Blog @ MoreWhat.com

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Video: What Should Obama Say to the Middle East?

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
Washington
17 January 2009

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

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

J. Scott Carpenter

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

Michele Dunne

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

Heather Hurlburt

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

Hisham Melhem

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Worldwide Protests Against Gaza Operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report: Gaza/West Bank Reaction Download (WM)
Report: Gaza/West Bank Reaction Watch (WM)

Israel’s offensive in Gaza is drawing fire from Palestinians in the West Bank. Many are expressing support for Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. They accuse the West Bank government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of not doing enough to defend the Palestinians of Gaza. VOA’s Luis Ramirez reports from Ramallah.

from MoreWhat.com:

Stating Israel is drawing ‘fire’ from the West Bank in the brief text report above is a curious choice of words. While some rockets have been fired recently from Lebanon in support of Hamas in Gaza the West Bank reference probably means the kind of fire from verbal opposition. The video report linked to above reminds viewers that the latest round of violence in the Middle East was initiated by Hamas launching rockets into Israel. Where was the Palestinian outrage over that unprovoked attack then? That sentiment has been expressed on this blog recently and repeated here now to emphasize the fact such statements or any reaction at all to the Middle East and problems between Israelis and Palestinians and others in the region has been withheld. But this latest round of violence is a stunning example of bias against Israel and a reminder of how others in the region view Israel. Many including Hamas, probably Hezbollah and certainly Iran express their desire to eliminate Israel. The silence by Israel’s neighbors after the Hamas rocket attacks began and their deafening volume after Israel began defending itself is another stark reminder and example of the bitter hatred toward Israel from their Arab neighbors most of whom subscribe to the religion of peace known as Islam.

Not that there are no other examples in the world of unfair treatment of one group of people by another and plenty of bloodshed that accompanied such events. But this too is another example of one group being mistreated. And that group is not Palestinians it is Israelis. As a counter argument in the video report listed above and other accounts presented by Palestinians in Gaza and like-minded Arabs elsewhere ‘innocent’ and ‘defenseless’ victims are offered as testimony to Israels’ response to the Hamas attacks. Yet these same people make no mention of human shields and other terrorist tactics used by Hamas and similar groups. That is the leading cause of civilian deaths in the current ‘crisis’. If civilian, non-terrorist people exist in Gaza and do nothing to eliminate terrorist groups from thier midst they can continue to expect casualties like they are witnessing now. And who is to say all the casualties or even any of them are innocent? In terrorist and guerilla warfare it is very difficult to determine who is or is not involved in the warring factions. Wearing no uniform does not automatically make you innocent as terrorists wear the same clothes and are known to use women and children as weapons like suicide bombers.

So in this particular and current edition of war in the Middle East, Israel is right and the rest of you are wrong. It is that simple.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Vivian Salama
USA/Middle East

Vivian Salama is an award winning reporter, producer and blogger. She has reported for various publications from across the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the United States and North and South Korea. more »

Israel’s Merciless Reputation

Israel’s deadly response on Hamas and an already beleaguered Gaza Strip is increasingly looking like retaliation for the unexpected resistance campaign headed by Hezbollah in 2006 and less like a strategic counterattack against Hamas militants. The timing of the attack, when U.S. President George Bush is leaving office, the global economy is in crisis, and many in the Western world are celebrating the new year, suggests that Israel waited to choose an ideal time to wage this unforgiving show of strength.

There are many events that take place around the world defined as terrorism. As many of these events as there are it seems the reaction by many observers is something less than shock or outrage. While being offended or outraged has been the liberal mantra with selected use rarely is it employed against terrorists but it is always used against those who resist or defend themselves in the face of terrorism.

Salama, Salama, Bologna is no exception. Israel is attacked by Hamas with rockets on consecutive days where Israel first employed diplomacy and public warnings to Hamas. When those actions were unsuccessful and they responded militarily many around the world first expressed outrage or some form of criticism of Israel. Just another example that there is plenty of bias against Israel. This is not to say Israel has never made a mistake. But so has everyone else. And in this case they did nothing wrong yet they are being criticized by a significant number of those who express their desire to eliminate Israel and others with similar attitudes. How about laying some blame on Hamas and other terrorist groups for bringing this on themselves and other parties unrelated to this particular event.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Kucinich likened the Israeli attacks on Gaza to its war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006. In both cases, he said, civilian populations were attacked and “countless innocents” were killed or injured. Sorry Dennis, a recent report estimates a death toll of about 300. Is it that you cannot count up to 300 or you are looking for cheap press coverage by talking nonsense?

“All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law,” Kucinich said in a statement. “Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.” Again, Dennis, you are not paying attention. Or you are paying attention but only started listening after those supporting the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel began complaining only after Israel’s military response. Israel announced it would no longer allow the attacks to continue. That was after meetings with others in the region and requesting Hamas to stop the attacks. At least one report suggests most of the ‘300′ killed were armed militants, not civilians. But civilians will be exposed to risk when the militants intentionally hide among them displaying their lack of courage and willingness to sacrifice innocent people for their own purposes.

In March, the House voted 404-1 for a resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for rocket attacks on Israel. It also condemned the use of Palestinians as human shields. Hamas has been criticized repeatedly for shooting rockets into Israel from civilian areas in Gaza, which leads to the deaths of civilians when Israel counterattacks. While not perfect, the resolution stated some of the problems associated with repelling attacks from those who knowingly place civilians at risk when selecting locations from which to launch rocket attacks. Another failed presidential candidate, Ron Paul, was the only one to vote against the resolution. Kucinich was not in attendence for this vote. What does that tell you?

Beyond the nonsense expressed by Kucinich to this point he adds silly assumptions to the list. Kucinich said the perpetrators of attacks against Israel should be brought to justice, but that Israel “cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible.” So Dennis, where did you get the ‘entire people’ and ‘few responsible’ concept? You might consider supporting such statements with evidence for your conclusion. Without it your conclusion appears to be nothing more than a politically motivated set of exaggerations and misleading statements. Is that how you get people to donate to your unrealistic presidential campaigns?

In light of the financial problems faced by the state you represent, Dennis, and your math and foreign affairs handicap, you should limit your politics to the state of Ohio.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the Arab criticism for the following?

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While Queen Elizabeth II continued a British tradition that goes back to 1957 and exercised one of her rare occasions to freely express her own views, a 16 year old tradition was continued at the national TV outlet Channel Four presenting ‘an Alternative Christmas Message featuring someone who is not the most popular man on campus.

As the report below indicates, ‘giving the platform’ to the Iranian President for an alternative Christmas Message has ‘generated controversy in some quarters’ in Britain. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the elimination of Israel. Iran is currently involved in a political conflict with many nations on their pursuit of nuclear options that may include weapons. There is much about this scenario which now gives more credence to the notion there are many parallels and similarities to Ahmadinejad and Hitler. This latest event in Britain is reminiscent of similar circumstances in British history. There are a number of events over the past few years that are reminders of British reaction to world events in the last 100 years. Should we be concerned?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.

Mindful of the prolonged recession many in Britain are predicting, Queen Elizabeth II noted that these are nervous times for many. Unemployment is rising steadily, a number of major retail outlets have already gone out of business and some big banks are only operating now with the help of government assistance.

“Christmas is a time for celebration but this year, it is a more somber occasion for many. Some of those things which could once have been taken for granted suddenly seem less certain and naturally give rise to feelings of insecurity,” she said. “People are touched by events which have their roots far across the world, whether it is the global economy or violence in a distant land, the effects can be keenly felt at home.”

The Queen’s Christmas speech represents one of the rare occasions in the year when she can freely express her own views.

Her annual TV broadcast goes back to 1957.

Meanwhile in a tradition stretching back over the past 16 years, a so-called Alternative Christmas Message was broadcast on British national TV outlet, Channel Four.

This year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given the platform.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad rhetorically asks what Jesus Christ would make of the current world. The Iranian leader concludes he would hoist the banner of justice and oppose what he called warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies around the world.

The message has generated controversy in some quarters here. Britain’s Foreign Office predicts it may cause offense amongst what it calls friendly nations abroad.

The head of Channel Four News says it is enormously important to hear the views of the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

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