatest generation did not escape most Americans. Citizens of many other countries are sure to have been reminded also. When I think of our country’s contribution to winning that war alongside so many other allied nations, another striking reminder enters my thoughts.

At the end of WWII the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations whose stated mission was to intervene in conflicts between nations and avoid future wars. It almost seems as though human beings were finally getting it right. Instead of a period of time of peaceful activity followed by the totally impractical practice of armed conflict, we would solve our differences in an organized group to eliminate the need for death and destruction in enormous quantities.

Let’s review the latest success of this noble endeavor. As stated earlier, the sequence of the following reports is assumed to be relatively chronological.

Iraq’s Sadr blasts US-Iranian meeting

BAGHDAD, May 30 (UPI) — Among those who blasted the meeting is Iranian-backed Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S.-Iranian talks in Baghdad Monday constituted “interference in Iraqi affairs.”

So the first thing that happens is the cleric known as Sadr throws his two cents worth in ‘dissin’ the meeting. One man who has done everything he can to cause more bloodshed in Iraq is complaining about a meeting between the US and Iran. Could be so simple as he doesn’t want anything solved for it ups his value as a ’somebody’ in Iraq.

Talking With Our Enemies Is Smart Policy

The Moderate Voice -
By Jeb Koogler. The recent meeting between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad effectively brings to an end the Bush administration’s use of ‘enforced …

Then we have another opinion apparently applauding an approach that differs from the typical ‘cowboy George’ routine that one could characterize as shoot now, ask questions later or the old Teddy Roosevelt adage of walk softly and carry a big stick. This second philosophy has a tendency of provoking more attitude from hostile foes and delay the desired victory outcome.

Iran official rules out halting enrichment ahead of nuclear talks …

International Herald Tribune, France -
In another sign of defiance, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that Iran has become so strong that no adversary can defeat it. …

Which of course prompted the response above from the Iranians as well as another one bragging about no one would be crazy enough to challenge the great and powerful Iranian military. Ok, where did we here that Mother of all wars speech before. Yo, yo, Prez AJ, over powering the Iraqi forces was not a problem. Keeping the nutcases contained has presented a problem, but foreign armies, not a big deal. Does he have that little man syndrome?

Diplomats: West rejected Iran nuke concession

MSNBC -
In another sign of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted that his country’s military has become so strong that no adversary would risk an …

And the tennis ball lands in the other court and we have renewed talk about regime change. So the long delayed question is where the hell is the United Nations, again, and why does it even exist anymore. Not like their weren’t plenty of reasons to ask for it to be dissolved before.

Getting Serious About Iran: For Regime Change

Commentary, NY -
To the contrary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected president, announced that the Islamic Republic was reneging on its suspension agreement and …

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran, Russia and new nukes, India talking more nukes, US shielding EU and the circus just keeps coming to town. Is no other country the least bit interested in taking one more shot at using the UN for what it was designed for? I am sure anyone reading this may feel compelled to complain about my suggestions. Consider that the UN is useless and it probably needs to be dissolved. But now would be a great time to give that ‘body’ one last chance to actually do something useful. There are major players involved in dealing with the current generation of conflict and resolution. There is no better time to get everyone involved and in a position to make the UN work before it is entirely abandoned. Even a loser is worth one more try. As long as the cards are on the table and every one knows how to play.

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, ‘get her done’. If it flops, get rid of it.

Thompson on the Run

Town Hall, DC -
At an event for the Electronic Data Systems Corp. on April 27, he said he supported helping Iranians overthrow President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government. …

Heading into the 2008 elections, it would be nice to resolve some of the world’s issues since no one knows who will be in the White House and the example above is not ready for nonsense by his statements. That may apply to one or more other candidates but some would be a definite disadvantage in that regard.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Palestinian diplomat raps attempt to link terrorism to Islam

Posted May 19th, 2007 by Indian-Muslim

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

Just a brief note to readers, the following excerpt is from Jihad Watch. I don’t mind admitting this was my first visit there. At least it was the only visit I remember and after being there today I am confident I would not have forgotten. The story at the top of the page when I was there is linked below. It is what compelled me to publish this tiny post as encouragement for those who have never been there to check it out.

The piece hits home with me. Like so many others I am weary of the treatment some stories get based on an impression of who should be presented sympathetically and who should not. Most of us suspect that is due to media bias. If that is the case it should be criminal to attempt to mislead people rather than share the facts and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Critics of this position will contend the viewer is always free to draw their own conclusions. But we all know the power of suggestion and the subtle influence of marketing techniques employed by advertisers, media outlets and politicians. So to put it simply, that boat don’t float.

Anyway, if you haven’t before we recommend you test drive Jihad Watch. If you have been there then you don’t need our recommendation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cue standard “Muslims fear backlash, deplore terrorism” story

This one is by Cydney Long for Philadelphia’s CBS3.com (thanks to all who sent this in). Let’s see — have we touched all the bases? Muslims shocked by terror charges? Check. The jihadists don’t represent all Muslims? Check. Islam is a religion of peace? Check. Qur’an good? Check. If you blame the religion you’re blaming all Muslims? Check. Good, Cydney! You get an A+ for this one!

(CBS 3) VORHEES, N.J. Muslims in the region are bracing themselves for a possible backlash in response to the terror plot arrests.

The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.

Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.

Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.

These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.

Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.

Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.

Speaker Pelosi’s Statement in Damascus was Reckless, Irresponsible

Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:

“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”

Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.

NJDC Defends Speaker Pelosi from GOP Smear

April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”

“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.

After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:

Pelosi’s father and the Holocaust

RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.

Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.

Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.

To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”

That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top

But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat

All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?

If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.

D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.

This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Since politicians almost exclusively initiate or react to every condition or event in a purely political fashion, how can a reasonable person ever apply the benefit of the doubt to their statements. A report at one of the left leaning websites indicates Rep Tom Lantos, D-CA, claims Olmert’s denying he authored the message passed to the Syrian leader by Pelosi was prompted by the Whitehouse. Lantos further states that he heard both versions and they are the same.

This is a perfect example of why this trip was ill-conceived and harmful to this nation. It does not matter what side of this issue you find yourself on or who is correct on the Olmert message. The same can be said about the reported reaction from the countries visited. There is no reliable process for extracting truth from this situation. That is why laws like the Logan Act are important. Allowing the opinions of differing political agendas to act on foreign affairs and diplomacy is the typical recipe for disaster. That is why these matters are better served by the executive branch.

The same can be said of the claims that the President was informed of the trip and had no objection or the exchange resulting in a Pelosi statement that the President’s reaction after the trip was politically motivated. They are all outcomes of the same problem. That is, allowing legislators to introduce their political agendas to foreign affairs It would be difficult to mount a convincing argument that Speaker Pelosi was unaware of the history and potential damage or harm that could result from her choices. Is there any way to discourage a repeat performance by Pelosi or others in her self-designated delegation short of charging all with violating the Logan Act?

One last point about this sordid affair involves the word bipartisan. As indicated below, the list of persons involved are described as bipartisan. We only see Democrats listed. Is this a complete list? Are there members of both parties listed below? Is the use of the word bipartisan a reference to the 9/11 Commission? Why is anything about this described as bipartisan?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Delegation Statement on Middle East Trip

Washington, D.C. –
A senior bipartisan Congressional delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following their visit to Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

In addition to Pelosi, the delegation included Representatives David Hobson of Ohio, Tom Lantos of California, Henry Waxman of California, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Louise Slaughter of New York, and Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

“The purpose of the visit to the Middle East was to assess the impact of events in the region on the national security interests of the United States. There is no separation between this delegation, Congress, and President Bush on the commitment of the United States to fight terrorism, end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and pursue peace. We have no illusions about the complexity of the challenges facing this region, but hope that recent diplomatic activity will generate some momentum for progress.

Trackposted to , Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Amboy Times, Hollywood Gossip, Conservative Cat, , Pet’s Garden Blog, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Because of the following excerpt and source link to the full article below:

Israel responds to Arab Peace Initiative

Olmert answers the Arab League’s recapitulation of its peace initiative, offering a summit with moderate Arab states and experts discuss the prospects for the Saudi-drafted peace plan.
By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (04/04/07)
In their recent summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh the 22 member states of the Arab League voted unanimously to renew the pan-Arab body’s 2002 peace offer to Israel.

You get this from Blog @ MoreWhat.com:

We all know the Middle East has a lot of problems. Every country in the region seems to have a complaint about how things are and an opinion of who is responsible for the problems. It has been a mixture of ‘peace’ talks and terrorist violence for as long as I can remember. And it all appears to be centered on everyone else’s opinion of Israel but largely an argument over land and who has the right to it. As a matter of fact, the endless debate over the ’state’ of Israel and a ’state’ for Palestine or Palestinians gives the impression it is nothing more than a cover for the real problem that a lot of people in the Middle East simply don’t like each other. If you fix the land problem, perhaps you can work on the people problems. Like most conflicts, a solution requires some unpleasant concessions to work. So here is my ridiculously simple and never to be accepted solution to the land problem.

If you click on the map of the area, certain characteristics immediately stand out. The location of the ‘disputed’ land as defined by the map is situated in Israel. Let’s not argue about that last statement. Just accept it. Currently, Israel is bordered by, in alphabetical order so as not to unintentionally offend anyone’s ego, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Another obvious characteristic is that nearby Saudi Arabia is a comparatively large piece of real estate. If you look at the eastern border of Jordan you will notice a part of Saudi Arabia that makes a noticeable jagged shape along this eastern border. I suggest that Saudi Arabia donate the piece of land that is formed by drawing a line from the location where the borders of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia meet to the eastern most part of Jordan’s border south of this first location.

Next, where Jordan borders Israel adjacent to the ‘disputed’ area, Jordan then donates a piece of land which would be a mirror image to the eastern 2/3 of the ‘disputed’ land and Israel donates the eastern 1/3 of the ‘disputed’ land. Now you have a designated area the same size as the disputed land on which to create a Palestinian state. It certainly is simple. It certainly won’t work. But it is also a practical solution to the problem of space and a little give and take to provide that space. If it does not resolve all the philosophical, religious, political and personal preferences of everyone involved, guess what? It is unlikely that anything ever will. But you have to start somewhere if you are truly interested in finding peace rather than demand to have everything your own way.

If you ever got past the land issue, you could consider tolerating each other enough to allow unfettered access to all the places regarded as religiously significant. If it is religiously significant, it should be available to all who are sincerely interested for religious reasons.

And if you would quit blowing each other up, you might just find a profitable way to get along and save yourselves all this grief. And the only reason I submitted this post against my better judgment is that gnawing feeling that even though I am not really personally invested in this conflict I am really tired of no one finding a way to solve it without feeling superior in some way. Damn people, get over yourselves and fix it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com