Reason #427 why a nuclear Iran is not cool

Now it looks like everyone wants nukes…and who can blame them?

Two years ago, the leaders of Saudi Arabia told international atomic regulators that they could foresee no need for the kingdom to develop nuclear power. Today, they are scrambling to hire atomic contractors, buy nuclear hardware and build support for a regional system of reactors.

So, too, Turkey is preparing for its first atomic plant. And Egypt has announced plans to build one on its Mediterranean coast. In all, roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting their own nuclear programs. While interest in nuclear energy is rising globally, it is unusually strong in the Middle East.

“The rules have changed,” King Abdullah II of Jordan recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs.”

Other than the fact that they’re discussing it as if it’s a new recipe for baba ghanoush, it’s seems logical that if you are within 10,000 miles of a nuclear Iran, you probably want nukes.

International Herald Tribune

Honorable Mention, All Neighorhood

Curious who “Iraq’s neighbors” would include at this conference…

Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey?, Saudi Arabia?, Kuwait? All border Iraq directly.

Then you have Egypt, of course, Lebanon?, Bahrain is coming.

Trying to think who else in the region might have some things to say, seems like they’re even closer to Iraq than Egypt is.

OH YEAH! Israel…I’m sure they’ll be invited, won’t they?

Iraq powers plan Egypt conference

Princess Nancy in Damascus

Yeah, can’t say I expected anything miraculous from HRH in the Middle East, but I must say I expected a little more professionalism and tact than this.

This whole fiasco comes on the heels of Nancy’s instructions to President Bush to “take a deep breath” and to respect Congress’ constitutional role, which apparently now includes establishing dipolomatic foreign policy.

washingtonpost.com

Gates proof that Iran is operating inside Iraq …

Just read an article on the front page of Yahoo that Gates can prove that Iran is working inside Iraq.

Yippy Skippy…

Let’s review :

The US argued with faulty/falisified intelligence that Iraq had WMD and must be dealt with. Tangential rationales were

a) the US will free an oppressed people, and the Islamic world will love the US for it
b) the US will bring democracy to the Middle East
c) the US will force compliance with UN resolutions

4 years after the invasion, most Americans concede that they were, to some varying degree, duped into supporting the original invasion. The official reasons for commencing this debacle have all been shredded with the documentary record.

But there is an arrogance on the part of the US that is staggering, to me at least. The US lied its way into a war halfway around the world, and even though there was a shake-up in Congress, mainly attributed to this failed Iraq policy, the executive branch continues to “stay the course”, in obvious opposition to the will of the people.

But it is earth-shattering news that Iraq’s neighbor might actually want to influence the political situation in their neighbor ?

Stop the presses, a country wants to influence the policies of its neighbors !

The US has been doing to it since the 1800’s, in central and south america, and the backlash to these failed policies is the rise of socialism all throughout this central and south american sphere. The main reasons the US pursued these failed policies in the first place were to :

1. set up systems in neighboring countries that allowed exploitation by US corporations
2. fight the rise of socialism and ultimately communism

It’s ok if the US influences the policies of its neighbors, but how dare those presumptuous, crazed, fanatical zealot Iranians try to do it? How dare they? It is the imperial right of the US to try and change the political structure of Iraq, but Americans should be deeply outraged if the Iranians try it …

This is an issue only if you have a memory of 2 weeks.

Soft-ball

This post by Amarji (disclaimer: some rather harsh language) sums up my feelings on the Diane Sawyer interview.

Why in the name of all that is holy must we kiss the ass of leaders of regimes that are obviously our enemy, but if we sit down with John McCain or Karl Rove we feel the need to grill them.

It boggles the mind to watch our most high-profile journalists act so deferential to the likes of Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Ahmadinejad, and now al-Assad. I personally don’t care what is on this guy’s IPod, but do care why he’s continues to support terrorism against Iraqis and Americans. At least ask the questions, Diane. It’s not too much of us to expect you to at least ask the tough questions…is it?

Addendum: And if you look at the transcript it is exasperating to listen to Diane Sawyer always talk about “the Americans” in the third person. Never would she lump herself into that rabble. Is she Canadian?

Carter’s Book

I just finished Carter’s book, “Palestine : Peace not Apartheid”, and thought I would offer some comments on the book, and the various reactions to the book from the mainstream media.

First of all, before I even started the book, I was following very closely the various media attacks on Carter’s main thesis, that some form of Apartheid was being practiced in the Occupied Territories, and that the Palestinians were the victims of some type of systematic repression. Wolf Blitzer, a former representative of AIPAC, interviewed Kenneth Stein et al, who resigned in protest from the Carter Center, in his situation room. The burning question of the discussion was whether or not Jimmy Carter went over to the “dark side” so to speak, because the guests argued, valid or not, that Carter was a supporter of terrorism, a borderline anti-semite, and was using his good name and impeccable background to slander the always-the-victim state of Israel.

I also watched a great debate between Gil Troy of McGill University and Norman Finkelstein of Depaul University on “Democracy NOW”. I sent Gil Troy an email concerning issues that were raised during the debate that he never adequately answered in my mind. He responded to my comments and questions in a very respectful way. In Troy’s defense, his comments have not been as nearly as heated on the book as some other vocal pro-Israel ideologues, such as the plagiarist Dershowitz, or Kenneth Stein, or Abe Foxman of the ADL, or Dennis Ross, or any available NEOCON from any NEOCON hotbed who have spewed venom concerning the book’s contents.

I knew from reading these various commentaries about the book that Carter was probably right on. My experience with reading on the I-P issue is that the more substantive arguments are used to criticize Israeli behavior, the more the person making the arguments gets attacked by the mainstream media, pro-Israel zealots, NEOCONS, etc. They don’t bother attacking David Duke, they go after people like Chomsky and Finkelstein and Michael Lerner, and now Jimmy Carter.

About the book itself :

Carter himself acknowledged that the Apartheid system in the OT was not necessarily the same as the Apartheid system practiced in South Africa, where race was the motivating factor. The motivating factor in the Israeli case is land acquisition, and the creation of an atmosphere within the OT that might force out the humiliated Palestinians voluntarily, which is an Israeli goal.

Moreover, the inflammatory use of “apartheid” is quite commonplace in discussions within Israel concerning the status of the Palestinians in the OT. The term is used frequently in reports from groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’tSelem, etc. SO if the term is used within Israel, and within reputable mainstream human rights groups, why the dramatic controversy when an ex-President who negotiated the only lasting peace between Israel and any ARAB neighbor uses the term? Makes no sense; the controversy is quite contrived.

I was impressed with the level of detail with which Carter explained the evolution of the peace process. Carter, in general, did not draw conclusions so much as he did reveal some of the intimate details of Camp David in 1978, Oslo in 1993, Camp David under Clinton, and Taba, etc.

There were a few factual errors. His thesis was not affected by these details.

One of the main arguments used against the book, which in my mind would be a valid argument, is that Carter’s criticism is mostly reserved for Israel, and that he does not address the many actions on the side of the Palestinians that also warrant criticism. I do not dispute this, but would add that there are enough outlets which do this job already. Too much blame is placed on the Palestinians obviously, and not enough on the Israelis , and so maybe Carter wanted a counter-balance. He did issue some crucial qualifiers saying that suicide attacks within Israel are reprehensible. No one argues that point.

Some conclusions from me would be : Begin signed Camp David in 1978. These accords effectively removed Egypt from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sadat was assassinated for having initiated them. The key provision of the accords (for the Palestinians) was the Israel would retreat to the pre-June 1967 borders and would dismantle settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip, in line with UN 242. Has this been accomplished? Sadly, 29 years later, the answer is still no. Geroge HW Bush froze Israeli aid because of the ongoing settlement activity, in violation of UN 242 and Israel’s commitment to the Camp David accords. The effect was that the settlement activity stopped immediately. Why doesn’t the good son use the same tool, which he would if he really believed in the “Roadmap” ?

Apart from other peace discussions, I think this fact stands out more, because this is an agreement that Israel signed and has not fulfilled. It is a slap to the face of Carter and the US.

Other conclusions that are obvious from the book: As the book is virtually conclusion free, just Carter providing some background of the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians, his personal history with working on this issue for decades, the reader is allowed to make up their own minds. If one juxtaposes Carter’s book (and Amnesty’s yearly reports, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH yearly reports, B’tSelem’s yearly reports) on the one hand, and the collective outputs from the ADL, AIPAC, mainstream US media, NEOCON thinktanks on the other, and ask yourself, who is telling the truth and who is distorting the factual record, I think there can only be one answer.

I will close this by saying yesterday I read about 50 customer reviews on Amazon. The vast majority were positive. And despite the controversy, or because of it, the sales of the book keep climbing. I heard it was at #4 on some Amazon list the other day. This is all positive news. Let the Zionists keep clamoring about anti-semitism, and let Americans keep reading books like Carter’s, for if they do, there will be a shift in foreign policy one day, one that contains some modicum of justice for the Palestinian people.

Israeli, Syrian representatives reach secret understandings

Found this interesting. You could say it’s quite a positive development, reminescent of the deal cut with Egypt, where two parties essentially look for a settlement or compromise which respect to the disputes they have in common and not at the IP issue as a whole. Actually I almost think this is more positive. In the case of Egypt, there was rhetoric about West Bank, East Jerusalem, which Egypt didn’t really care about but had to act like they did. Here it’s simple: mutual access to the Golan Heights.

Whether it actually materializes is anyone’s guess…but a much better approach on Syria’s part than just demanding the Golan Heights back. Right or wrong, there isn’t an Israeli or Syrian alive who would ever want a hostile neighbor to have control of this terrain, as out of all the disputed territories it’s the one whose value is more military than anything else.

Haaretz – Israel News