Today's Observations

In the vein of pointless braying Rick, I think the US deterrence against Iran has finally crumbled; not that the Obama administration policy towards Iran was anything to write home about even from the start.

Senator Charles Robb and General Charles Wald write in today’s WP:___ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070805070.html___ “We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort. Indeed, publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely. ___ Instead, the administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran's nuclear and supporting military facilities. ___ Our triple-track strategy does not guarantee complete success. However, the likely alternatives are more alarming, with a perilous conflict involving a nuclear Iran becoming more probable each day. The stakes are too high to rely on sanctions and diplomacy without credibly preparing for a potential military strike as well. We cannot fall prey to the inertia of resignation. Bold U.S. leadership is required.” ___ Charles S. Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, and Charles Wald, a retired general and air commander in the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom, are co-authors of the Bipartisan Policy Center report "Meeting the Challenge: When Time Runs Out." ___ Greetings Khairi and Goose ... Keep on braying lol ...

Au bout de soufle mon petit chou...chim..chimeny chim chim cherue

Please Horse, bray for our souls; mine and Rick's.

Laurel(Rick) and Hardy(Khairi)......1200hours dress code tared and feathered....bells on sunday...

Keep it real

I don't know what Rick thinks, but I am getting the feeling we are in the shooting gallery of a fun fare.

Dear rick and Huwwa The Palestinian issue. I am alarmed to learn that all bridges of communication seem to have been withdrawn between local parties ie. communities on the ground. Would it not be possible for orthodox rabbi's, Imams representing all the traditions and Bishops from the churches of the Holy city of Jerusalem meet collectively under the banner of the United Nations (refer to:The Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by all parties after the tradegy of the second world war recognising the emmense sufferig of the jews and gypsys and muslims of europe)and cordinate an aspiration for pax domino (kindly refer to the goals as set out by Peace One Day Campaign (led by Jeremy Gilley and Tim Bennet, Pullu etc) a recognised UN day of Peace on the 21st September 2010 when the distribution of essential Medicine supplies , food and movement of people can occur without the involvement of partisan politicians and bureaucrats but by transparent NGO's . One should aim never to forget the Absolute the Almighty all seeing and all hearing manefest in the macro and microscopic elemnts of society. In particular the emphasis I believe should be placed on the microcosm in society the FAMILY,the mother(UMM) and chid(BINT)(Mary and Issah:Issac and Ishmael))the father STRIVING to feed his family. Governance is the prerequisite of men of divine intellect (Frithjof Schuon, perenialist sophia perenis) and with liberation of man from the basal nature. appetite ego quo vardis. Directed intelligence from the outwrd to the centre, the heart(qulb)

I don't think so Rick. The Iranians are already coordinating with the Egyptians about their ship, and in any case, Egypt has already declared that, it will not stop the Iranian ship going through the Suez Canal. As for the Lebanese, I think it is just a matter of distance and convenience to go through Cyprus.

…carrying 1100 pounds of relief aid… ___ The Lebanese originated ship should make a port of call in Egypt Khairi, to transfer the heat from Cyprus to Mubarak.

I think Rick, there are serious issues to explore between the US and Saudia, especially in the light of the dwindling role of the country in the affairs of the region. I would say, Saudi Arabia has tried to be proactive in the affairs of the region, but unfortunately without much success, but now it cannot afford to be also unsuccessful in its reactive role towards the affairs of the region. I think there will be plenty of discussions over Iran, also a little in terms of lip service to the habitual topic of working together to solve the Palestinian problem; as no talks can be complete without having to mention Palestine. I think the saudi monarch, will try to figure out how Saudia will move in the next step once he can ascertain with some reasonable clarity, what the USA intends to do about Iran. maybe there will be a word or two about Afghanistan and what Saudia can do in this respect to help against Taliban. As for the Israeli side of the meetings, I think Mr. Netanyahu realises badly that a rift with the current Washington administration; no matter how insignificant in some people's eyes, cannot be afforded by Israel, and President Obama realises that, with mid-term elections looming, he cannot afford a head on collision with the Jewish Lobbies in the USA. I think both leaders will work on reaching a compromise and in a sense a gentleman's agreement. I suppose the Lebanese aid ships, are now in the hands of the Cypriot authorities whom would be in a very difficult position whether to allow them to proceed or not. I don't imagine Lefcosia would want to set a precedent regarding its territorial waters.

… is now sitting in Tripoli and has been cleared by Lebanese authorities to stop on Cyprus prior to proceeding to Gaza. It cannot go straight from Tripoli to Gaza, because Lebanon is technically in a state of war with Israel.

Oh to be the fly on the wall Khairi, when President Obama meets with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on June 29, and again with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on July 6…lol

As your good self knows well Rick, this blockade was concieved and started in order to bring down the Hamas government. However, since neither war nor blockade could bring down Hamas in Gaza, what would be the point of this blockade any longer. Now I understand the world is a sadistic place, and the region is not particlurly immune to sadism, and I wonder if sometimes doesn't enjoy it, but so embaressingly bluntly?.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- The Arab world's top diplomat declared support Sunday for the people of blockaded Gaza in his first visit to the Palestinian territory since Hamas violently seized control of it three years ago. ___ The visit was latest sign that Israel's deadly raid on a flotilla trying to break the blockade of Gaza has eased the diplomatic isolation of the Islamic militant group. ___ Israel, meanwhile, appeared to grow more isolated in the fallout over the May 31 raid as Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak abruptly canceled plans Sunday to visit Paris… ___ This is a real all time low point for Israel, when even the spineless Arab leaders take the side of the Palestinians in a dispute with Israel.

Actually I heard the story some time ago Rick. I guess Helen reached a stage in her life, when she really has nothing to lose anymore when she expresses freely her opinions. I really don't believe anyone any knock an icon like her irrespective of whom agrees or disagrees with what she had said. As for not being invited to White House briefings anylonger, I really don't know why she would be still interested after so many years of doing the same thing. If I was her, I would really welcome the recpite.

Did you hear about this one Khairi? ___ "Frankly, I was shocked," said Rabbi David Nesenoff, who was at the White House for a Jewish heritage celebration on May 27 and simply asked the Hearst Newspapers columnist, "Any comments on Israel?" Her response -- that Israeli Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany, Poland and America -- triggered a wave of denunciations that a narrowly worded apology did little to quell. ___ "This was vile, a paradigm of hate talk," said Nesenoff, who was accompanied by his 17-year-old son and a friend. "She felt comfortable saying this in front of two boys with yarmulkes on." ___ Actually, I would call it an honest statement of fact. ___ A shocking thing in today’s America! ___ That is why she has been disinvited from future briefings of the White House press corps ___ Lol

Thank you Rick, your good self flatters me even jokingly, giving me credit for something I wasn't even aware of. All credit goes to those whom deserve it. Mind you, It would be amusing to see Mr. Barak behind bars.

Good job Khairi! I see that you succeeded, in getting Barak to cancel his trip to Paris. ___ Ehud Barak was to dedicate a new Israeli booth at the Eurosatory arms fair in Paris, which opens this week. But his office announced Sunday that he would stay home while Israel forms a committee to investigate its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla. ___ Pro-Palestinian activists had threatened to try to have charges brought against him for his role in the raid, which killed nine Turkish activists at sea. ___ Activists have previously tried to arrest Barak and other Israeli officials in Europe under the principle of universal jurisdiction. ___ That principle allows the prosecution of suspected war criminals in countries that have no direct connection with the events.

Indeed Rick, I heard the same confusing media information from all sorts of places. Moreover, it seems that there is talk of discussions between Russia and Iran, to build another nuclear reactor!!!. I guess the Russialogists know where the buck stops in the Hierarchy of Russian politics, because personally I can't say I am sure. Still, if the buck stops still at Mr. Putin's desk, then he has told president Sarkozy today, that Russia intends to suspend the missile deal with Iran. Now, does the word "suspend" smack of a compromise statement amidst all this confusion?, well, might just be that. I guess we are still none the wiser.

MOSCOW -- A Kremlin official says Russia will not be able to deliver S-300 air-defense missiles to Iran because of the new U.N. sanctions. ___ The Kremlin official spoke the day after the Foreign Ministry spokesman said the sanctions did not forbid delivery of the missile systems. ___ Israel and the U.S. have urged Russia not to supply the S-300, which would substantially increase Iran's defense capability. Russia agreed to sell the missiles in 2007, but has not delivered them. ___ Among other things, the U.N. Security Council resolution passed Wednesday bans Iran from buying certain types of heavy weapons. ___ The Kremlin official, speaking Friday on condition of anonymity, said "the S-300 falls under these sanctions." ___ It looks like the “Russian officials” have a little disagreement amongst themselves Khairi. Not that it matters lol … the U.S. and Israel are the big losers in this and the Gaza Blockade fiascos.

We is drinking sass..purr...ella...hic...hic

One is always uncomfortable Ric, with the issue of demography, simply because; at least in the case of the Middle East, the most important issue which is likley to hit the scene is the water issue rather than oil. It is likely to be more dangerous for the whole region than even the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I mean, close enough, the case of Egypt, Sudan and the other Nile reparian countries is a mild version of possible things to come. I don't know about eunnucs, but they don't seem to get the recognition they deserve in history. Or they deserve it?.

…used to be my favorite TV show 50 or so years ago…LOL... ___ Welcome aboard Beaver. Join our friendly club of ad-hoc commentators-at-large on world events of interest to none but we few LOL. ___ “The famous eunuch Chinese Admiral explorer Cheng Ho sailed the Indian Ocean with his Treasure Fleet in the 15th century, long before Columbus sailed the ...” ___ Uh oh… you didn’t mean to impersonate The Eunuch did you… LOL

I think the alternative Khairi, as I frequently repeat, is the inexorable advance of demographics, which will gradually over a period of the next three or four decades turn the present so called “State of Israel”, Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza into a single, undivided, Palestinian state. This will be aided and abetted by the not-so-slow draining of the world wide oil barrel, which will make the Arab and Persian states, and their behind-the-scenes allies Russia and China, incredibly rich and powerful at the expense of the rapidly weakening and waning West and Israel. Israel has celebrated its 60th birthday; it will never see its 100th, let alone 120th.

The Goose has laid a Golden Egg and is sailing on the Golden Hinde.....ChEng Ho

It is very hard to judge the situation Rick. I mean war is not on the agenda for either the Palestinians or the Arabs at large. Let us assume for a second that, war is the alternative, will such a war create a Palestinian state especially, if weapons of mass destruction are used by all against all?. It may well turn out to be true, that whether Mr. abbas talks or doesn't will make no difference regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, but what else can be done?, joining Hamas in further enciclement and deprivation for the Palestinian people?.

Loyalists of rival groups Hamas and Fatah held Palestinian flags and a giant key symbolic of their hoped-for return as part of annual commemorations of what they call the "catastrophe," or "nakba" in Arabic. The names of the villages and towns emptied during the war were written across the key, alongside the slogan "We will return." ___ The plight of the refugees - who fled or were driven from their homes during the 1948 Israeli-Arab war - is one of the most emotionally charged issues for Palestinians and Israel to resolve. ___ Some 4.7 million Palestinians refugees and their descendants are scattered across the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, according to U.N. figures. About one-third still live in U.N.-supported refugee camps. ___ In Lebanon, the militant Hezbollah group, which fought a guerrilla war against Israeli forces until they withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000, said in a statement that "resistance and sacrifice" are the only way to retake Arab-claimed lands. ___ "At the 62nd anniversary of nakba, we call upon all Arabs to keep the Palestinian cause alive in the eyes and hearts of all generations," said Hezbollah, which also battled Israel in a 34-day war in 2006 that left some 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead. ___ [This is another reason Khairi that the peace talks are a charade with nowhere to go but failure. George Friedman said in this weeks issue of STRATFOR.com that even Obama just wants to keep the peace talks “alive” to show that there is a “process” in place, and that he is “doing something” that he thinks/hopes will take the heat of Muslim anger off U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. He knows that there is zero hope of peace in face of the Jerusalem and West Bank occupations by Israel and the Refugee issue. This “process” is just a farce and should not be condoned by Palestinians much less applauded by their supporters.]

President Obama seems to indicate,Rick, that if either side; Palestinian or Israeli is responsible for the failure of negotiations, then that side will be held accountable by his administration. Words?, or deeds?.

JERUSALEM -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish coalition partners vowed Thursday to keep building Jewish homes and demolishing unauthorized Palestinian homes in contested east Jerusalem - despite indications the Israeli leader has put the brakes on both. ___ On Thursday, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party reasserted his claim that Israel would never freeze construction in east Jerusalem - the sector of the holy city that Palestinians claim for a future capital. ___ "We will build in every part of Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people's homeland for eternity, and I made this clear to our American friends and colleagues as well," Yishai, whose ministry is authorized to approve Jerusalem construction, told Shas' Yom Leyom weekly. ___ "If there was a postponement, it's no longer in effect," he told parliament. ___ The demolitions have become a hot-button issue because the Palestinians claim that Israel gives them no choice but to build in east Jerusalem without authorization because it gives them very few permits. ___ About 193,000 Jews have moved to east Jerusalem in the past 43 years, where they live alongside 263,000 Palestinians. ___ Netanyahu maintains Israel has the right to build in all of Jerusalem and says he won't share the city with the Palestinians. But the Palestinians, the U.S. and the rest of the international community do not recognize the annexation and presume sovereignty will be shared between Israel and the Palestinians under any final agreement. ___ According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, Israel razed 449 unauthorized Palestinian homes between 2004 and 2009. ___ [I agree with your good self Khairi. Now is the time for President Obama to assert himself, if that is his intention. Will the Real President Obama please stand up?]

I would say Rick, that the proximity talks have only one objective, and that is, to save whatever can be saved from the west bank for the Palestinians. As I often wrote before, Mr. Abbas has been in the position of damned if you do; damned if you don't, for a very long time, and the talks now, are a last ditch attempt (I think) for Mr. Obama to redeem himself in Arab eyes. That is of course if he finds such a redemption desirable.

JERUSALEM -- Israel is celebrating the 43rd anniversary of Jerusalem's reunification and its leaders are pledging to keep the city undivided. ___ The festivities come as disputes over Israeli building in east Jerusalem take center stage in international peacemaking efforts. ___ The Palestinians claim predominantly Arab east Jerusalem as their future capital. The U.S. and the Palestinians have demanded that Israel stop building in that part of the city. ___ Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Wednesday said the city's boundaries are "nonnegotiable." Speaking at a Jerusalem Day event, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized the Jewish people's "unbreakable bond" with the holy city. He vowed to continue construction throughout the city. ___ [So much for the so-called Proximity Talks Khairi.]

In order for both, the Palestinians and the Israelis to be held accountable; as President Obama said, some sort of talks must start between the two sides Rick. I guess proximity talks are a good start, but the real proof of the pudding regarding Mr. Netanyahu's intentions about the two-states solution, is dumping his current coalition partners. As for the Syrian-Russian relations, I would say trade and armamrnts are on the mind of both sides, therefore I wouldn't read to much between the lines if I were your good self. Any message from Israel to president Bashar, is likely to be a warning.

DAMASCUS, Syria -- Russia's president is holding a new round of talks with his Syrian counterpart amid new Israeli war threats against both Syria and Iran. ___ Dmitry Medvedev is on a two-day visit to Syria, the first visit by a Russian president in the history of relations between the two countries. ___ The trip is part of a flurry of diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions between Syria and Israel. Tensions have risen since Israel accused Syria of transferring Scud missiles to Hezbollah, a claim Damascus denies. ___ Israeli President Shimon Peres' office has said Medvedev agreed to deliver a message to President Bashar Assad. ___ Medvedev and Assad are also expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program, military cooperation and developing economic relations during Tuesday's talks. ___ [Rumor has it Khairi, that the “message” delivered by Medvedev to Assad is far from the one that Peres believes to have been delivered. The real message is to be patient. The U.S. led proximity talks have no chance of success. Israel will continue with its illegal occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank, and will continue to fall ever deeper into its status as world pariah. Israel will not receive U.S. backing for an attack on either Syria or Iran, and any such attacks would just be a further disaster for the future of the illegitimate so-called “Jewish State”. Continued consolidation of the SCO block, led by Russia and China, and soon to include Iran, Iraq and other Arab states, are about to put an end to US/Israeli axis intimidation and domination of the Middle East.]

JERUSALEM -- Israel said Monday it has no intention of halting construction of Jewish housing in hotly contested east Jerusalem, a first sign of trouble for newly launched U.S.-mediated peace talks. ___ Palestinians accused Israel of undermining trust and urged President Barack Obama to intervene. ___ The comments on construction from Israeli Cabinet Secretary Tzvi Hauser came a day after the White House praised Israel for agreeing to hold off construction of a major east Jerusalem housing project. It also spotlighted the delicate balancing act of an Israeli government seeking to please both the Obama administration and hard-line coalition partners… ___ “Building is expected to begin soon in Har Homa ... and Neve Yaakov, where (construction) bids have been issued," Hauser told Army Radio, referring to two east Jerusalem neighborhoods. "Building in Jerusalem is continuing according to its regular pace." ___ "The Americans said some words to us, and they said some words to the Israelis, and now it's up to the U.S. administration to answer such things," Abbas told reporters… ___ [O.K. President Obama… let’s see what kind of stuff you are made of… steel or sand … LOL.] ___ Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Israeli plans for east Jerusalem undermined trust-building as the U.S. tries to get the indirect negotiations, or proximity talks, moving. ___ "The whole concept of proximity talks is to give Senator George Mitchell and U.S. President Barack Obama the chance they deserve," Erekat said. "If they begin doing this (building), I think they will take down the proximity talks." ___ Palestinian officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing private communications with the Americans, said U.S. officials had assured them that Israel would refrain from authorizing new housing in both Jewish and Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, though projects already under way could be finished. ___ On the ground currently, construction is proceeding on hundreds of previously approved housing units for Jews in east Jerusalem. ___ Israeli Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor on Monday reiterated his government's position that Jerusalem must remain the Jewish state's undivided capital. He said Israel could not accept a "discriminatory" policy that barred Jews from living in certain parts of the city. ___ Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war, but no other country has recognized that.

Don't worry Rick, the Goose may not want to join us, but she never sups alone. In my old age unfortunately, these days I have to delete one piece of information from my memory in order to acquire a new one, therefore unfortunately this is the story of the colours. Old age I suppose; something the Goose should know. I think all in the hands of President Obama now, as Britain will need a few months to get its barings, and even then, it is most likely to continue playing second-fiddle to the USA.

“...The biggest fear of some in Israel appears to be the appointment of Clegg as the next British foreign secretary... [Another strong point in favor of Clegg...] ___ The prospects are nothing if not exciting and full of uncertainties. Yet all those in the Middle East, Israelis, Arabs, and Iranians, can rest easy. The next government will not be focusing on their part of the world ahead of other priorities, and when it does, it will not be in a position to make major changes in the region.” ___ [So it remains up to Obama to make the required changes in the Middle East policy stance of the West...]

Posted by Rosemary Hollis, Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 10:22 AM in Khairi’s Foreign Policy magazine ___ “The Middle East has not received much attention in the British electoral campaign. Yet whoever forms the next government will have to establish a stance on the putative Middle East peace process, on Iran, on relations with the Arab Gulf states, including security cooperation and arms sales, and on developments in Iraq, even if British troops are no longer on the ground there. ___ Judging by the statements of the three main party leaders in their televised debate on foreign policy, all are supportive of British troops in Afghanistan, but none want to see them remain there indefinitely. Labour Party leader Gordon Brown has nonetheless argued that the British deployment is integral to a broader strategy to counter the forces of extremism that could still inspire or instigate attacks on British soil. ___ However, neither Brown nor his Conservative and Liberal Democrat (Lib Dem) opponents, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, respectively, have given much airtime to the role that resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict could play in countering extremism in Europe. Their positions, which are not dissimilar, give more emphasis to the needs of both the Israelis and the Palestinians for their own sakes, and all support a 'two-state' solution, though Clegg has gone further in criticizing the blockade of Gaza. ___ In the Middle East, both Palestinians and Israelis are interested to know whether British public opinion will weigh in future government calculations. Indeed, both have noticed the emergence of more vocal support for the Palestinians on British university campuses and in public demonstrations of late. The Israelis are particularly attentive to calls for a boycott of Israeli imports, or at least a bar on products made in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. ___ This points to the wider context within which the next British government will have to deal with a range of foreign-policy issues, including those in the Middle East. ___ It is the United States that has adopted the lead on reviving peace talks, and it would make no sense for the future British government to adopt a significantly different line than Washington. Also, as of the Dec. 8 EU statement on the Arab-Israeli conflict, echoed in the most recent pronouncement of the "quartet" (that groups the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia), all EU members have agreed to a joint position on the conflict. ___ It would be a surprise if the next British government chose to row back on this agreed position. However, unless the Labour Party is able to lead the next government, there could be changes in British relations with both the European Union and the United States under either a Conservative or a combined Conservative and Lib Dem leadership. ___ While the Tories are mostly Euro-skeptics, the Lib Dems are positively enthusiastic about British involvement in the European Union. Also, the Conservatives have no special rapport with Barack Obama's administration in Washington, and the Lib Dems have talked about the need to end London's "subservient" deference to U.S. leadership. ___ In recent days Israeli newspapers have run stories warning about the potentially negative prospects for Israel of a British government that accords a prominent position to the Lib Dems. They regard Nick Clegg and his party as positively pro-Palestinian. Yet the Israelis are also interested in how a new British government will handle a diminution in the so-called special relationship with the United States. ___ [Clegg sounds pretty good so far to me Goose.]

Thanks for the post Goose. I must confess that you sent me racing to Google to learn who in the devil Cameron and Clegg are. The following excerpt from an April 30 article in The Independent represents the extent of my knowledge thus far. Further research will be required to learn their stances on the Middle East issues. I will get back to you on that shortly. ___ “David Cameron emerged as the winner from the party leaders' final television debate last night despite a final "trust me" plea by Gordon Brown on the economy. ___ Three instant polls gave victory in the debate to the Tory leader but suggested that the Liberal Democrats are still big players in the election race by putting Nick Clegg in second place. A fourth poll scored last night's debate as a draw between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg. The Liberal Democrats declared they were now in a "two-horse race" with the Tories. ___ A ComRes survey for ITV News found that the Tory leader was seen as the winner by 35 per cent, with Mr Clegg on 33 per cent and Mr Brown on 26 per cent.” ___ As for the infamous case of the disappearing colors, of which Khairi conveniently claims a lapse of memory, I’m sure that between us we can twist Khairi’s arm to force a replacement when we meet prior to or during our night(s) out on the town. Lol.

Rick, how can we help the process? Will Cameron or Clegg help or hinder the process...... Brown seems to be a dead man walking. Will you kindly HELP me get my tie back from Khairi or else the Goose sups alone.

I suppose I should start saving too Rick. But since both of us are in need to save our pennies, I guess the Goose as a good friend, and rolling with Sterling, can pick up the tab !!!. Regarding the Israeli nuclear issue, I am not sure Rick, that the Arabs and the five powers of the Security Council are agreed. I may be wrong but, I remember the five powers want to raise the issue after peace in the Middle East, while the Arabs want the issue raised seriously now.

VIENNA -- The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog is asking for international input on an Arab-led push to have Israel join the Nonproliferation Treaty, in a move that adds to pressure on the Jewish state to disclose its unacknowledged nuclear arsenal. ___ [It’s about time don’t you think Khairi?] ___ On Wednesday, The Associated Press disclosed that International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano had sent a letter soliciting proposals from the agency's 151 member states on how to persuade Israel to sign the treaty. And the world's five recognized nuclear-weapons powers - the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China - reaffirmed the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East. ___ The latest pressure is putting the Jewish state in an uncomfortable position. It wants the international community to take stern action to prevent Iran from getting atomic weapons but at the same time brushes off calls to come clean about its own nuclear capabilities. ___ [LOL] ___ Russian arms negotiator Anatoly I. Antonov, speaking on behalf of the five NPT nuclear powers, said these nations were "committed to full implementation" of a Middle East nuclear free zone. ___ Amano's April 7 letter comes seven months after IAEA member states at their annual Vienna conference narrowly passed a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program, with 49 of the 110 nations present in support, 45 against and 16 abstaining. ___ The resolution "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and stability of the Middle East." ___ The U.S. and its allies consider Iran the region's greatest proliferation threat, fearing that Tehran is trying to achieve the capacity to make nuclear weapons despite its assertion that it is only building a civilian program to generate power. ___ But Islamic nations insist that Israel's nuclear capacity is the true danger in the Middle East. With divisions deep, Amano's letter foreshadowed intense feuding at that September conference. ___ [I agree with the Islamic nations. The US/Israeli axis is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East and the world.]

Yep Khairi… now all I must do is save my pennies for the boat trip for two… Looking forward to a night out on the town with you and The Goose…

I suppose Rick, unless their is another mishap, proximity talks are on the way, which I guess settles the question of the wager. Meal on you in Paris, and drinks on me. Mind you, over here, the drinks are more expensive than the meal. My guest.

Very true Rick, I don't know what to do without your good self as well as the goose [that is when she remembers that I am still a friend], to keep me on the straight and narrow. Even as an eternal optimist, unfortunately one can succumb to the blues and disillussion. I think the news item your good self has posted, can only show all the skeptics, that US pressure on Israel can and does work, also, that if the Washington administration wills it, historical achievments can be done. As for the Prada shoes, well, I have nothing personally against them, nor against whomever wears them, but with the talk of law-suits flying against him, I hope the wearer of the red Prada shoes will not be arrested when he steps on British soil. Right Goose?.

… for unintentionally ignoring your kind post. This web site is acting strangely from my end. I can’t see any new posts after Khairi’s “show stopper” post of April 19, unless I make a new post myself lol. Kindly give me a ring at rick22407@aol.com in the event that I so rudely ignore you in the future lol. We “friends of Khairi” must flock together, like birds of a feather, and try to keep good Khairi on the right path lol.

WASHINGTON -- The Israelis and Palestinians have taken a small, halting step toward peace talks, a modest payoff for President Barack Obama's dogged, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. ___ Word emerged Monday that the Israeli government had effectively frozen new Jewish construction in Jerusalem's disputed eastern sector. ___ In short order, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signaled he again would be ready to start indirect talks with Israel. ___ The sudden change in direction was a victory for Obama's beleaguered Mideast envoy George Mitchell, who had spent a more than a year in private talks and repeated trips to Jerusalem and Ramallah. ___ Good news Khairi…

Hello Rick I report that the sky above is blue and down below there are mutterings about rouge Prada shoes stepping on our shores for the autumn season....

In a way Rick, I hope Jerusalem does become a show-stopper, because if it doesn't, nothing really will stop the Israeli government from destroying the peace prospects. I think only President Obama can make a difference for the region this time. PS// I sent another e-mail just now. In any case, here is my own email : janbekster@gmail.com

WASHINGTON -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (neh-ten-YAH'-hoo) says he will not accept Palestinian demands that Israel stop building settlements in East Jerusalem. ___ Appearing in an interview broadcast Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Netanyahu called that "an unacceptable demand" and said this long-standing Israeli government position is not his alone, but that it dates to governments led by Golda Meir, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. ___ Netanyahu sought to minimize differences with President Barack Obama over the Mideast peace process. But he acknowledged that "we have some outstanding issues. We're trying to resolve them through diplomatic channels in the best way that we can." ___ Looks like Jerusalem may be a show stopper Khairi. Let’s see how tough Obama can be on this. // P.S. No sign of your email yet on the North American continent Khairi. The EM waves must be lost in the aether...LOL

One would say Rick, that this is just it. The Iranian demands are not compatable with the US strategy in the region, neither with western strategy generally, nor with the strategies of the majority of the Arab countries. PS//. sent your good self a test e.mail.

This site is starting to behave a little shakily on my end Khairi. If we lose comms give me a shout on rick22407@aol.com

More from STRATFOR.com ___ In exchange for helping the United States the Islamic republic first wants international recognition as a legitimate entity. Second, the global community needs to recognize the Iranian sphere of influence in the Islamic world. Third, and most importantly, while it is prepared to normalize ties with the United States, Iran wants to retain its independent foreign policy. ___ Put another way, Iran wants to be treated by the Obama administration along the lines of how U.S. President Richard Nixon’s administration dealt with China during the early 1970s. The demand for respect is a critical one. Iran is not interested in rapprochement with the United States along the lines of what Libya did in 2003 when it gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal in exchange for normalized relations with the United States and its Western allies. ___ Iran is not close to crossing the nuclear threshold yet, but it wants to retain that as a future option as per any deal. Iran has been emboldened by the fact that the United States is neither in a position to exercise the military option to prevent the Persian state from going nuclear, nor is it able to put together an effective sanctions regime that could affect a change in Tehran’s behavior. It is therefore using the regional dynamic as leverage to try and extract the maximum possible concessions on the nuclear issue. ___ On a further note, an arrangement based on the concept of “accept us for who we are” is critical to the interests of the Iranian regime for two reasons. First, it gets rid of the external threat of regime change. Second, it allows the Iranian regime to demonstrate on the domestic front that its aggressive foreign policy has paid off, which completely undermines its Green movement opponents. ___ It is too early to predict whether Iran can achieve its goals or not. It has moved to the final round of its efforts to use American weakness to its advantage, and at this stage it does hold a strong deck of cards.

STRATFOR.com rights: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD said Tuesday he would be sending U.S. President Barack Obama a letter, the contents of which would be made public in the coming days. In a live interview on state television, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was the “only chance” for Obama to salvage his administration’s position in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian president remarked, “The best way for him [Obama] is to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation. Many new opportunities will be created for him.” ___ This is not the first time Ahmadinejad has offered his American counterpart cooperation in an attempt to extract concessions. But he has never been so direct about telegraphing his view that the United States is in a difficult position in the Middle East and South Asia, nor has he offered Iran’s help so that the United States can extricate itself from the region. What is important is that the Iranian leader is pretty accurate in both his description and prescription. ___ Washington is indeed working toward a military drawdown in Iraq, and needs to make progress in Afghanistan within a very short time frame. Iran borders both these countries, where the Islamic republic has significant influence. Cognizant of Obama’s domestic political imperatives, Ahmadinejad said, “He [Obama] has but one chance to stay as head of the state and succeed. Obama cannot do anything in Palestine. He has no chance. What can he do in Iraq? Nothing. And Afghanistan is too complicated. The best way for him is to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation. Many new opportunities will be created for him.” ___ The Iranian president is correct in that a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely unlikely. In terms of Iraq, the Iranians recently signaled that they are prepared to accept a sizeable Sunni presence in the next Iraqi coalition government. This will facilitate the U.S. need for a balance of power in Iraq, thereby allowing Washington to exit the country. Similarly, the Americans cannot achieve the conditions for withdrawal in Afghanistan without reaching an understanding with the Iranians. ___ “In exchange for helping the United States, the Islamic republic first wants international recognition as a legitimate entity.” ___ Therefore, the maverick Iranian leader was not engaging in his usual rhetoric when he said, “Mr. Obama has only one chance and that is Iran. This is not emotional talk but scientific. He has but one place to say that ‘I made a change and I turned over the world equation’ and that is Iran.” ___ So, what exactly does Ahmadinejad want in return for helping the leader of his country’s biggest foe? ___ The answer lies in the following comment by Ahmadinejad: “Acknowledging Iran would benefit both sides and as far as Iran is concerned, we are not after any confrontation.” The Iranians are trying to bring closure to their efforts of the last eight years in which they have been trying to exploit the U.S. wars being fought in their neighborhood to achieve their geopolitical objectives. Ahmadinejad is laying out his terms.

It seems but I am not sure, according to the NY Times today, a memo from Sec. Gates reveals that the Obama administration, has no effective policy to deal with Iran's nuclear programme. If this is true, then one is tilting more towards the side of the argument which I have written about before, that President Obama intends to continue on the diplomatic path, until such a time that Iran develops nuclear weapons capability and it becomes impossible to do anything military about it. How will israel react if this is all true?.

If people like your good self Rick, myself, in addition to millions of others, are pushing for a US imposed solution to the Palestinian problem, and this is making Mr. Ayalon angry, then all the better I would say.

Steven Gutkin, AP's bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories, says that Israel's hardline government is deeply worried that the U.S. will try to impose a Mideast peace deal, that the Palestinians might declare statehood unilaterally and that Washington could be moving to end tensions with Syria. ___ Netanyahu fears Israel could be forced into unwanted concessions and its enemies' hands will be strengthened. ___ Obama, is speaking about the promises of peace and has taken a new unusual step, publicly characterizing Israeli-Arab strife as harmful to U.S. interests - which many interpreted as a prelude to taking action to push through a peace. ___ A forum of Israel's top seven ministers met three times this week to try to find ways to warm the chilly relationship with the Obama administration, but failed to agree on any specific measures, such as stopping Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, officials said on condition of anonymity because the meetings were closed. ___ Israeli officials have been phoning U.S. congress members for help in repairing the ties that were damaged last month when Israel announced a massive new Jewish housing project in east Jerusalem during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. ___ Israel still has not given its response to a series of demands Obama reportedly made in a tense meeting with Netanyahu in Washington on March 23. This has led to speculation that Netanyahu might be seeking to buy time in the hope that Obama would be less inclined to pressure Israel in the run-up to November's U.S. congressional elections, in which Jewish American support is key. ___ U.S. frustration over the lack of progress on Mideast peace has led to a debate in the Obama administration over whether to propose an American peace plan that would clearly outline U.S. expectations. Israeli officials fear that would mean heavy pressure on them to make territorial compromises they have so far resisted. ___ "All those who support a forced solution are in fact making the solution much less probable," said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. ___ [He’s talking about you and me, Khairi.] ___ As the U.S. prepared to reinstall an ambassador in the Syrian capital of Damascus, Israeli intelligence officials said this week they believe Syria was transferring deadly Scud missiles to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, a claim Syria denied. ___ The current U.S.-Israeli friction might be an unavoidable outcome of having a liberal administration in Washington and a right-wing government in Israel. But with Israel's international image in tatters following its bruising offensive against Hamas militants in Gaza last year - and with the U.S. badly in need of Muslim support to accomplish its goals in Afghanistan and Iraq - patience for Israel's 43-year-old occupation of the Palestinians is wearing thin. ___ Driven by similar frustrations, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has floated the idea of unilaterally declaring statehood as early as next year - a proposal that led Israel's foreign minister to threaten to annul past peace agreements and even annex parts of the West Bank. ___ U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell is due back in the region in the coming days to try to revive a plan to have the sides begin U.S.-mediated, indirect talks. Pressuring Netanyahu ahead of talks has so far proven ineffective. Doing so instead once talks have started - and a real peace plan is on the table - could bring the Israeli leader to a moment of truth, having to choose between his hawkish partners and a more moderate coalition, between compromise and keeping all the land.

Well Rick, for the wager it is still too early to tell. One still believes that the Palestinians and Israelis should be talking, but just as important, for the Obama administration to set the parameters of those talks, and intervene actively as and when required.

Israel must do more to pursue peace with the Palestinians and to strengthen their institutions or risk empowering militant groups such as Hamas, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. ___ Obama has taken a much tougher line toward Israel than his recent predecessors, and on Tuesday he described solving the conflict as "a vital national security interest," suggesting he may be willing to push hard for a solution. ___ While Clinton said in a speech to a pro-peace group that the Palestinians should also promote peace by ending incitement, curbing corruption and refraining from inflammatory rhetoric, she appeared to put more responsibility on Israel. ___ "For Israel, accepting concrete steps toward peace -- both through the peace process and in the bottoms-up institution building I have described -- are the best weapons against Hamas and other extremists," Clinton said. ___ "Those who benefit from our failure of leadership traffic in hate and violence and give strength to Iran's anti-Semitic president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and extremists like Hamas and Hezbollah," she added. ___ Speaking to the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, Clinton argued that if Israel does not strengthen Fatah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization -- which she called "a credible partner for peace" -- it will empower Hamas. ___ "Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results," Clinton said. ___ "If (Palestinian) President (Mahmoud) Abbas cannot deliver on these aspirations, there is no doubt his support will fade and Palestinians will turn to alternatives -- including Hamas. And that way leads only to more conflict," she added. ___ Clinton on Thursday repeated her view that the U.S. commitment to Israel is "rock solid." However, she also ticked off a long list of action points for Israel. ___ "We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza," she said. "And to refrain from unilateral statements and actions that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks." ___ The United States on March 3 said Israel and the Palestinian Authority had agreed to indirect peace talks but the U.S.-Israeli settlement dispute appears to have scotched any chance of these beginning in earnest any time soon. ___ [Sadly Khairi, I have not yet lost the wager…LOL]

so that's what i got in my eyes. Thanks Rick, I thought I needed an eye check-up. I don't know about the goose though, but she may need a speck of dust in the eye.

You will get volcano ash in your hair and eyes...LOL ___ Sorry...I always did have a poor sense of humour...

I think everyone is for common sense, and if the US peace plan for the Middle East, is going to carry those elements suggested in the article, and maybe heed the advice made by yours sincerely in my previous message (not that anyone outside our little circle of friends, gives a hoot), I would say the plan is worth endorsing by everyone. The question will remain that, if Israel or/and the Palestinians reject it, will the US go to the Security Council and impose its plan rather than merely suggest it?. Moreover, in order to impose it, will it resort to sanctions or possible diplomatic breach with tel Aviv?. Short of that, I think the Obama administration will react like a jiltted lover, and leave the area to its own devices. Devices which are usually death and vilonce, as well as reaching the edge of the abyss. Unfotunately this time, and call me a pessmist if you like, it may not be able to turn back from the edge of the abyss.

The below comments are from an article in today’s WP by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter and is a trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Stephen Solarz, a former U.S. congressman from New York who is a member of the board of the International Crisis Group. ___ I endorse this proposal 100% for what it is worth Khairi, but would add that an absolutely iron clad arrangement must be included to guarantee that Equal Water Rights to the Jordan River are enforced for the two states of Israel and Palestine. The Golan Heights issue with Syria must also be included in this accord.

Of course, the proposal could be rejected out of hand. If the Israelis or the Palestinians refuse to accept this basic formula as the point of departure for negotiations, the Obama administration must be prepared to pursue its initiative by different means -- it cannot be caught flat-footed, as it was when Netanyahu rejected Obama's demands for a settlement freeze and the Arabs evaded his proposals for confidence-building initiatives. ___ Accordingly, the administration must convey to the parties that if the offer is rejected by either or both, the United States will seek the U.N. Security Council's endorsement of this framework for peace, thus generating worldwide pressure on the recalcitrant party. ___ Fortunately, public opinion polls in Israel have indicated that while most Israelis would like to keep a united Jerusalem, they would rather have peace without all of Jerusalem than a united Jerusalem without peace. Similarly, although the Palestinians are divided and the extremists of Hamas control the Gaza Strip, the majority of Palestinians favor a two-state solution, and their leadership in Ramallah is publicly committed to such an outcome. ___ It is time, though almost too late, for all parties -- Israelis, Palestinians, Americans -- to make a historic decision to turn the two-state solution into a two-state reality. But for that to happen, Obama must pursue a far-sighted strategy with historic audacity.

For the Israelis, who are skeptical about the willingness of the Palestinians and Arabs to make peace with them, such a bold initiative by Obama would provide a dramatic demonstration of the prospects for real peace, making it easier for Israel's political leadership to make the necessary compromises. ___ For the Palestinians, it would provide political cover to accept a resolution precluding the return of any appreciable number of refugees to Israel. Palestinian leaders surely know that no peace agreement will be possible without forgoing what many of their people have come to regard as a sacred principle: the right of return. The leadership can only make such a shift in the context of an overall pact that creates a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital -- and that is supported by other Arab countries. ___ For the Arabs, it would legitimize their own diplomatic initiative, embodied in the peace plan put forward by the Arab League eight years ago. Moreover, their support for Obama in the effort would be a vital contribution to the resolution of the conflict. ___ Finally, for Obama himself, such a move would be a diplomatic and political triumph. Bringing Arab leaders and the Quartet with him to Jerusalem and Ramallah to endorse his plan would be seen as a powerful example of leadership in coping with the protracted conflict. Since it is inconceivable that the Israeli government would refuse Obama's offer to bring Arab leaders and the Quartet to its capital, most of the American friends of Israel could be expected to welcome the move as well.

The basic outlines of a durable and comprehensive peace plan that Obama could propose are known to all: ___ First, a solution to the refugee problem involving compensation and resettlement in the Palestinian state but not in Israel. This is a bitter pill for the Palestinians, but Israel cannot be expected to commit political suicide for the sake of peace. ___ Second, genuine sharing of Jerusalem as the capital of each state, and some international arrangement for the Old City. This is a bitter pill for the Israelis, for it means accepting that the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem will become the capital of Palestine. ___ Third, a territorial settlement based on the 1967 borders, with mutual and equal adjustments to allow the incorporation of the largest West Bank settlements into Israel. ___ And fourth, a demilitarized Palestinian state with U.S. or NATO troops along the Jordan River to provide Israel greater security. ___ Most of these parameters have been endorsed in the Arab peace plan of 2002 and by the Quartet. And the essential elements have also been embraced by Barak and another former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

However, a routine unveiling of a U.S. peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough. Anwar Sadat's courageous journey to Jerusalem three decades ago accomplished just that, paving the way for the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt. ___ Similarly, President Obama should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem's Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace. ___ Such an effort would play to Obama's strengths: He personalizes politics and seeks to exploit rhetoric and dramatic settings to shatter impasses, project a compelling vision of the future and infuse confidence in his audience.

This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive peace agreement is in the interest of all parties. It is in the U.S. national interest because the occupation of the West Bank and the enforced isolation of the Gaza Strip increases Muslim resentment toward the United States, making it harder for the Obama administration to pursue its diplomatic and military objectives in the region. Peace is in the interest of Israel; its own defense minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that the absence of a two-state solution is the greatest threat to Israel's future, greater even than an Iranian bomb. And an agreement is in the interest of the Palestinians, who deserve to live in peace and with the dignity of statehood.

More than three decades ago, Israeli statesman Moshe Dayan, speaking about an Egyptian town that controlled Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea, declared that he would rather have Sharm el-Sheikh without peace than peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. Had his views prevailed, Israel and Egypt would still be in a state of war. Today, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with his pronouncements about the eternal and undivided capital of Israel, is conveying an updated version of Dayan's credo -- that he would rather have all of Jerusalem without peace than peace without all of Jerusalem.

It sounds like Rick, pen for hire. No problem, I guess if it works don't knock it.

I don't believe it Khairi...not a famous exjournalist and trusted advisor to King Abdullah's Royal Self. You must take time to recount your past life experiences in Jordan and immigration to Paris some time. After all, no one is listening but Shiva, The Goose and myself. How did you get your good self into this predicament, out of favor with the Jordan civil service? LOL. ___ Your analysis of the situation in the Middle East as demonstated below illustrates that you have much to offer to many prospective employers in the news media and/or government agencies.

Thank you Rick, I wasn't aware of the article your good self has posted. M.Sarkozy has been saying over here, that there will be an American-Eu peace plan for the Middle East next fall. I personally hope it will be an American plan supported by the EU. If your good self is interested; and it seems like it is only your good self whom is interested, I shall add my own peeny's words of wisdom on the only way the peace plan can work; though one is unemployable. 1) The question of "bridging proposals" must be dumpped immediately; as the article aptly puts it, if only becayse as the old saying goes " a bridge is trampled on in times of peace, and blown up in times of conflict". 2) President Obama has to show to Israel as well as the Arab world, that the US national security interests in the Middle East are not synanimous with israel's national interests as the case has been for the last almost 50 years. If the recent pronouncements of the Washington administration politicians are honest, then it seems that there is aome sort of shift towards this end. One is not saying that the US will not be concerned with Israel's security rather, that the US national interest is not one and the same as that of Israel. 3) Jerusalem, or rather the holy sites, can never be under the admistration of religious representation to the exclusion of others. Israel as the signatory of the Wadi Araba peace with Jordan, acknowledges that in the agreement. It must be reminded once and for all, that it has to comply with what it had signed. 4) Though I have been away from the region for a long time and unaware of the intricate details, still I believe that the majority of the Arab countries; signatories of peace with Israel as well as otherwise, are intersted in playing a role to bring peace to the region. Therefore, the Obama administration needs to be specific in scope, time-tables, as well as objectives when it comes to the Arab countries playing a role in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. The Washington administration must understand first and then show, that it accepts its Arab allies as partners whose advise is valued and appreciated, and not clients whom should comply with the American demanands regardles of how fickle the thoughts behind such demands may well be. In any case, HM King Abdullah IInd is visiting the US next week. 5) President Obama does not the Arab world behind him when it comes to his future action plans against Iran. But he must assure the Arab world of his committment to what his administration is taking the leed in doing, and more importantly what actually does he envisage in terms of results from what he is trying to do. At the same, the Washington administration must give in order to take. Where the Arabs expect it to give, would be on the Palestinian-Israeli peace track and in favor of the Palestinians. Why not, aren't the Palestinians after all the aggrieved party with legitimate demands?. And he will take on the Iranian issue, because after all agian, arent't the Arab parties potentially and actually threatend by Iran?. 6) Of course, in some Arab countries, there are functioning parliaments, while in others there aren't, nevertheless, if the washington administration is as clever as it thinks it is, it must have realised by now, and must show this realisation, that the Arab world has an important public opinion component which cannot be ignored by the United Sates, nor by the various Arab regimes, and it is a fact that ruling in the Arab world, is no longer a matter of push-button from the top downwards. Islam, nationalism, the Palestinian problem are all individually explosive issues on their own, let alone when combined together in the most sensitive region in the world, holding a most sensitive commodity; oil.

Obama's embrace of a peace plan would reverse the administration's initial strategy, which was to try to coax concessions from the Israelis and Palestinians, with the United States offering "bridging proposals" later. This step-by-step process was favored by George Mitchell, the president's special representative for the Middle East, who believed a similar approach had laid the groundwork for his breakthrough in Northern Ireland peace talks. ___ The fact that Obama is weighing the peace plan marks his growing confidence in Jones, who has been considering this approach for the past year. But the real strategist in chief is Obama himself. If he decides to launch a peace plan, it would mark a return to the ambitious themes the president sounded in his June 2009 speech in Cairo. ___ A political battle royal is likely to begin soon, with Israeli officials and their supporters in the United States protesting what they fear would be an American attempt to impose a settlement and arguing to focus instead on Iran. The White House rejoinder is expressed this way by one of the senior officials: "It's not either Iran or the Middle East peace process. You have to do both." ___ [Pretty exciting stuff…]

White House interest in proposing a peace plan has been growing in recent months, but it accelerated after the blow-up that followed the March 9 Israeli announcement, during Vice President Biden's visit, that Israel would build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem. U.S. officials began searching for bolder ways to address Israeli and Palestinian concerns, rather than continuing the same stale debates. ___ Obama's attention was focused by a March 24 meeting at the White House with six former national security advisers. The group has been meeting privately every few months at the request of Gen. Jim Jones, who currently holds the job. In the session two weeks ago, the group had been talking about global issues for perhaps an hour when Obama walked in and asked what was on people's minds. ___ Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser for presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, spoke up first, according to a senior administration official. He urged Obama to launch a peace initiative based on past areas of agreement; he was followed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, who described some of the strategic parameters of such a plan. ___ Support for a new approach was also said to have been expressed by Sandy Berger and Colin Powell, who served as national security advisers for presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, respectively. The consensus view was apparently shared by the other two attendees, Frank Carlucci and Robert C. McFarlane from the Reagan years…

Did you read the Ignatius column Khairi? In case you can’t find it… ___ The American peace plan would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel's top priority, explained the second senior official. He described the issues as two halves of a single strategic problem: "We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region," as well as the Israelis and Palestinians. ___ "Incrementalism hasn't worked," continued the second official, explaining that the United States cannot allow the Palestinian problem to keep festering -- providing fodder for Iran and other extremists. "As a global power with global responsibilities, we have to do something." He said the plan would "take on the absolute requirements of Israeli security and the requirements of Palestinian sovereignty in a way that makes sense." ___ The White House is considering detailed interagency talks to frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it. The second official likened the process to the review that produced Obama's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the administration could formally launch the Middle East initiative by this fall…

1. Iran urged Russia on Tuesday not to bow to Western pressure over the sale of a Russian missile defense system to the Islamic Republic which could protect its nuclear facilities from air strikes… ___ 2. Israel's hard-line foreign minister warned Palestinians against plans to unilaterally declare independence next year, saying in an interview Tuesday that such a move could prompt Israel to annex parts of the West Bank and annul past peace agreements. ___ "I think we have to make clear to Obama that we are not only not freezing construction in Jerusalem, but after the 10-month freeze we will go back to building" in the West Bank, Lieberman said. ___ He also criticized Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his increasingly confrontational stance toward Israel, saying he was damaging decades of "excellent" ties and is "slowly turning into Gadhafi or Hugo Chavez," a reference to the leaders of Libya and Venezuela… ___ 3. The United States appears to have hit a dead end in its attempts to revive Middle East peace talks, a senior Palestinian official said on Tuesday, urging Israel to halt settlement building on occupied land to give U.S. diplomacy a chance of success. [I may win this bet yet Khairi.] 4. Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists… ___ 5. A Saudi official says a cleric who announced that he will visit Jerusalem for a TV episode on claims to the city will be punished if he travels there… ___ 6. Despite recent turbulence in U.S. relations with Israel, President Obama is "seriously considering" proposing an American peace plan to resolve the Palestinian conflict, according to two top administration officials. [From David Ignatius column] ___ "Everyone knows the basic outlines of a peace deal," said one of the senior officials, citing the agreement that was nearly reached at Camp David in 2000 and in subsequent negotiations. He said that an American plan, if launched, would build upon past progress on such issues as borders, the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. The second senior official said that "90 percent of the map would look the same" as what has been agreed in previous bargaining… ___ 7. Israel's prime minister says his government has not yet worked out its differences with the U.S. over Israeli construction in disputed east Jerusalem…

Hopefully Rick, the demnad for imposing an American solution for the Palestinian problem, will gain momentum in the near future. The important thing, is for the Amercian public to support such a US move.

Obama imposing a Palestinian state ___ "US President Barack Obama's demands during his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Tuesday point to an intention to impose a permanent settlement on Israel and the Palestinians in less than two years," the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, wrote on Monday. We may draw a similar conclusion from analyses such as the one by Tony Karon in Asia Times Online. ___ The US is pushing extraordinarily hard a literal interpretation of "the 1967 border". This is a strong indicator that Obama might secretly hope to impose a solution. Obama's head-on collision with the Israeli government, coupled with his open support of a new, moderate and more efficient Palestinian leadership (that of the technocrat Prime Minister Salam Fayyad), has increased the likelihood of another scenario. [You have had good things to say about Mr. Fayyad as well Khairi.] ___ "You could say that Obama is the greatest disaster for Israel - a strategic disaster," an anonymous Netanyahu confidant told leading Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot. ___ It is true that what we hear from the American administration sounds much closer to what Fayyad is saying than to what Netanyahu is saying; even the timeframe of two years was borrowed straight out of a plan announced by the Palestinian prime minister last summer. [You are not the only one pulling for Obama to impose solution Khairi.]

United States-Israel rifts have widened to the point where the BBC recently reported that the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the United Nations Security Council were to vote on a resolution on Jerusalem (presumably against Israel). ___ This BBC report makes more sense Khairi. ___ But I agree with your good self that the DEBKA report makes no sense at all. What does China care about a US abstention over a UN condemnation of Israel? Nothing.

According to Debka File, there is talk of a trade-of between the US and China, whereby, the US would abstain the vote of condemning the Irseali settlements policy, and China would abstain in the vote of sanctions against Iran. Personally I find it very difficult to believe that, China would think of jeoperdising its economic and business interests for the Palestinians or anyone elese for that matter, especially that its foreign policy is guided by business interests and not ideology.

Indeed Rick, the formula is very difficult for the Arab world. An already hostile Israel, and a potentially hostile Iran, make the Arab diplomacy a very delicate business.

Here is one link to an article on the UAE/Iran dispute. ___ http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0393/9303021.htm ___ Iran's Dispute With the UAE Over Three Gulf Islands ___ By Saeed M. Badeeb ___ The dispute over the islands in the Lower Arabian/Persian Gulf—Abu Musa, Tunb, and Lesser Tunb—is an old issue. In fact, the rivalry between Persia (now Iran) and the Ottoman Empire and the local rulers of the Arab Gulf sheikhdoms goes back to the 16th and 17th centuries. In 1935, Persia was renamed Iran by Reza Shah, who ruled the country from 1921 to 1941, when he was forced by the British to abdicate his throne in favor of his son Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (r. 1941-1979), because of his alleged sympathies with Nazi Germany during World War II. ___ I see from the article that it was the British withdrawal by 1971 from the Arabian/Persian regions, and the “Nixon Doctrine” of 1969 to establish close ties with Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran, that enabled the Shah of Iran to buildup his armed forces and to serve as “policeman” of the Gulf. ___ The Shah also surfaced a number of territorial claims at this time, including Bahrain, that caused great concern in the region. ___ Now I get the picture Khairi. No wonder the Arabian Gulf states are suspicious of Iran, especially with Russia and China becoming strategic partners with Iran. ___ Also this is more in line with your good self’s post immediately below. I am sorry that I misread your earlier post with regard to the relatively minor issue of the islands.

I did not say anything of the sort Rick, nor insinuated it. Bluntly, the Arab world is suspicious of Iran's intentions and its geopolitical considerations from Iraq and all the way to Gaza. The majority of the Arab countries do not consider Iran as an enemy, rather, they see the developments of Iran's national interests as opposed to their own security considerations, and Iran has done nothing yet, to try to alleviate those Arab Arab concerns. It is not easy for the Arab world to be squeezed between, a hostile Israel with nuclear weapons, and potentially belligerent Iran with the prospects of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thank you Khairi, for informing me of the source of the Arab distrust of Iran; and it must be some extremely egregious offense committed by Iran against the Arabs to force the Arab world into the US/Israeli camp, considering the heinous crimes committed by these two countries against Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Knowing that the dispute is over islands in the Persian Gulf will help me to know where to search for additional information on the subject. ___ Actually I had heard of this dispute over Persian Gulf islands previously, but could not believe this was of sufficient weight to push the Arabs fleeing into the arms of US/Israel. I will look for more information on the history of this dispute.

As your good self is aware Rick, the system of alliances; that of the majority of the Arab world, and that of Iran, run contrary to each other's interests. In addition, Iran is still being considerd an occupying power to Arab lands, and threatening to do more in the future; case being the three islands belonging to the UAE and occupied by Iran. Therefore, Iran with a potential for acquiring nuclear weapons, is inevitably a source of worry to the Arab world. As for Russia selling missiles to Iran, this possibility will indeed alter any plans, if they exist, to attack Iran.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has delivered 15 batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to China, Interfax news agency reported on Friday, under a contract analysts said could be worth as much as $2.25 billion. China is a major buyer of Russian weapons, and the two countries are trying to forge a strategic partnership. ___ Russian arms exports rose to a post-Soviet record of $8.5 billion last year, with Algeria, India and China accounting for two thirds of deliveries. Syria, Venezuela, Malaysia and Vietnam accounted for another 20 percent of deliveries. ___ Moscow has said it plans to fulfill a contract to supply the S-300, nicknamed "the favorite" in Russia, to Iran, unnerving Israel and the United States. The possible sale to Tehran of the S-300, which could protect Iran's nuclear facilities against air strikes, has become a sensitive issue in Russia's relations with Israel.

How so Khairi? I see Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, as the only players in the region who are opposing the US/Israeli colonization of Palestine. That is a big plus on the Iranian side of the ledger in my opinion and a big minus on the Arab side. ___ I can also see that the growing strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon would be considered a bad thing for the US and Israelis, but a good thing for all Muslims in the region. I don’t see this is a threat to the Sunni Arabs except in the sense that it is strengthening and spreading Shi’ism in the region. ___ I will have to do some homework on Iranian intervention in Afghanistan. To this point I have thought that they were understandably supporting the side in this conflict that would make life difficult for the invading Americans, keeping us bogged down in this quagmire, and less capable of attacking Iran. This is clearly in the interest of Iran, but not so clearly opposed to the interests of the Arabs; except to the extent that the Arabs want to kowtow to the demands of the US/Israeli axis. ___ I still don’t see anything to support the assertion that Iran is trying to dominate the region.

Iran is not on a proslatising mission Rick. The problem here with the Arab world is geo-politics, and the Arabs; or rather the majority of them do distrust the Iranian regime and its future intentions to dominate the area. Moreover, as I said before, Hamas is not a Shi'ite organisation yet it is supported by Iran. Every step Iran is taking in its foreign relations currently, does actually hurt the interests of many Arab countries; all the way from Afghanistan, to Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

The question Khairi is not, do we want Shi'ism to be the issue, but rather is it the issue, and to what degree? Is it The Primary Issue, or just a minor issue. My understanding is that it is a very important issue, but I gather that you and Shiva do not. Am I correct? ___ My feeling is that the Arab fear of Tehran is unjustified. Tehran has done nothing to warrant such fear. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps Tehran has an agenda to convert the world, beginning with the countries of the Near East, to Shi'ism. Is this what the Arabs think?

If we bring the issue of Shi'ism into the argument Rick, then I would say the Arab world; or at least the majority of the Arab countries would have less reason to have a dialogue with Iran, than they already have now. It will mean that they would have to look over their shoulders all the time, lest their own Shi'a become Iran's fifth column. That's why I avoided the talk of religious denominations. As for President Obama reading our stuff, WOW, I would settle personally for lesser mortals to read our stuff, let alone the President of the USA. Mind you, it is enough flattery that your good self reads what I write. If someone else reads our stuff, I guess they would have shown some sign of life, or is it the case that, there is life after brain-dead?.

As I read your post Khairi, Tehran may be pursuing its own national interests, but unless those interests take into consideration the Arab national interests; it is highly unlikely that there can be any basis for dialogue. It is Iran’s relations with Hamas and Hezbollah and its influence on Iraq that frightens the Arabs, or “gives them discomfort” if frightens is not the right word. And do you still maintain that this has nothing to do with the fact that both Iran and Iraq are majority Shiite nations? This Iranian influence is due primary to geopolitical factors more than religious ones? I have always agreed with your good self’s frequent pronouncements that Obama must lay down the law regarding the two-state solution and enforce it. I hope he is reading our mail every day and heeds our good advice. Do you think?

Evidently Rick, Iran and Turkey are the most two important countries in the Near east. While Turkey; a NATO country that looks in both directions; east and west, is most welcome to continue its positive role in the Middle East, Iran, with its relations with hamas and Hizbullah, as well as its influence in Iraq, reamains a source of discomfort to many Aran countries. It may well be true that Tehran is pursuing its own national interests, but unless those interests take into consideration the Arab national interests, it is highly unlikely that there can be any basis for dialogue. As for Israel, in addition to the statistics ptovided by your good self, it seems also, that Preident Obama is considered far more popular with the American Jews that Mr, Netanyahu. Therefore I feel it is possible now; as I have often demanded if your good self remembers, for the USA to impose its own peace plan on both the Palestinians and the Israelis, then punish the side which doesn't comply.

JERUSALEM -- A Passover eve poll says Israelis are increasingly concerned about their country's international standing amid its most serious crisis with the U.S. in decades. ___ A poll published in the Maariv daily showed that only 14 percent of Israelis defined Israel's standing as good, 36.8 percent called it reasonable and more than 48 percent called it bad. ___ The survey questioned 500 people and had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points. ___ The U.S. is demanding that Israel halt its construction in east Jerusalem to facilitate peace talks, which Israeli refuses. ___ Palestinians see east Jerusalem as the capital of their eventual state. ___ The poll was published Monday as Israelis were preparing for the spring festival of Passover, marking the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt.

"We are of the view that sanctions is not a healthy path and... that the best route is diplomacy," he said at a joint news conference with Merkel. ___ "Turkey shares a 380 km (240 mile) border with Iran and it is an important partner, especially in energy. When appraising our relations we shouldn't ignore this," Erdogan said. ___ "We are against nuclear weapons in our region. But is there another country in our region that has nuclear weapons? Yes, there is. And have they been subjected to sanctions? No," Erdogan said. ___ I wonder which country he is referring to Khairi? It couldn’t be Israel…do you think? At least I’m glad that someone has the courage to stand up to US/Israel.

Why are the Arab’s so afraid of Iran Khairi? I believe this is why the Arab League refused to listen to Syria and Libya, and take a tougher line against Israel. They want to remain allied with the US/Israeli axis, thinking we will protect them from Iran. Again,why ar they so afraid of Iran? ___ And even your good self said that Iran needs to “show that it neither intends to undermine the regimes in its neighborhood, nor seek hegemony over its Arab neighbors”. How can it possibly “show” that? It is impossible to prove a negative. How long has it been since Iran tried to seek hegemony over its Arab neighbors?

I don't think the picture emerging is particulalrly gloomy Rick. I think the Arab leaders have done reasobaly well this time around, after all whose interests would it serve to withdraw the Arab peace Agreement, at a time when the whole international community as well as the USA are actually opposing the Israeli settlements policies in the west bank and Jerusalem?. Granted the alternatives proposed at the end of the Conference; at least as far as I know, if Israel doesn't cease it actions in Jerusalem and the west bank may not be that viable under the circumstances, and I really don't know what would be viable in this case, mainly the Arab world will go for a Security Counci Resolution to condemn Israel. In this case, the US will have to put its actions where its mouth has been till now, in otherwords, will the USA veto such a condemnation; rendering all what the Washington administration has been saying till now about the settlements as just a joke wit a bad taste, or will it at least abstain in the vent of vote?. Indeed very tricky for the Arabs primarily. A second option may well be to go the International Court fo Justice. But here again, save for a probable moral raising judgment, the Court's decision are merely advisory, without the power to impliment; remember the case separation wall built by Israel?. Well International Court of otherwise, it still stands and even expanding. Regarding, one doesn't think personally that it is an enemy of the Arab world, however, Iran must understand that, since no single or a collection of Arab country/ies threaten its interests, so it should reciprocate by taking every measure to ensure, and show that, it neither intends to undermine the regimes in its neighbourhood, nor seek hegemony over its Arab neighbours.

A day after proposing Arab states directly engage Iran over its growing influence and disputed nuclear program, Moussa said some nations had reservations about an open dialogue with Tehran. ___ "Iran is not an enemy. Iran is a brotherly country. Let us sit and put every thing on the table and reach an agreement for the sake of peace and stability," he said. ___ Turkish Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who attended the summit, immediately endorsed Moussa's proposal, along with Syria and Iraq. But delegates said both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two key U.S allies, rejected the idea. ___ The summit registered a higher than usual number of no-shows from Arab leaders. Eight heads of state stayed away, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. ___ Recent Arab summits have been marred by disagreements among Arab leaders, divided between pro-Western rulers and more radical regimes. The divisions tend to water down joint Arab positions.

A day after proposing Arab states directly engage Iran over its growing influence and disputed nuclear program, Moussa said some nations had reservations about an open dialogue with Tehran. ___ "Iran is not an enemy. Iran is a brotherly country. Let us sit and put every thing on the table and reach an agreement for the sake of peace and stability," he said. ___ Turkish Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who attended the summit, immediately endorsed Moussa's proposal, along with Syria and Iraq. But delegates said both Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two key U.S allies, rejected the idea. ___ The summit registered a higher than usual number of no-shows from Arab leaders. Eight heads of state stayed away, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. ___ Recent Arab summits have been marred by disagreements among Arab leaders, divided between pro-Western rulers and more radical regimes. The divisions tend to water down joint Arab positions.

But the calls from Damascus and Tripoli - which were later echoed by the Islamic militant group Hamas - to quit peace efforts reflected the depth of frustration and anger over the stalled peace process and continued Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians, particularly east Jerusalem. ___ Syrian President Bashar Assad urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw from a U.S.-supported peace strategy and take up arms against Israel, according to two delegates who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. ___ They said Assad also urged Arab countries to halt any contacts with Israel, though only Egypt and Jordan have peace deals with the Jewish state. ___ "The price of resistance is not higher than the price of peace," one delegate quoted Assad as telling Abbas. ___ Summit host Moammar Gadhafi of Libya warned that his nation will withdraw support for the peace initiative launched at a 2002 Arab League summit in Beirut.

SIRTE, Libya -- Arab leaders on Sunday renewed their support for Mideast peace efforts, rejecting pressure from Syria and Libya on the Palestinians to abandon talks with Israel and resume armed resistance. ___ "The Arab peace initiative is a serious move. If we withdraw it, what will be the Arab stance after that," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told reporters after the summit's closing session. ___Too bad Khairi…so much for the big bad Arab League Summit…back to groveling as usual and begging for a break from the US/Israeli axis of occupiers…fat chance ___ Oh well, it really is to early to mount a serious resistance. We need a few more decades for the oil shortage to continue to work its havoc on the west and the SCO to continue growing in strength as Russia, China, et al bring Iran, Pakistan, India, Iraq, South American, African oil producing states and others into the fold.

I think all the Arab leaders know very well Rick; with or without Mr. Musa saying it, that the current Israeli government is pushing; with the way it is acting illegally in Jerusalem and the occupied territories, for more tension in the region. Mr. Netanyahu and his government seem to want to play the game of "who blinks first", or in American terms "Chicken". But this time he is playing with an Arab world frustrated with the issue of peace, and Arab people whom stopped believing in the possibility of peace some time ago. Any thinking by the current Israeli government in terms of attempting to solve the Palestinian problem at the expense of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or the Palestinian people, in order to bury the Palestinian question, I can assure your good self, as well as Mr. Netanyahu that, he would be swallowing more than he can chew, and will be meeting more than his match. As for Iran, I don't think anyone would be against a dialogue with it in the Arab world, but then again which Arab country is threatening Iran?, and how many Arab countries are threatened by Iran?. I would say the onus is on Iran to prove; not just in words, but also in deeds that it is interested in a dialogue of equals with its neighbours, and not just cheap words to justify domination attempts.

Arab states should prepare for the possibility that the Palestinian-Israeli peace process may be a total failure and prepare alternatives, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday. ___Speaking to Arab leaders at a summit of the Arab League in the Libyan town of Sirte, Moussa said the peace process had reached a turning point and that it was time for Arab states to stand up to Israel. ___ He also said the Arab League should open a dialogue with Tehran to address concerns, especially among Iran's neighbors across the Gulf, about its nuclear program. ___ "It's time to face Israel. We have to have alternative plans because the situation has reached a turning point" ___ "The peace process has entered a new stage, perhaps the last stage. We have accepted the efforts of mediators” ___ "We have accepted an open-ended peace process but that resulted in a loss of time and we did not achieve anything and allowed Israel to practice its policy for 20 years." ___ "We have to open a dialogue with Iran. I know there is a worry among Arabs regarding Iran but this situation confirms the necessity of a dialogue with Iran" ___ See Khairi, as I'm sure your good self knows, this is what happens when we sponsor the Israeli colonization of Muslim land. We just drive the Muslims together, and strengthen them. This is not in our best interest.

HM King Abdullah IInd. has re-affirmed the fact that, Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is Palestine. Moreover, His Majesty is following the Hashemite heritage in protecting the Muslim and Christian holy places in the Holy city. As far as Khairi Janbek {Moi} the Jordanians option has never benn an option to solve the problems of Osrael, at the expense of Jordan and the Palestinians. Indeed, one did advocate confederation and even federation between the two banks of the Jordan River, but certainly not a Jordanian take-over. Rather, for Jordanians and Palestinians to agree on the future formula which binds them together, once there is actually a political entity called Palestine which Jordan can negotiate with, rather than an occupied territory in which Israel decides the fate of the Palestinians. Certainly, the Obama administration has to show its committment to the peace process in terms of actions and not just words. Otherwise the whole rhetoric of Washington is exceedingly appearing as a Morphine injection to placate the Arab world prior to the Arab League meeting in Libya. If the US is serious, what is it that stops Sec. Clinton to make James Baker repeat performace?, Congress?, and where it Mr. Baker do his performance, wasn't it at Congress?. if Mr. Netanyahu is serious about peace, isn't it high time that he drops this coalition of his?.

AMMAN, Jordan -- Jordan's king warned Israel in a rare public rebuke that it is "playing with fire" with its settlement policy, and said in comments published Thursday the Jewish state must decide whether it wants peace or war. “We have warned repeatedly that Israel is playing with fire," Abdullah said in an interview published with local newspapers. He said Israel "must decide if it wants conflict or peace," adding that if it is indeed peace, then Israel must take "tangible actions" toward ending settlements and returning to negotiations with Palestinians. "People are fed up with an open-ended process that does not lead to results," he said. ___ During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip this week to Washington for talks with senior U.S. officials, Israel announced plans to further expand Jewish housing in the disputed part of Jerusalem. Abdullah firmly rejected the plans, saying Jordan "condemns all Israeli measures to change the identity of Jerusalem and empty it of its Arab Christian and Muslim residents." ___ Abdullah spoke ahead of this weekend's Arab summit conference in Libya, where Arab leaders are expected to decide whether to keep an Arab peace initiative - giving Israel full Arab recognition in return for occupied Arab lands - on the table. ___ He also reiterated his rejection of the so-called 'Jordan option,' [alias the Khairi Option] an idea espoused by some Israeli hard-liners to turn Jordan into a Palestinian state. "No one can enforce such a solution and whoever speaks of such illusions is talking about an impossible scenario," he said. ___ What do you think Khairi? Will the Arab Peace Initiative come off the table? Will the Arab League accept Iran’s invitation to join forces against the US/Israeli axis? I think so.

One wishes that your good self is right Rick, and wishes that Rami is also right, but unfortunately, with the way Congress has reacted to the Bibi speech, and the way the Obama administration is appearing more and more like a lame duck, unfortunately I don't see any difference on the ground, in the traditional and unequivocal US support to Israel.

"Israeli policies have transcended personal affront or embarrassment to American officials and are causing the United States real pain beyond the Arab-Israeli arena. This is something new, and therefore the U.S. is reacting with unusually strong, public and repeated criticisms of Israel's settlement policies and its general peace-negotiating posture," Rami Khouri, editor at large of Beirut's Daily Star, wrote this week. "At the same time Washington repeats it ironclad commitment to Israel's basic security in its 1967 borders, suggesting that the U.S. is finally clarifying that its support for Israel does not include unconditional support for Israel's colonization policies." ___ I may not be the only one taking “the sayings of Mr. Amr Musa, and the actions of his organization the Arab League, seriously” from now on Khairi. Is this the response to Iran’s proposal to Egypt’s President Mubarak not so long ago, and his subsequent travels for secret meetings with the Saudi and other GCC leaders immediately thereafter? Hmmm…the plot thickens.

Nothing new yet on the Middle East Rick; though is writing these words without hearing any reports of Obama-Netanyahu meeting, which I heard it is over now. Neither Sec. Clinton nor Mr. Netanyahu have said anything new, and I still applaud your good self Rick, because you are the only one whom seems to take the sayings of Mr. Amr Musa, and the actions of his organisation; the Arab League, seriously.

CAIRO -- The Arab League chief wants the 22-nation bloc to engage Iran directly over concerns about its growing influence and its nuclear activities, in a step that could undermine U.S. and Israeli efforts to isolate the country, diplomats said Tuesday. ___ Arab diplomats said Secretary-General Amr Moussa will present his proposal in a policy document to a two-day Arab League leaders summit in Sirte, Libya, that starts Saturday. The leaders are expected to discuss a range of regional issues, including stalled Middle East peace efforts and Iran. The West's strategy in the standoff with Iran also troubles Arab leaders, who fear that its failure would lead to a military confrontation that could spill across their own borders. ___ Another factor behind the Arab push for their own Iran strategy is linked to their frustration over the failure of Washington to stand up to Israel over its insistence on building on land the Palestinians want for a future state. Arab nations look increasingly less likely to align with the U.S. strategy on Iran if they feel they are getting nothing in return on Mideast peace efforts. ___ Skepticism is eroding Arab hopes that Obama will be able to help forge a deal between Israel and the Palestinians to end a conflict that has fueled anti-U.S. sentiment in the region. ___ In another sign of Arab disenchantment, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Tuesday that his country will press the summit to focus on what is widely believed to be a secret nuclear weapons program in Israel and pressure it to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ___ "The priority of Arab countries should be to force Israel to join the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA” ___ Modest lil ol me hates to say it Khairi, but this is just as I predicted. This is one step closer to developing the new world order, with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) (Russia, China, et al…soon to include Iran, India and Pakistan), the Arab League and the South American oil exporting countries joining together to dictate future events to the oil-dependent west…as the long predicted peak worldwide oil production event rapidly approaches.

The audience was rather less enthusiastic as Clinton defended her criticism of Israel. "New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines that mutual trust" between Israelis and Palestinians, she said. "And it exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit. It undermines America's unique ability to play a role, an essential role, in the peace process." ___ The crowd was still and quiet. The secretary of state worked her way rapidly through her text. Clinton, the former senator from New York and one of the strongest supporters Israel has in the U.S. government, deserved better. The cool treatment of an old friend is something AIPAC can ill afford at a time when there are so many actual foes to deal with. ___ Those attending the conference got a reminder of that when they walked into the gathering. Across the street were demonstrators carrying vile messages on signs: "God Hates Jews." "You Will Eat Your Babies." Others carried an Israeli flag defaced with a swastika. The liberal Code Pink group marched around the building hollering about "apartheid" and carrying a banner saying "Stop Israel War Crimes." ___ Hillary pressed all the right buttons, calling Iran's nuclear ambitions "unacceptable" four times. But when she asserted that "the Obama administration has worked to promote Israel's security and long-term success," there was only silence in the room. Finally, she addressed the controversy. Both Israel and the Palestinians, she said, "must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security or served their interests, nor has it served the interests of the United States." There was no applause. ___ It remained quiet as she called for a settlement "based on the '67 lines with agreed swaps" of territory. "It is our devotion to this outcome, two states for two peoples secure and at peace, that led us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in East Jerusalem," she said. "This is about getting to the table . . . and staying there until the job is finally done." ___ In the audience, the majority just sat and stared at their old friend.

"AIPAC Calls on the Israeli Government to Immediately Defuse Tensions with United States; Urges Israel to Freeze All Settlements." …said a prepared statement handed out by a man outside the AIPAC convention on Monday. ___ This was news: Even the pro-Israel lobbying group was not going to tolerate the humiliation of Joe Biden by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government, when it announced the construction of more housing in a disputed area of Jerusalem during the vice president's trip to the Jewish state. ___National Public Radio broadcast the statement to millions on "Morning Edition." ABC News ran with it, too. ___ Alas, AIPAC spokesman Josh Block pronounced the statement a forgery. Lol. ___ Indeed, the real AIPAC officials rallied to the Netanyahu government's defense. The only rebuke they delivered Monday was of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, their guest speaker. AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, departing from his prepared text, took a swipe at Clinton for calling Israel's insult of Biden "insulting." ___ "When disagreements inevitably arise, they should be resolved privately, as is befitting close allies," Kohr lectured. As Clinton waited backstage, he also informed her that the two nations "are allies, friends -- they should treat each other as such." Further, he said, alludeing to the housing construction: "Jerusalem is not a settlement." The lights went up, and the 7,500 in the hall jumped to their feet, applauding. ___ Sensing an opportunity, the loyal opposition joined with AIPAC in taking Netanyahu's side against the Obama administration. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), the Republican speaker at AIPAC's dinner Monday night, seconded Kohr's view that allies should "disagree quietly." Added Graham: "Howard said it best: Jerusalem is not a settlement! . . . No government in the United States should ever look at Jerusalem as a settlement!" ___ The place went wild. ___ The crowd got even more raucous when Netanyahu himself took a shot at the Obama administration. "Jerusalem is not a settlement -- it's our capital!" he said. The unrepentant prime minister nodded, waved and thanked the crowd for the extended applause. "Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement," he said.

One shares the sentiments of your good self Rick, as well as those of Prof. Walt, however still, I wonder to what extent Sec Clinton is going to go, over the the Palestinian issue, even if at the expense of US-Israel relations. It is still possible that there is the first time, but this first time would be the stuff of historical moments and not just a fizzled out event. Your good self and Prof Walt know better I suppose; so are there still politicians whom think of historical moments in the US?.

In her scheduled address to the conference, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Israel's existence but make it crystal clear that Washington will no longer tolerate Israel's self-defeating policy on settlements. She should explain unambiguously that Israel faces a choice: It can end the occupation, embrace a genuine two-state solution, preserve its democratic and Jewish character and remain a cherished U.S. ally. Or it can continue the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza -- a course that will eventually force it to abandon either its Jewish character or its democratic principles, and jeopardize its standing with its most important partner. This was written in today’s WP by Stephen M. Walt, the Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a co-author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." ___ Think that’s what she will say Khairi…I hope so but doubt it.

I think Rick, it will be a Trojan Horse speech. According to the little which one can work on, I think Mr. Netanyahu will declare a freeze on all settlement activities except in Jerusalem. And I fear that may will be acceptable to the Obama administration.

Yep Khairi, not only will Secretary Clinton meet with Mr. Netanyahu, but so will President Obama on the sidelines of the AIPAC meeting in Washington on Monday. Mr. Netanyahu is working hard on his speech which will reportedly be forceful. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

As I said before Shiveh, I think the saudis are for more prudent to make such statements, and I really do not understand this news item which I wrote about in my previous message. Therefore, I don't really think much has changed as far as whom "calls the shots" in the Middle East. I know Rick, your good self has futuristic scenarios about whom will "call the shots", but the for time being nothing much has changed as it seems. As your good self and Shiveh know by now, Mr. Mitchell will be back in the area, after suspending his trip in protest of the Israeli actions, and there is talk also that, Sec. Clinton will meet Mr. Netanyahu within a week.

Clinton told reporters in Washington that the United States has an "absolute commitment to Israel's security" -- a shift in nuance compared with her characterization Friday of the United States as a "strong supporter" of Israel's security. She also hailed the "close, unshakable bond" between the two countries, in contrast to her comment Friday that "our relationship is durable and strong." ___ Such distinctions may seem minor, but they carry weight in the Middle East, where every line and comma is scrutinized. The office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu immediately issued a statement saying that Israel "appreciates and respects the warm words" from Clinton on "the deep bond between the U.S. and Israel, and on the U.S. commitment to Israel's security."

That’s easy…Iran, Russia, China, Hezbollah, Hamas… not US/Israel.

Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the minority whip and the House's only Jewish Republican, called White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to express his outrage. "This attempt to curry favor with the Arabs by bullying Israel is not a wise move," Cantor said. ___ The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee said Sunday that "the Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel." ___ The American Jewish Committee said that the "sustained harsh criticism of Israel by senior Administration officials is unprecedented and could leave the impression of a cooling of our nation's relationship with Israel." ___ But J Street, a relatively new organization that has been courted by the White House, insisted that the Jewish community broadly supports a "bold new approach" such as Obama outlining the parameters of a peace deal -- a step the Israeli government opposes. ___ (Finally one that makes sense.)

The DEBKA report that I found most interesting (and unbelievable) Shiva and Khairi was “DEBKA file's exclusive sources report that already Friday, March 12, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave in to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's peremptory demand for a moratorium on construction in East Jerusalem for the duration of talks with the Palestinians in the indirect and direct stages. He issued the relevant instructions Sunday.” DEBKA file also says “Washington will keep twisting the Netanyahu government's arm until it toes the line on Iran.” (Not much chance that either.)

It only makes sense Shiva for Gen. Petraeus to want Palestine under his command. But the DEBKA claim that this would be “tantamount to providing the Palestinians with a US military shield against Israel” does not necessarily follow. ____U.S. military leaders have expressed concern that the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is hampering their efforts in the rest of the Middle East. In January, staff officers from the U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in much of the region, gave a briefing on that theme to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ___ "Clearly, the tensions, the issues and so forth have an enormous effect," Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. "My thrust has generally been . . . to encourage that process that can indeed get that recognition that you talked about, and indeed get a sense of progress moving forward in the overall peace process, because of the effect that it has on, particularly, what I think you would term the moderate governments in our area."

My friends Khairi and Rick! -------- The possibility of Saudi Arabia going against America’s wishes in order to help Israel attack a Muslim country shows how off balance the Middle East has become. Where do you think the new balance rests? How is it going to be achieved? A war may be? A game changing scandal perhaps? An assassination? Who is controlling the events?

I read the report Shiveh, and must say that, if it has even one iota of credibility, than this US step will be remembered by the whole of humanity for a very long time. I guess it would be the annals of history stuff. Mind you at the same time, CNN Arabic has quoted Der Spiegel the German Magazine, saying that the Saudis will allow the Israelis the use of their airspace in order to attack Iran, unlike the Americans whom apparently have denied the Israelis the use of Iraqi airspace for the same purpose. Somehow here also, I feel the Saudis are far more prudent than this.

From Debka files lead story - last paragraphs: ---- "The general denied he had as yet formally asked for the Palestinian territories to be transferred to his command, but added: "In fact, staff members at various times have discussed asking for the Palestinian territories to be added to CENTCOM's turf." debkafile's military sources explain that, if approved, this step would be tantamount to providing the Palestinians with an American military umbrella against Israel. More than one friend of Israel demurred against the Petraeus suggestion. Former presidential candidate, Republican Senator John McCain, caught on fast to the way the wind is blowing in Obama's Washington: During his testimony, he put in: "Isn't the issue not the issue of settlements as much as it is the existence of the state of Israel…? So maybe you could put it all into the larger context of what needs to be done to reduce tensions on the US's closest ally and friend in many respects." The general did not rise to the senator's challenge, except for a polite: "Absolutely true." Some of the more respectable US and British media are playing up the theme that Israel has shot itself in the foot and therefore deserves what's coming, namely escalating punishment from the Obama administration."---- Obama is a master in doubling up. Let's see if bibi can shrug this one off.

That’s right Khairi, but what is their motive? At first they wanted to bankroll our purchase of Chinese goods, which was a boon to the Chinese manufacturing and export industries. Then they got the government hooked on using borrowed currency to finance our huge defense budget, unfunded domestic social services, such as the healthcare bucreaucracy. ___ Now they realize that the current imbalance of capital flow is unsustainable, and are beginning to withdraw their support. They will do this slowly and carefully to minimize the impact to the value of their holdings of US debt, but in the end they intend to replace the US peso with some other form of currency as the world standard. ___ The US is like the drug addict who cannot control his habit. This is true of our dependence on imported oil as well as foreign debt. The SCO (Russia, China and Iran) has us right where it wants us, serving as our supplier much like the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels. ___ As for containing Iran…forget about it. We do not have Iran surrounded. On the contrary, Iran, with her allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Russia, and China has Israel and the Persian Gulf surrounded, and will have no difficulty dictating the future course of events to the west and the Middle East. ___ As for Capitol Hill reigning in the Israeli settlements…that will never happen, despite our fondest wishes.

From what one can gather Rick, I can say that the US seems to be heading for a policy of containment towards Iran; that is if modern history is any guide, and one as a trained historian has always believed that history is a bad paradigm for the present and the future. Still, if your good self remembers, no Washington administration had accepted before that, China can have nuclear weapons. Not only China got them, but is actually bankrolling the US economy now. How many times did former President Bush; with supposedly his Neo-Con allies say, that it was unacceptable for N.Korea to have nuclear weapons?, it got tham and put its own people on a starvation diet. Therefore, and one can only speculate, but I think Iran is heading on the same path. It will get its nuclear weapons, and the hope in the current Washington administration will remain that, Iran will change its world outlook because after all it is not a suicidal country.

as the next step regarding the current crisis with israel, is very important, but what?. One does share your good self's opinion Rick on this matter, as well as the opinion of our friend Shiveh also, but to tell you the truth at the same; though as I said intellectually I do agree with both of you, yet emotionally I still feel that Capitol Hill may well take a stand this time over the settlements issue. Having said that, I wonder here again, what kind of a stand?, especially in the light of the recent statements by the Washington administration to the effect that, israel remains a strong strategic all y of the US, and that there are no differences over core issues between the two countries. There are certainly strong words from washington, but Mr. Netanyahu is very much used to criticism unfortunately.

Iran has us right where they want us…pulling out of Iraq and bogged down for a long, hard and fruitless slog in Afghanistan. ___ Maliki is on the way to a big win in Iraq and already forming his coalition of power. He will be strongly influence by Iran, as are Syria and Lebanon. ___ Iran’s application for membership in the SCO will be granted by Russia, China and the other member states. ___ Russia already has Europe at her mercy for energy supplies. The Iran/SCO axis will soon have the same leverage over the USA. ___ China is buying up energy companies in South America and oil fields in Iran. Our continued servitude to Israel will drive leaders of our allied Arab Gulf states into the SCO axis as well if they want to hold on to their thrones and their heads.

That’s the title of one article in today’s WP. I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you Khairi. What do you think? Will Netanyahu oblige? Not likely. What will Obama do about it? Not a thing. ___ Shiveh makes a good point. Obamas’s pet project right now is getting the healthcare bill approved, an unlikely event anyway, even without Bibi leaning on the senators in his hip pocket. Bibi wouldn’t threaten to do that would he Shiveh? Surely not. I’m shocked…shocked…that you would even suggest it!!! ___ I wonder how many senators Bibi owns…in addition to Lieberman and McCain I mean. ___Bets? I bet no change is announced in Bibi’s plan to build the new housing in East Jerusalem, the Proximity Talks will go on as planned, and nothing substantive will come of them.

US- Israel relation is putting an increasingly heavier burden on the American side, and at the time that we can afford it the least it is natural to be hyper-sensitive. It looks like Obama is getting impatient with Israelis half-hearted promises to negotiate with Palestinians and to keep their warplanes off the Iranian airspace and is demanding an ironclad promise from bibi to follow the American lead. They are hinting that otherwise bibi is history. It doesn’t look like bibi is impressed. By the way, how many senators can bibi deliver for the healthcare bill? Or better yet; how many can he dissuade? Think of it as spectator sport of this week and enjoy watching. It is someone else’s game anyway!

What I am reading Rick, is that the current crisis between the U.S and Israel, is the worst for the last 35 years. I know that the relationship had suffered differences before, but now, whether the issue is mediatic hyperbole in the States and Israel, or not, I really don't know, but from events on the ground, it looks like the coming few weeks or probably days, will show whether the whole issue is really a storm in a teas cup, or there is more to it than that. One doesn't want to indulge in wishful thinking; as your good self knows well, it is not a trait of mine, but American mid-term elections, and in less than couple of weeks Arab League Leaders meeting in Libya, would make it; I assume, difficult for the Washington administration to find a compromise on its relationship with Israel. On the one hand, it will find it difficult to rock the boat internally, since all politics is local in the US, and will find it difficult to remain on the current course with Israel as far as the Arab world is concerned; especially the moderate Arabs, whom will see how the US will react after declaring in its own words, that it has been offended by Israel

From what I see Khairi, it is a tempest in a teapot. Hilary was obliged to do some ranting and raving but it is all for show. Soon all will be forgiven and the talks will resume. Not that they have anywhere to go. The Israelis will never give up on their claim to an undivided Jerusalem as their capitol, nor will the Palestinians give up on their claim to East Jerusalem. Neither will the Israelis ever return to their pre1967 borders or give up on expanding their West Bank settlements.

Sec. Clinton is upset with Mr. Netanyahu, over the declaration of the Israeli government to build extra housing in Jerusalem. Mr. netanyahu is upset with his Minister of Interior for making the declaration while Mr. Biden was in Israel. Mr. Biden; as far as one could see and read, did not really seem so offended, and accroding to Mr. Netanyahu, the issue was resolved there and then with Mr. Biden. On the other side, Mr. Abbas is cheering Sec. Clinton as well as the Quartet for their condemnation of the Israeli housing activities in Jerusalem. The ultimate issue Rick; since your good self is in the USA, do you get an inclinations, on how the Washington administration is likely to react next towards Israel {Please realistically}?. Or do you see the administration, far too concerned to get Mr. Abbas to talk; proximity or otherwise, to bother with this lover's tif?.

paris/france is delusional.......don't worry my 'heavies' will personally collect said tie.....duck..... machine gun fire!

I suppose Rick, your good self has still a glimmer of hope. Mr. Abbas told the Arab League Chief Mr. Amr Musa, that the Palestinians will not go to proximity talks, after Israel has announced building 1600 housing units north of Jerusalem. The Israeli rational is that, Jerusalem is not a settlement rather, the capital of Israel. Back the yoyo.

HUWA. Well Goose, had I got the tie; especially that it is from you, I would have certainly worn it despite the fact that; if you remember Dear Goose, I've been wearing bow-ties for the last 25 years. Everything in you brings good luck, and my bad luck is the result of not recieving the tie. By the way, my old offer still stands.

Dear Rick, Call me a hapless romantic but I wanted to retrieve 'my colours' a beautiful silk Hermes tie in gold and red geometric patterns 1997 season, that I bought for my fiance, a modest gentleman who refused to accept the gift at the time. In my haste Khairi was the the third person(!)I sent it to so that it would be worn, but quite evidently it brings bad luck to the owners of said tie!I am however prepared to swap the tie for one I bought my late father. I must add if this generous final offer is refused Rick,I would consider McDonald's too good for him, how about clubbing together for a voucher at Walmart?

And here I was setting my sight at Maxim's. Mind you Rick, I suppose the whole Middle East is worth a Big Mac without the fries. The Goose can buy the fries.

Give him hell Goose. What are colours, anyway, the British Flag? Were you an ambassador to Jordan on Khairi's watch? ___ You see how he treats me!! Claiming to give me a sure bet to get even, when we all know that he is suckering me in again. Formal talks are more likely to occur than not; now that the Arabs have pushed Abbas to enter into proximity talks. ___ Come on in!!! Jump into pool and get your feet wet. Take a stance. Risk a bet. Be a man. After all, we are only talking about dinner at MacDonald's here.

Khairi,That was a pretty low blow for even your standards!No honour amongst thieves.....is this the world of skull duggery that you invited me to?*! Hey Rick... wake up here I need your help.

I was joking really. I have been really out of the loop for so long that, I barely remember my past life. Unfortunately, I honestly have no clue what is happening in my old job. I am completely detached, and even doubt that anyone in the old job remembers, or rather knows me.

Hurray, knock out, what a chump .........I walk like a butterfly and sting like a bee! Should I send my address to you via Abbas and Madge? Do they still reside in Earls Court?

Ok, Rick, so that you can have another chance at getting even, I would say that, by the end of the 4 months of proximity talks, or even before, there will be direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. As for a final settlement, I really cannot say, because that might take a little longer. In any case it depends on the definition of a final settlement. The gap is still to big to envisage such a thing. On the question of China and Russia to join in the sanctions against Iran. I think I would be a fool to bet on that. Here I totally agree with your good self.

With such an offer, consider your clours safe and in one piece at your in your closet.

Dear Khairi and Rick (hello), Thank you for your kind invitation to join 'the circle'. I'm afraid as Khairi will tell you I'm not really a political animal but have enjoyed very much this crash course in International Relations........I'm more a student of the spirit. How about I open up negotiations for the return of 'my colours'......my opening gambit will be two tickets for Khairi and his wife to see Wagner's Ring cycle (a suitable forfeit!)

U.S.-mediated indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians will be a last chance to keep the Middle East peace process alive, the Palestinian chief negotiator said on Monday. "The relationship has deteriorated to this stage where the U.S. is trying to save this peace process with the last attempt -- by the way, mark my words -- this will be the last attempt in order to see if it can be a tool to make decisions between Palestinians and Israelis," Saeb Erekat told Israel Army Radio. ___ Ah so, here is another excellent opportunity for a friendly wager Khairi. We must not let it pass. At the end of four months let us say, will the results be in? Will a tentative agreement be struck to: (1) continue with the proximity talks awhile more, (2) up the ante to formal direct talks at the Prime Minister/President level, or (3) abandon all hope and break off talks completely once again. ___ I pick option 3, what say your good self and The Goose.

…on your magnificent victory. I am glad to agree that our first night out on the town is at my expense. This is one wager that I a happy to lose. Now that negotiations are at long last under way, let’s hope that I will also be treating you to a second (or third) night out within two years (by January 2012) when the new Palestinian State is finally established. ___ Let’s see, we do have a third wager on the table I believe. Will President Obama convince Russia and China to join in imposing “crippling” sanctions on Iran by June of this year? Aha! I doubt it. Maybe I will get even before I have an opportunity to pay. We will see. Maybe we can bring our friend The Goose in our friendly wagers.

Well Rick, Mr. Abbas has accepted the proximity talks to start (indirect negotiation) between the Palestinians and the Israelis, without even partial freeze of settlements activities as proposed before by the Israelis, and which he had rejected as a pre-condition for talks. I guess this settles the question of the wager.

It would be great if you could join us in our conversations "Goose". Rick and myself have been at it for some time now, and it is a privilige to have Rick as an interlocuter. I doubt had I been in gainfull employment my contributions would have changed either in length or in frequency. Anyway, life goes on I suppose {a cliche I hate}, and I think humbly you should conctinue trying to retrieve the colours. I am sorry, I wish I could do something old chum.

Dear Khairi Good to see that you're still onboard and am sorry to hear that you have now joined me as a fully fledged member of a not so exclusive club....could this explain the reason for the length of your conversation with Rick(!)Thanks for informing me of the changes. By the way, I still have not given up on retrieving 'my colours' chum.....cheerio pip pip

Apart from the feeling good factor, for those whom impose sanctions, in the case of Iran, it is highly unlikely that such sanctions will deter Iran from pursuing its nuclear goals. Therefore, uless theoretically the 5+1 countries are willing to waith for decades to see the effects of those sanctions while Iran continues to develop its nuclear programme, the whole exercise is doomed to failure. I don't know what is on the mind of the Iranian leadership, but if the western countries expect the sanctions to be a casus belli for Iran to react violently against western interests, then I would say this a very long shot in the dark, because the regime in Tehran sits very comfortably in the region, and I doubt will venture into an adventure which is likely to make loose much of its current gains. Indeed everyone is entitled to ask, what next if the sanctions fail?. However unfortunately the real question is, since the sanctions are already a failure, and more sanctions will lead to more failure, is the US and its allies going to g to war?.

The cynical (and usually correct) critique of economic sanctions was summed up this way by a retired U.S. diplomat named Douglas Paal: "Sanctions always accomplish their principal objective, which is to make those who impose them feel good." ___ What's certain is that the Iranian nuclear issue is heading into a more intense phase of confrontation -- starting with the push for tougher U.N. sanctions. The Gulf countries have been asking what the administration plans to do if the sanctions don't work: That's the big foreign policy question of 2010, and Washington is beginning now to think about the answer. ___ The above comments from David Ignatius in today’s WP.

Indeed, I stand corrected, for we have abandoned God, and it is so much easier to blame the Almighty because, it is there where we find the epitomy of forgiveness. Humans usually I find harder to forgive. Unfortunately, I have been living in France since the summer of 2007, in unemployment, with no contact at all with my previous job, and I have no knowledge at all of the changes of staff. Therefore I apologise for not knowing what is going on, and apologise also for not being able to help.

Dear Khairi Interesting exchanges much to ponder on (!) however I would like to make one comment, you state 'the Almighty has abandoned the area' correction WE have abandoned the Almighty. As a foot note will you kindly return 'my colours' I sent you a replacement via Lyn two years ago and you've held onto both illegally I hasten to add!

More ideas are floating around in order to; I assume, circumvent the real issues once more, regarding the future of the Palestinian state. Now there is talk for tel-Aviv to be the Israeli capital, Ramallah the Palestinian capital and Jerusalem a sacred city. Where and how, is this Palestinian state is going to come about?, and more importantly, what are the borders of Israel?. I guess no one seems to know or wanting to venture to know, because the devil as always, is in the details. Somehow Rick, I get the feeling that everyone is waiting for a miracle to happen; or an Act Majeure to solve the Palestinian problem. Indeed, the area is actually very much suitable for miracles since it is the craddle of such things, but in the 21st century?. I think the Almighty has abandoned the area.

What is there to loose Rick?. If some sort of an agreement emerges within the next 4 months, well, all's well and dandy. If not, I suppose the traversty of justice well just continue business as usual.

I think the 4-month deadline is to hold the US/Israeli axis’s feet to the fire and insist on immediate action or else call a stop to the charade. We don’t want to give the US/Israeli axis cover to continue the violation of Geneva convention laws governing land gained by force of war, as Israel continues on its merry way of gobbling up West Bank land. It is a plea for the world powers to do something to put an immediate stop to this outrage.

The issue Rick, is that this the US request, and I really don't know what the purpose of 4 months when compared to an experience of over 16 years of negotiations?. The cover seems to be only in terms of the meeting of the Arab Leaders Conference this month, so that at least no one proposes; a likely possibility, to withdraw the Arab peace plan from the table, and put the whole circumstance of thegtalk of peace into more problems and dead-ends.

As you note below Khairi, the meeting of Arab League Foreign Ministers in Cairo has paved the way and provided cover for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to enter four months of indirect, American-brokered peace talks with Israel. ___ Also as you note below, nothing will come of this. ___ Yossi Alpher, an Israeli analyst, said success is unlikely because the gaps between the two sides are too wide. "It is extremely unlikely that Israeli-Palestinian final status talks can succeed under the present circumstances. Is it better to have talks that fail once again, or not to have them, and work in alternative directions? Because I think their failure is a given."

I think Rick, Mr. Abbas is waiting to see what the Arab foreign ministers decide in Cairo, on whether they advise him to go for the indirect negotiations or not. He seems to want to put this responsibility on the shoulders of the Arabs, so that he can say ultimately, I was forced to do to the negotiations because the Arab brethren forced. I think whether he goes or not is superfluous under the circumstances, because Israel is carrying out what it wants when it wants; on the so called Palestinian territories with impunity.

Apparently President Obama’s response to Palestinian questions was not good enough Khairi, for even indirect talks to begin. What were the questions I wonder? Do you know? Probably something like this: Will the agenda be topped by: (1) the date for construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem to halt, and (2) the date for Israel to complete its withdrawal into pre-1967 borders. __ The Ramallah-based Palestinian cabinet convened in the city of Hebron on Monday in protest against the Israeli plan to include West Bank religious sites in a Jewish heritage plan. (This is what you reported on earlier below Khairi). The cabinet headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad listed the project among Israeli "provocations" including plans for 600 new homes on occupied land in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital.

Israel is a state so small that it could not likely survive a nuclear strike. It feels that Iran’s civilian nuclear power program is simply a mask for a more nefarious weapons project and wants it stopped by severe sanctions if possible, and military force if necessary. As Israel lacks the muscle to achieve this itself, it is attempting to pressure the Americans to handle the issue. Israel is reasonably confident it can so pressure Washington, simply because while Israel lacks the punch to certifiably end the Iranian program, it most certainly has the ability to start a war. Since Iran’s best means of retaliating would be to interrupt oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, the United States would have no choice but to get involved, regardless of its independent desires. ___ [This is the interesting introduction to an article that appears at Stratfor.com Khairi. Israel seems to have us (or think they have us) over a barrel so to speak. I think the best option for the U.S. is to mount an immediate preemptive strike to completely destroy the Israeli Air Force and long range missiles. What do you think? Want to make a bet that President Obama will heed my good advice? Lol, no bet.]

Indeed Rick, the joke is with a very bad taste, because while Syria held a council of war with Iran, Hizbullah and all the Palestinian opposition groups, the washington administration has really very little to offer anyone anything anymore. Unfortunately, the foreign policy of the Obama administration has neither been convincing in terms of worthiness to his friends and allies in the region, nor has managed to win his enemies. Though for all intents and purposes, the US foreign policy seems to have lost its rudder, yet, the only saving grace in my humble opinion would be, the fact that the US still needs Syria for its Middle Eastern perspective, and Syria needs still the USA for future investments and the return of Golan Heights.

That is what Iran and Syria think of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. I must agree with them Khairi. ___ The presidents of Iran and Syria on Thursday ridiculed U.S. policy in the region and pledged to create a Middle East "without Zionists," combining a slap at recent U.S. overtures and a threat to Israel with an endorsement of one of the region's defining alliances. ___ The United States wants "to dominate the region, but they feel Iran and Syria are preventing that," Ahmadinejad said. "We tell them that instead of interfering in the region's affairs, to pack their things and leave." Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel's eventual "demise and annihilation" and said the countries of the region could create a future "without Zionists and without colonialists." ___ Assad criticized what he regarded as the United States' "new situation of colonialism" in the region, with troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pressure on Syria to split from Iran, a friendship Assad emphasized was secure even given Syria's faltering economy. ___ The joint appearance and tone of the remarks come as an answer of sorts to the U.S. decision to send an ambassador, Robert Ford, to Damascus after pulling its representative in protest over the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Hariri's killing was among a wave of assassinations in Lebanon attributed to Syria and its allies.

Difficutl to tell Rick. I mean the US declared on tuesday that, it will not seek crippling sanctions against Iran, while Mr. Gates agrees during the meeting with Mr. barak, that crippling sanctions are important against Iran. Either US officials are catering their discourses according to their various audiences, or no one knows nowadays where the buck stops, or the 5+1 countries keep changing their mind about how this Uranium enrichment should proceed, or even, maybe all is in aid of future military action against Iran, in terms of current subterfuge.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that U.S. diplomacy has moved China closer to the American view that Iran's continuing refusal to come clean on its nuclear program demands tough new U.N. sanctions. ___ "We hope that the next 30 to 60 days will see a sanctions resolution emerge in New York," she said, referring to U.N. headquarters, where she said U.S. diplomats are working out sanctions language. ___ Iran has formally set out its terms for giving up most of its cache of enriched uranium in a confidential document - and the conditions fall short of what has been demanded by the United States and other world powers. ___ Washington has dismissed the document - seen by The Associated Press on Tuesday - as a "red herring" and warned it would consult with its allies on new penalties on Iran to punish it for its nuclear defiance. ___ The document says Tehran is ready to hand over the bulk of its stockpile, as called for under a deal brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency and endorsed by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany. ___ But Iran adds that it must simultaneously receive fuel rods for its research reactor in return, and that such an exchange must take place on Iranian territory. ___ The Iranian offer was sure to be rejected by the six powers, which have waited for nearly six months for such an official answer. ___ [I wonder why it will be rejected Khairi. Do you know?]

I would say Rick, there needs to be far more pressure from the west and the USA, on both China and Russia, for this oproposed sanctions regime to work against Iran. In essence, what is it that the US can give Russia?, indeed at a time when Russia is looking after its own interests more than what Iran does or doesn,t do. I suppose, the question of Russian missiles to Tehran can be taken as a good gesture from Russia, which the Washington administration needs to build on. As for China, maybe the Washington administration should just accedpt that, China is not going to chip in the sanctions effort, and reconcile itself that, the sanctions can be biting, but not necessarily crippling as desired. In this context, one would assume that, the situation is likely to develop into one like an accident waiting to happen, especially if Iran thinks it is being provokes.

The fact that both Netanyahu and Papandreou were in Moscow this week Khairi — and that they were both asking for a favor — is an indication of the growing consolidation of Russia’s power and marks the Kremlin’s return to the center of Eurasian geopolitics. Iran, an oil producer, imports between 25 and 30 percent of its gasoline due to a lack of refining capacity. Russia is central to an effort to squeeze Iran with gasoline import sanctions because Moscow is a permanent — and thus veto-bearing — member of the U.N. Security Council, and because it could easily ship gasoline to Iran via its former Soviet Union neighbors (Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan in particular) if sanctions are imposed by the West outside of the United Nations.___ While Russia sits in the catbird seat, China is in a less enviable spot. China has shown little inclination to buy into the American scheme to wean itself off Iranian oil and substitute Saudi oil in its place. In recent months China has not only continued importing from Iran, but also accelerated its exports of gasoline to Iran and hastened deals allowing one of China’s roving national oil companies to produce natural gas in Iran’s giant South Pars field. Beijing has consistently opposed talk of Iranian sanctions, emphasizing diplomatic efforts instead, and variously delaying and downgrading its participation in P-5+1 negotiations since late December. China is decidedly against Iranian sanctions in the interests of the country’s energy security and economic stability. Iran is China’s third largest oil supplier, providing 11 percent of China’s total — this is reason enough for China to resist sanctions. ___ Yet there is little China can do to stop the sanctions drive. Unlike Russia, Chinese participation is not a prerequisite to a successful sanctions regime. It is logistically more difficult for China to circumvent sanctions, as the land routes are too long and the sea routes are at least implicitly subject to American naval coercion. This means Washington does not have to negotiate with Beijing, as it does with Moscow, to address its chief concerns and try to win it over. The Chinese are external to the international diplomatic process, and while they can veto a resolution authorizing U.N. sanctions, that would only encourage the United States to lead its allies in taking action outside the United Nations, diluting the influence of one of Beijing’s primary international platforms. ___ Worst of all for China, an outright rejection of sanctions, or an attempt to undermine them, would result in greater external pressure from an American administration that has already shown its willingness to target China’s economy through trade protections and other tools. Of course, the United States has not yet clinched the deal on sanctions. Much remains to be done, and (crucially) Russia has not committed either way, giving Beijing room to maneuver. Still, in essence, Beijing has no way to stop sanctions against Iran, and to oppose them it must decide if it is ready to withstand the American reaction. ___ The above remarks are from Stratfor.com Khairi. I don’t think the US would dare interdict Chinese shipping of oil and refined gasoline exports/imports with Iran do you. We have an interesting bet going here. Will “crippling” sanctions be imposed by the West, or won’t they. No way I say.

India is worried Khairi, that a quick U.S. pullout from Afghanistan would bring greater U.S. reliance on China and Pakistan at India's expense. Obama's choices about China, India, Japan and Pakistan loom at least as large as the urgent challenges of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ___ The notion of a G-2 directorate in which the United States and China collude to determine global economic and political direction is increasingly colliding with reality. Tensions over Taiwan, trade and Tibet make the G-2 unworkable, as recent events have again shown. But the specter lingers for Asians as well as Europeans that Obama will be tempted to try -- even though a failed G-2 would be the worst possible outcome for everyone. ___ "The G-2 carries the implication that the United States would leave Asia to China to run," says B.J. Panda, a rising young political star in India. "We have to balance the Chinese, irrespective of what the U.S. and others do" adds another Indian strategist. ___ Pakistan has become a second-tier problem for India, even as it increasingly preoccupies Washington. What one Indian analyst described as "Obama's nuclear alarmism" also gives Pakistan increased leverage over Washington. ___ India has secured military transit and stationing rights at an airbase in Tajikistan. And Singh's government lavishly welcomed Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, on a recent three-day visit that included publicity about plans for joint military maneuvers in the Indian Ocean. ___ These are clear signs of Indian hedging: seeking allies for worst-case scenarios while accommodating China on economic matters.

One would say Rick, beginning to mid-March. Moreover, with one quick look at the crystal ball, I would venture to say, by May, Iran is likely to do something rash which will lead to military response.

It’s a bet…and the time frame is? This one should not take two years to resolve, lol. And the requirement is that “crippling” sanctions will be slapped on Iran, defined as an embargo on refined gasoline imports to Iran, and approved by the UN Security Council with no Chinese or Russian veto. __ The deadline is what…? December 31, 2010?

From what is going on Rick, your good self will be surprised at, what the US is trying to do now in the Middle East, as cwell as with China and Russia. I think encircling Iran very soon will take place, with Russian and Chinese nod, in addition, Arab support is on the way. Another wager dear Sir?. Though one is no gambling man.

"Iran leaves the international community little choice but to impose greater costs for its provocative steps," U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton told a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar on Sunday. ___ Clinton is due to visit Saudi Arabia for talks with King Abdullah Monday, continuing her tour to seek Arab countries' backing for action against Iran and support for talks between Israel and the Palestinians. ___ U.S. officials have hinted that one way Saudi Arabia could help diplomatically would be to offer China, a major consumer of Iranian crude, guarantees it would meet its oil requirements, a step that might ease Beijing's resistance to new sanctions. ___ Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel which says its existence would be threatened by a nuclear armed Iran, said he would urge Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, when they meet in Moscow Monday, to back "crippling sanctions. ___ But in a move that will concern Israel, a leading member of Russia's Security Council said sanctions were no reason to stop it shipping an order of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. "This deal is not restricted by any international sanctions, because the talk is about deliveries of an exclusively defensive weapon," Vladimir Nazarov, deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council, said ahead of Netanyahu's visit. ___ Lol, there is no way, Khairi, that the US/Israeli axis will bring the Arab leaders, Russia and China inline to enforce “crippling” or even moderate sanctions against Iran; especially while the Israelis continue their annexation of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and beat the drums of war with Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

JERUSALEM -- The small Palestinian community in the Sheikh Jarrah area of East Jerusalem began as an experiment by the United Nations after Israel was created in 1948 -- an effort to keep 28 families out of refugee camps by providing them with homes of their own. ___ But the promised property titles were never delivered, and more than a half-century later, with the original dwellings expanded into multi-family, multi-generational compounds, the residents face eviction as a long legal battle nears its end in the Israeli courts. ___ [So much for the moral and legal authority of the United Nations. Its immoral and illegal establishment of the apartheid “State of Israel” in 1947/48 on Palestinian land carries exactly the same weight...zero.]

It is certainly a good thing, that some dunoms have been given back Rick, but unfortunately, there are Israeli plans to create something called "Biblical gardens" in areas which are outside Jerusalem {old city}, which will effectively tear apart the Palestinians areas.

Do you know what 2300 dunam is? ___ "This is an achievement and a victory for the popular resistance, but this is not enough -- 2,300 dunam (575 acres) were confiscated from Bilin's land, 750 dunam (188 acres) were regained," said demonstrator Iyad Bornat about the rerouting of the Israeli fence. ___ A ruling by the World Court in 2004 said the barrier was illegal.

There is no instant gratification in the Middle East or anywhere else Khairi. A few more decades will not be the end of history.

… Opponents of Israel's contentious separation barrier in the West Bank scored a long-awaited victory Thursday when the government began rerouting the enclosure to eat up less of a Palestinian village that has become a symbol of anti-wall protests and the site of frequent clashes. ___ The move comes 2 1/2 years after Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the barrier must be moved…___ Weekly protests near Bilin have become a symbol of the Palestinians' struggle against the barrier's encroachment on West Bank land, which they claim for their future state. Six protesters have been killed and dozens injured in clashes with Israeli forces over it. ___ Bulldozers were on site Thursday and tracks for the new route were being laid down. Anti-barrier activist Khatib Abu Rahmeh said the Israeli military informed village officials that the new route would return 346 acres (140 hectares) of farmland to the village and adjacent communities. Some 575 acres (232 hectares) - more than half of Bilin's land - were confiscated to build a barrier loop around the expanding Jewish settlement of Modiin Ilit, cutting off villagers from their fields. ___ In late 2007, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government to modify the route through Bilin, dismissing its argument that the current route was necessary to protect residents of the Jewish settlement. The judges ordered the government to come up with a new route in a "reasonable period of time." [2.5 years is reasonable?]

"We have reliable information ... that the Zionist regime is after finding a way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats from the people of Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah," Ahmadinejad told Syria's Bashar al-Assad, referring to conflicts in 2006 and 2009. ___ "If the Zionist regime should repeat its mistakes and initiate a military operation, then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all." Ahmadinejad said Iran would remain on the side of regional nations including Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. The Islamic Republic does not recognize Israel, which it refers to as the Zionist regime. Israel sees Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat and has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the row. ___ [Nah…just so much blunderbuss eh Khairi and Shiveh? The end for the Zionist regime is surely coming but still a few decades away.]

I think that your good self is right as usual Khairi. The Arab leaders are too smart to attack directly the overwhelming might of the US/Israeli war machine. They will continue the approach of the last few decades of attacking this axis indirectly with asymmetric guerrilla warfare techniques that have proven so effective over the past few decades. As Mao wrote "the guerrilla must swim in the people as the fish swims in the sea." This will continue for a few more decades until the US/Israeli axis falls of its own weight after literally running out of gas.

I suppose everything is possible Rick, after all, we are talking about the Middle East. However, the more I see politicians from all sides, shouting and threatening I get the feeling they are all preparing for talks rather than preparing for war. As for Mr. Abbas, I think he is in a bad predicament with harly any friend to support his position; either in the wider international community or even in the Arab world. he will have to go back to the negotiations table.

President Mahmoud Abbas said on Tuesday from Japan that he expects U.S. clarification on "proximity talks" on an indirect basis, under closer U.S. mediation within a week. Israel has agreed to the formula but Abbas has said he will announce a decision after hearing answers to some questions he has put to Washington. ___ speaking at a seminar in Tokyo, Abbas said that his government was keeping the door open to the U.S. proposal, but stressed that he was still waiting to hear from Washington. Abbas said that he expected U.S. Middle East special envoy George Mitchell to get back to him with further clarification about the talks a week from now. After that, his government could consult with other Arab leaders and make a decision. ___ His comments came a day after Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, visiting Tokyo with Abbas, said the proximity talks should focus on border issues and their timeframe should be limited to a maximum of three to four months. Abbas has rejected a limited, 10-month construction freeze ordered by Israel in November as insufficient, particularly for excluding Jerusalem. ___ What do you think Khairi and Shiveh? I think that Abbas is not contemplating caving in to U.S. pressure and resuming negotiations as suggested by Khairi. Rather he is turning the pressure back on Obama and Mitchell by insisting that any resumed talks, at any level, will be focused on getting Israel to climb back into its pre-1967 box and stopping its wholesale annexation of East Jerusalem. Of course Israel will not do this, so it will be interesting to watch the Obama/Mitchell response.

BEIRUT -- Lebanon's prime minister voiced concern Wednesday about "escalating" Israeli war threats, and said his government will support the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah if a new war breaks out with the Jewish state. ___"We hear a lot of Israeli threats day in and day out," Hariri said. "Every day we have Israeli warplanes entering Lebanese airspace. This is something that is escalating, and this is something that is really dangerous." "I think they're (Israelis) betting that there might be some division in Lebanon, if there is a war against us," Hariri said. "There won't be a division in Lebanon. We will stand against Israel. We will stand with our own people." ___ Israel's foreign minister brushed aside the Lebanese leader's warning. "As prime minister, he's simply a hostage of Hezbollah, which has veto power in his Cabinet," Avigdor Lieberman told Israel's Army Radio. ___ Lebanon's president warned Israel Tuesday that a war against Lebanon will be "no picnic." Last week, Syria's foreign minister accused Israel of "spreading an atmosphere of war" in the region after Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that the stalled peace process with Syria could result in an all-out regional war. Walid al-Moallem warned Israelis that "a war at this time will be transferred to your cities." Lieberman said the Syrians "crossed a red line" and warned Syria its army would be defeated and its regime would collapse in a future conflict. ___ Yep Khairi and Shiveh, they are beating the drums of war.

Actually Rick, Israel has earmarked 15 billion$ for its project of Israelification of jerusalem by the year 2020.

For someone like yours sincerely Shiveh; whom had actively promoted peace, I can't but express my sense of disappointment at the current situation in the Middle East. Indeed war is still likely at any time, but one trusts the balance of destruction which exists in the area, and the realisation that if this balance is altered, destruction will not only affect Jordan but the whole region. At the same time, Jordan will not replace Israel as a security force for the convenvience of Tel Aviv. If Mr. Netanyahu has ears then he should hear what HM the King has said, moreover, if the current administration has ears also, they should listen to the words of HM King Abdullah IInd. One thing I must add Shiveh, and not either out of patriotism or chauvinism or any other reason/s, Jordan has been through plenty of turmoil since its birth; much worse than the current situation and still managed to come on top, therefore, there is no reason at all, why it shouldn't come on top again. Also, Jordan never actually desired war ever, but when it was forced on it, it wasn't afraid of war. Well Rick, irrespective of outcomes, all are invited for a lovely meal here in paris.

The Israelis are arresting tax evaders in an East Jerusalem refugee camp. So the Israelis, who illegally occupy East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, in violation of the Fourth Geneva convention governing war crimes, are arresting the Palestinian refugees who were illegally forced from their homes in the first place, for refusing to pay taxes to the occupying government. Rich!!! ___ Excellent analogy Shiveh! Israelis view the West Bank as the heart of Israel, and an undivided Jerusalem as their God given eternal capital. The Good King Abdullah IInd’s governance is very much at risk. The two (or 3) state solution is dead before arrival. Want to join in on our friendly wager, and join me and my wife for a night out on the town in Paris at our good friend Khairi’s expense, in just two short years from now? Maybe we can bring Robert in our bet too?

Dear Khairi, A new ME war might be in the cards, this summer perhaps it'll trump all negotiation (non)efforts. Massive preparation for war in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Iran and the Persian Gulf (US), plus Ahmadinejads belligerence is all the trigger happy Israelis need to initiate a reshuffling of cards in the region. At the moment there is nothing open to negotiation and I think all except Mitchell and Obama understand this. Players are waiting for a fresh deck of cards and a new hand to start a new game! // If Obama succeeds in making a deal with the Chinese (stops the weapon sale to Taiwan for China agreeing to Iran sanctions; as he did with Russians by dropping plan for missile batteries in its “near Abroad”) then Obama may be able to force the Israelis to wait, otherwise a war is something even Americans may find useful before midterm elections. // I enjoyed watching the king’s interview with Fareed Zakaria. It looks like he is quite willing and able to lead Jordanians to a better life. But can Jordan and the monarchy survive another war in the Middle East? He is trying to keep the Palestinians out (the ones still in the West Bank) But I bet you that any Israeli looking at Israel’s map sees the West Bank as a “natural” part of Israel. It looks like a heart that shouldn’t be carved out!! The remaining choice would be to drive Palestinians to the other side of the river. At the moment it is not in the cards and the monarchy is safe . . . but after reshuffling the cards . . . Palestinians could be either part of Israel or part of Jordan. Two (3) state solution is dying fast. What do you think?

I don't know for how long, Rick, Mr. Abbas will be able to withstand US and international pressure to return to the table of neogtiations?. I mean he is saying now to the Israelis freeze the building of settlements for just 3 months. Probably if they wait, it might become freeze for a week !!. In any case, his recent overtures to Hamas, I think go to placate Palestinian public opinion before he returns to the table of neogtiations.

We’ve been wondering where our favorite neocon went. Welcome back Robert. Kick your shoes off and stick around for awhile.

I think the current impass and stagnation in the peace process Rick, make one think that unfortunately, this stagnation and impass will only be resolved through a major war that will shake up the region. After all, it is certainly in the interest of Israel to start such a war in order the deflect attention away from its stance regarding the peace process, while at the same time, it is certainly in the interest of Iran to start a war also, to deflect attention away from its nuclear progarmme. What remains really, is to guess where the next arena of this conflict will take place; Lebanon or Gaza?. As for Syrian threats and Israeli counter threats, the fact that there has been so much shouting from the roof tops so to speak at each other, means that, nothing really is likely to happen on the Golan front. When it comes to Iraq, I don't think the Obama administration has failed to notice that, it is now the Sunnis and the secular political forces whom need the USA, for the conduct of fair elections in Iraq. The situation is so delicate, that any false reading of the situation in Iraq, is likely to be interpreted as the US leaving the arena in favor of Iran.

Wow. Longest running international politics blog dialogue, gotta give you that.

President al-Assad thinks like you Khairi. ___ DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria accused Israel on Wednesday of pushing the Middle East toward a new war. ___ "All the facts point that Israel is driving the region toward war, not peace," the official Syrian news agency quoted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as saying during a meeting with Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos. ___ "Israel is not serious about wanting peace," he added. ___ During a subsequent news conference with Moratinos, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said Israel "was planting the seeds of the war atmosphere" by threatening attacks on Iran, Lebanon and the Gaza strip. ___ "I tell them (Israel), stop acting like thugs," Moualem told reporters in the Syrian capital Damascus. ___ "Do not test the resolve of Syria, you Israelis, you know that war this time will reach your cities. Go back to your senses and seek the road of peace," Moualem said.

So says Henry Kissinger in today’s WP. ___ Before the war, the equilibrium between Iraq and Iran was a principal geopolitical reality within the region. At that time, the government in Baghdad was a Sunni-run dictatorship. The Shiite-dominated, partly democratic structure that has emerged from the war has not yet found the appropriate balance among its Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish components. Nor is its long-term relationship to Iran settled. If radicals prevail in the Shiite part, and the Shiite part comes to dominate the Sunni and Kurdish regions, and if it then lines up with Tehran, we will witness -- and will have partially contributed to -- a fundamental shift in the balance of the region. ___ The outcome in Iraq will have profound consequences, above all, in Saudi Arabia, the key country in the Persian Gulf, as well as in the other Gulf states and in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, financed by Iran, is already a Shiite state within the state. The United States therefore has an important stake in a moderate evolution of Iraq's domestic and foreign policies. ___ I think that is a very good synopsis of the situation in the Middle East today Khairi. Our reckless and foolhardy intervention has destroyed a delicate balance of power between Iraq and Iran, Sunni and Shiite. Now we will see a Shiite Iraq join forces with Iran, Russia and China to dominate the region. The collaboration of the so-called moderate Arab states with the apartheid US/Israeli axis will grease the skids and hasten the fall of their corrupt leaders. ___ The difference of opinion that I have with the esteemed Dr. Kissinger is that he equates the above scenario with a takeover in Iraq by Shiite radicals. I think that this will be the natural outcome of governance by a responsible Shiite majority population with the best interest of Iraq and the region in mind.

This is a quote from Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak speaking alongside Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on stage Tuesday before a gathering of Israeli intellectuals and policymakers at a packed conference in the heart of Israel, in a town named after the founder of modern Zionism at the Herzliya Conference. ___ "This is a case of two completely, diametrically opposed historical narratives," Fayyad said in a 30-minute address that delved into the logic behind key Palestinian demands such as an end to Israel's occupation and settlement of the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. "Israelis have a long history. Pain. Ambitions. Like you, we have our own history of pain and suffering, and we have our own ambition -- to live alongside you in peace and security." ___ Barak said that Israel risks becoming "an apartheid state par excellence" if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress. "We have taken the responsibility of getting ready for statehood," Fayyad said. "We need to see that the occupation is indeed on its way to being rolled back." ___ An interesting concept Khairi, this “two-state solution” with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and harmony…but of course we all know that it is an illusion, a mirage. The single-state is the only viable solution…don’t you agree…lol?

I don't understand why, Human Rights Watch doesn't listen to what Jordan had to say several months ago, when this is issue came to the forefront then. First of all Rick, the Jordanian Ministry of Interior had affirmed the concerned individuals/families were not Jordanian citizens in the first place, and Jordan was undertaking procedures in line with the leagl and administrative severence of ties with the west bank. I would imagine Rick, it is absurd to claim that a couple of thousands will make a difference to the demographic balance of Jordan; if as claimed half of the 6.2 million Jordanians are of Palestinian origin. As for President Obama, I still believe Rick, that either the US President is paving the way; as your good self stated, to prepare American public opinion to the possibility that, it is going to be impossibel to attack Iran, or, alternatively he is gradually preparing the Americans for a showdown with tehran very soon. I feel it is still in the balance. As for the Italian Prime Minister, well, with all due respect to his personna and status, he does frequently exhibit some idiosyncratic tendencies.

That’s what Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu said of Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi’s visit to Israel this week. Berlusconi says he wants to bring Israel into the EU, though Israel has expressed no desire to join. ___ The European Commission had no comment about Israel's possible inclusion into union. The EU has had a tricky relationship with prospective members around the Mediterranean in the past. It turned down Morocco as a candidate in 1987, saying it was not European, and has stalled negotiations with Turkey for 23 years. Some EU nations, such as France, firmly oppose Turkey's membership on the grounds that it is also "not European." ___ "I can think of very few nations who have made such a contribution to Western culture as our two nations. In Rome and Jerusalem, the foundations for Western culture were laid," said Netanyahu. ___ True enough Khairi, but Mr. Berlusconi may be in deep doodoo if he proceeds with his plan to champion tight sanctions against Iran, against the wishes of his country’s business interests which are Iran’s largest trading partner within the EU.