to the missus

From Roger Cohen's article:

"Israeli officials have argued that they don’t believe Iran would ever be crazy enough to nuke them but do believe the change in the balance of power with a nuclear or near-nuclear Iran could be so decisive that Jews would begin to leave Israel."

Great news -- let's hope the settlers go back to where they came from: Brooklyn and Moldova and Russia, and let's let the Palestinian people back to where they lived for centuries.

Why should the US get involved in plans to help bomb Iran just because some Jews who never lived in the middle east will consider leaving Israel and go back to where they lived?

Re. Cordesman's report -- a CIA veteran weighs in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html?view=print

Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan

For all the talk of "smart power," President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of U.S. strategic thinking.

-- Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.

-- The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist.

-- It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The "Durand Line" is an arbitrary imperial line drawn through Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border. And there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as there are in Afghanistan. The struggle of 13 million Afghan Pashtuns has already inflamed Pakistan's 28 million Pashtuns.

-- India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan -- in the intelligence, economic and political arenas -- that chills Islamabad.

-- Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not. Pakistan can never afford to have Pashtuns hostile to Islamabad in control of Kabul, or at home.

-- Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.

-- The U.S. had every reason to strike back at the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan after the outrage of 9/11. The Taliban were furthermore poster children for an incompetent and harsh regime. But the Taliban retreated from, rather than lost, the war in 2001, in order to fight another day. Indeed, one can debate whether it might have been possible -- with sustained pressure from Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and almost all other Muslim countries that viewed the Taliban as primitives -- to force the Taliban to yield up al-Qaida over time without war. That debate is in any case now moot. But the consequences of that war are baleful, debilitating and still spreading.

-- The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border. U.S. policy has now carried the Afghan war over the border into Pakistan with its incursions, drone bombings and assassinations -- the classic response to a failure to deal with insurgency in one country. Remember the invasion of Cambodia to save Vietnam?

-- The deeply entrenched Islamic and tribal character of Pashtun rule in the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan will not be transformed by invasion or war. The task requires probably several generations to start to change the deeply embedded social and psychological character of the area. War induces visceral and atavistic response.

-- Pakistan is indeed now beginning to crack under the relentless pressure directly exerted by the U.S. Anti-American impulses in Pakistan are at high pitch, strengthening Islamic radicalism and forcing reluctant acquiescence to it even by non-Islamists.

Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world.

But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis.

The Pakistani army is more than capable of maintaining state power against tribal militias and to defend its own nukes. Only a convulsive nationalist revolutionary spirit could change that -- something most Pakistanis do not want. But Washington can still succeed in destabilizing Pakistan if it perpetuates its present hard-line strategies. A new chapter of military rule -- not what Pakistan needs -- will be the likely result, and even then Islamabad's basic policies will not change, except at the cosmetic level.

In the end, only moderate Islamists themselves can prevail over the radicals whose main source of legitimacy comes from inciting popular resistance against the external invader. Sadly, U.S. forces and Islamist radicals are now approaching a state of co-dependency.

It would be heartening to see a solid working democracy established in Afghanistan. Or widespread female rights and education -- areas where Soviet occupation ironically did rather well. But these changes are not going to happen even within one generation, given the history of social and economic devastation of the country over 30 years.

Al-Qaida's threat no longer emanates from the caves of the borderlands, but from its symbolism that has long since metastasized to other activists of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the Pashtuns will fight on for a major national voice in Afghanistan. But few Pashtuns on either side of the border will long maintain a radical and international jihadi perspective once the incitement of the U.S. presence is gone. Nobody on either side of the border really wants it.

What can be done must be consonant with the political culture. Let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures.

If the past eight years had shown ongoing success, perhaps an alternative case for U.S. policies could be made. But the evidence on the ground demonstrates only continued deterioration and darkening of the prognosis. Will we have more of the same? Or will there be a U.S. recognition that the American presence has now become more the problem than the solution? We do not hear that debate.

(C) 2009 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK; (TM) TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including The Future of Political Islam.

Presenting a one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as always, Walt.

In other news, the moderate Abbas keeps the violence option on the table in direct contradiction of their Roadmap obligations. Meanwhile, he continues eschew negotiations until the Israelis keep theirs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090804/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel_fatah_6

Enjoy your break.

... not about the efforts of the Administration to push both sides in this hellish conflict into capitulations.

Rather, it makes me think about what will happen in 4 or perhaps 8 years.

The Republicans have shown that demogougery knows no bounds.

Could we be looking at the Israel Lobby finally picking just one lane to drive in?

Which party would you contribute to? One that produced the likes of Bush, who pretty much endorsed anything Israel sought fit to do - consequences be damned? Or would you, a lobby that seeks unquestioning support for Israel, support the party of "that Arab they call President?"

Strike One

On the growing influence of orthodox and ultra-Orthodox in Israel, see the sobering report by the International Crisis Group here.

As the New York Times reported last week the ultra-orthodox living in the west bank could care less where they live. They only moved to the West bank because of the cheap land and would be happy to move back if they could afford to. That report is simply wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/middleeast/27settlers.html

In addition, ICG is led by Israel hater Robert Malley whose father was a close friend to Yasser Arafat. It is no surprise that Malley wrote a book that completely exonerated Arafat and blamed Israel for the break down of the peace process.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
His account was completely contradicted by Bill Clinton's account in his book "My life."
http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Bill-Clinton/dp/0375414576

Strike Two

On how private donations to Nefesh B'Nefesh (an organization that helps people seeking to making aliyah) are helping subsidize the expansion of settlements in the West Bank -- even as President Obama tries to get Israel to halt this process -- see Mairev Zonszein's piece from The Nation here.

The article you linked to states Nefesh B'Nefesh is responsible for bringing 20,000 immigrants to Israel. Of which the author was able to prove 21 moved to settlements.

Strike 3

For the new Israeli government report that concluding that the IDF did not commit war crimes in the Gaza war, see here. But because most organizations are not very good at evaluating or judging their own conduct (for reasons that Aaron Wildavsky laid out a long time ago), I'd wait until the UN commission chaired by South African jurist Richard Goldstone issues its report before drawing a firm conclusion.

I can see how you would think Israel investigating itself would release a biased report. But, to say that Richard Goldstone would provide an unbiased report is laughable. The investigation is sponsored by the UN Human Rights Council whose resolutions are condemnations of Israel 99% of time.

1. A few weeks before he was appointed to investigate, he signed a petition regarding "war crimes in Gaza".

2. In his first day in Gaza, he said that he was "doing this for the victims."

In other words he had already prejudged Israeli guilt.

3. We all know that the only evidence he will hear will be that directly dictated by Hamas as he is led around by the nose to "witnesses" by his Hamas handlers. Is anyone going to admit being used as human shield by Hamas when they know Hamas will kill them if they do?

Here he is being led around by his Hamas handler Ghazi Hamad.
http://www.daylife.com/photo/04J3057dadgjZ?q=israel

A man who said in 2006 "Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth. It is an animal state that recognizes no human worth. It is a cancer that should be eradicated."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6127250.stm

The Wall Street Journal's recent report on an interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal is a must-read, though it hardly marks a breakthrough and is (as one would expect) susceptible to multiple interpretations. Although it doesn’t meet the conditions the U.S. has established as requisite for direct negotiations, it sounds to me like there’s some flexibility there worth exploring back-channel."

So let me get this straight. You think Hamas who has never ceased calling for the total destruction of Israel is flexible, but Israel is not flexible on settlements when it has removed tens of thousands of settlers from Gaza and the Sinai? Aren’t you embarrassed a colleague might read this absurdity?

VIENNA (Reuters Fri Jul 3, 2009 ) - The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL312024420090703

US taxpayers give 13.6 million $ to Israel EVERY DAY.

Buenos frickin' dias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIrmrdGIFtI&feature=related

She writes in the abstract: "...an intervener's willingness to secure an agreement using force. When a highly biased power intervenes in a crisis, a peaceful settlement is likely because warring parties are certain the third party will enforce an agreement by military means".

When you re-read it, ask yourself if you really want the US to militarily intervene which, I presume, means invade Israel, blockade it, or even intern tens of thousands of US Jews maybe. Gee, you sound like a right-wing fanatical nut.

http://www.hrw.org/en/features/rain-fire-white-phosphorus-gaza

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2411/j-bolt-wants-israel-to-disarm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7942

"the Palestinian Arabs have benefited more from Israel than any other people," (if you leave out the Nakba, the Gaza War, and the confiscation of thousands of acres of land, of course)"

Something to add that is often not thought of in this case are cost of cars. Do you think Israeli tanks miss the cars and walls of the Palestinian homes every time they roll their tanks to the center of a city? What about the olive tree and other crops ripped from the ground in a "security zone"? Do you know how many years it takes to cultivate an olive grove to produce? What about the funds of refugees from the 1967 war, that was left in banks and not returned. There was no PA to claim them, so where did they go? Then of course there are the taxes that the Israelis collect, which a portion goes to pay for the structures of the Occupation.

Lastly, in the Video "From Occupation to Enclosure" Amira Hass and Diana Buttu of the PA highlight one of the least thought of things. Time. You should have taken the drive from Ramallah to the Rafah during the "peace process". It was well over 2 hours with the check points, and that is for Palestinians carrying American passports. I wonder what it is like for those without the American identities.