“If you listen to what the Iranians have said publicly and privately over the past week,” one senior administration official said Sunday, “it’s evident that they simply cannot bring themselves to do the deal.” The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were speaking about delicate diplomatic exchanges.

Washington (CNN) — President Obama will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday evening after a rough stretch in U.S. efforts to settle the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The White House announced the meeting on Sunday.
…
Netanyahu is scheduled to address a conference of Jewish groups in Washington on Monday, but no meetings had been scheduled between the U.S. and Israeli leaders as of late last week, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.

Chuck Todd at MSNBC is reporting on Facebook that the press is not being allowed to cover the meeting, and there won’t even be a press corps rep.

Reuters

President Obama’s idea of waging “aggressive personal diplomacy“? Attacking President Bush for blustering belligerence:

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Yup. That explains Iranian aggression for the last 30 years against the United States.

Meanwhile, Israel seizes 500 tons of Iranian weapons on Wednesday:

Israel displayed on Wednesday the contents of the ship it seized off Cyprus – crates filled with rockets, missiles, mortars, anti-tank weapons and munitions – the largest such haul in the country’s history. Israel’s claim that the weapons came from Iran were bolstered by Iranian markings on the sides of the containers and what it said was a document proving the ship had set off from an Iranian port.

Israel has not publicly shown the document, however, nor offered evidence to back its assertion that the weapons were headed for Lebanon’s Hezbollah fighters.
ad_icon

“Hezbollah categorically denies it has any connection with the weapons which the Zionist enemy claims it seized,” the group said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press in Beirut on Thursday.

There was no comment from Lebanese officials.

Israeli defense officials said the arms cache would have given Hezbollah, which fought a monthlong war against the Jewish state in 2006, enough firepower to sustain a full month of fighting on the scale of that war.

However, the officials also said the weapons would not have significantly enhanced Hezbollah rockets’ ability to reach deeper into Israel, as the haul consisted of weapons already in Hezbollah’s possession.

The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the military has yet to formally comment on the potential value of the shipment’s contents to militants.

Iran has never acknowledged giving weapons to Hezbollah. Proof of large-scale Iranian weapons shipments to its proxy forces on Israel’s borders could reinforce Israeli demands for tough action – possibly even a pre-emptive strike – against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel sees Iran as its biggest threat because of what it believes to be Tehran’s ambitions to acquire atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear program seeks only to generate energy.

Anyone believe that?

Apparently, President Obama’s allure is losing its luster from Iranian dissidents themselves. Pro-Democracy protesters are echoing the “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” language of President Bush:

Today, the fundamentalist government in Tehran held protests to commemorate the event, as usual burning the American flag and encouraging shouts of “Death to America.”

This time, pro-democracy protesters — many wearing the movement’s signature green — were heard to shout, “Death to dictators.”

But the demonstrators, who risked beatings, imprisonment and even death to stage their rebellion, also had a message for the White House.

Witnesses said the protesters could be heard chanting: “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

The Obama administration has so far been reluctant to convey American support for the demonstrators, fearful it would undercut the protest movement and allow President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (who some claim can be seen in the 1979 photo above as a young revolutionary) to brand the pro-democracy movement as the work of foreign agitators.

So the White House has so far kept its distance from the movement as the West attempts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear facilities.

Is it too much to ask of our president that he promote peace by showing support for freedom and democracy across the globe? That he take the time out of his busy schedule to recognize historic significance and symbolism in the advancement of democracy?

Munitions seized by Israeli authorities on a ship near Cyprus, are presented in the port of the Israeli city of Ashdod, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009. Israeli commandos seized a ship Wednesday that defense officials said was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, the largest arms shipment Israel has ever commandeered.(AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov ) (Tsafrir Abayov – AP)

1. If all the world hated America because of George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq….then why was America attacked on Sept 11, 2001; 2yrs before that invasion?
2. Why has Al Queda been trying to exterminate every American for the past 17yrs?
3. Did you want Bush to fail in Iraq, or did you want America to succeed?
4. Given that Osama left Afghanistan in 2001, and Al Queda was largely destroyed in Afghanistan in 2002, how did the Bush Administration “take its eye off the ball [Afghanistan] by invading Iraq” in 2003?
5. What caused the great recession of 2007?
6. How have Democrats ensured that we don’t have another $13 TRILLION dollar Great Recession?
7. If FOX, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc are examples of right wing propaganda…then what is an example of left wing propaganda?
8. If Republicans lie, and all politicians are liars, then what are some lies told by Democrats?
9. Since President Obama’s Israel/Palestine talks have failed, and he’s been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and since he’s completely clueless on what to do in Afghanistan…what is PLAN B for keeping Israel from bombing Iran and starting a regional-possibly a world war?
10. Obama’s a quarter of the way done with his presidency. What will history record as his greatest accomplishment?

btw, I could come up with more, but these were my top 10. Anyone who thinks they have one that deserves being on the list, please, please, please feel free to suggest it. I probably won’t add it out of sheer laziness, but I think we’d all love to see em.

From President Obama’s UN speech today:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. A part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies and a belief on, on certain critical issues, America had acted unilaterally without regard for the interests of others.

And this is has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism which, too often, has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

~~~

After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stoke divisions. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that.

Like blaming the previous Administration for the state of affairs today and giving validity to misperceptions? Good grief!

John Bolton:

WaPo:

He drew applause when he talked about how his administration had banned torture of terror suspects,

Applause from countries who engage in torture themselves? Countries like Iran who sponsor terrorism? And what did President Obama actually change?

and was engaging with the United Nations in a more complete way than the U.S. did during the Bush administration.

How exactly is he “more engaged”? It’s a myth that the Bush Administration engaged in “unilateralism” or was a serial offender of “international law”. What it did do was (quoting President Obama in his speech) lead:

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.”

As the French intellectual, Jean Francois-Revel might put it,

As far as America’s “unilateralism” is concerned, Revel asserts that the United States is forced to act alone because Europe has repeatedly failed to act in the cause of collective security.

WaPo:

But the new U.S. president also acknowledged that the United States and its world partners over time have failed to confront some of the world’s problems seriously.

“If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility,” Obama said.

“We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.”

Kristen Silverberg writing for Shadow Government regarding a NYTimes piece on the U.N. General Assembly and the concept of Responsibility to Protect, endorsed unanimously by heads of state in 2005:

There was one line in the Times piece that, I think, bears correcting. The author says that the Bush administration “disliked the doctrine on the ground that it might tie American hands in foreign policy decisions.” In fact, the Bush administration endorsed R2P in 2005 and worked throughout the administration to see the principle put into practice. Secretary Rice, for example, cited R2P in calling on the Security Council to act in Darfur, and has many times cited her disappointment that we were not more successful in ensuring effective R2P action. We worked with other Security Council members to reaffirm R2P in U.N. Security Council resolution 1674, and as an assistant secretary of state, I endorsed the concept publicly many times.

If anything, I think the Bush team was more aggressive than most U.S. administrations in pressing both the responsibility of states to protect their citizens from human rights abuses and the responsibility of the Security Council to act when governments fail. For most of U.S. history, the human rights abuses in Burma, for example, would not have fit within the U.S. government’s definition of a “threat to international peace and security” sufficient to trigger U.N. Security Council jurisdiction. President Bush believed that human rights abuses may meet this standard, and so we led the effort to place Burma on the Security Council’s agenda for the first time in history and even pressed a Security Council Resolution on the subject to the point of provoking a double Russian-Chinese veto.

I see this as another slam at the Bush Administration:

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions, and I admit that America has, too often, been selective in its promotion of democracy.

But that does not weaken our commitment. It only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal. There are certain truths which are self-evident, and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

There is a certain belief that the Bush Administration was trying to impose western-style democracy. But I don’t know of a single speech where President Bush made the case for creating a democracy that would look like ours.

The ship was officially carrying timber from Finland to Algeria when it was boarded on July 24 by a group of eight men. They were charged with kidnapping and piracy after it was intercepted by Russian warships off Cape Verde

Ya know, if any of this story is true, it’s almost as if Israel doesn’t have faith in President Obama’s ability to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy. Why on Earth would anyone believe that?

The President said:

It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself.

In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope.

~~~

I can understand the deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people. For decades you’ve been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. Your interests have been held hostage to a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year. You deserve democracy and the rule of law. You deserve an open society and a thriving economy. You deserve a life of hope for your children. An end to occupation and a peaceful democratic Palestinian state may seem distant, but America and our partners throughout the world stand ready to help, help you make them possible as soon as possible.

~~~

I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations.

This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple. The Bible says, “I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.” The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace, and hope, and life.

True, it was said in the Rose Garden and not in Cairo; and it was delivered by President #43 and not #44.

Scott posted on this after Obama’s “New Beginning” speech, noting the similarities. Others have also noted the “more of the sameness”:

Michelle Malkin

Ed Morrissey

Washington Times Editorial

Wall Street Journal

Ali Abunimah of The Electric Intifada

Osama bin Laden…

So other than locale, how is it that the press and many in the moderate corner of the Middle East can gush “Ga-ga over Obama” and not give President Bush the same amount of coverage dispersal, when #43’s words should reach as far and wide as Obama’s words for the same cause of promoting freedom and peace? Is the press doing its job?

Perhaps President Bush should have taken his speech into the heart of the Middle East (imagine the protests!). How much difference would it have made? It’s not as if the 2002 Rose Garden speech were the only one of its kind, delivered by President Bush. Perhaps he should have taken lessons on telepromptering speeches?

President Obama, whether because of his transracial features and multicultural background, has the cult of personality and charm offensive going for him. He is a fresh slate.

Muqtedar Khan, Director of Islamic Studies, University of Delaware, writes in a WaPo piece entitled Obama’s Charisma Ignites Hope in Muslim Hearts,

Never has an American President spoken with such eloquence, compassion, understanding and empathy to the Muslim World.

There is no doubt that Obama gets the Muslim World. It is also obvious from the responses from around the world that except for some Israelis and its supporters and Al Qaeda [and- yoo-hoo!- don't forget the Rushbots and us right wingnuts], President Obama’s words resonated profoundly with Muslim and non-Muslim audiences everywhere.

~~~

President Obama’s intellectual posture was very sophisticated and subtle. He went far beyond any American President in making concessions to Muslims without ever abandoning traditional American foreign policy values.

~~~

One element of the discourse was Obama’s portrayal of himself as a man comfortable with faith. He quoted from the Qur’an, the Torah and the Bible, and this will go far in undoing the widely held Muslim perception of America as a God-less materialist society.

Bush isn’t “a man comfortable with faith”?

Bush didn’t quote from the Quran, the Torah and Bible in speeches?

“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.”

President Obama wasn’t the first American president to selectively cite this passage.

November 16, 2001:

The President’s message includes brief quotes from the Koran, and refers to Islam as a religion that values charity, mercy and peace.

Mr. Bush notes the Muslim population of the United States is growing rapidly, with millions of American believers. He says they are a diverse group that serves in every walk of life, including the U.S. armed forces.

Sound familiar?

President Bush visited a mosque days after the events of 9/11.

In his socks, as is Muslim practice, Bush padded through the ornate mosque on Washington”s Embassy Row and heard stories from his hosts about Muslim-American women afraid to leave their homes for fear of prejudiced backlash after last week”s terrorist strikes.

“Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don”t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior,” Bush said, his back to the brilliantly tiled prayer alcove facing Mecca.

He quoted from the Quran and fervently defended the Islam faith: “Islam is peace. These terrorists don”t represent peace, they represent evil and war.”

President Bush embraces religious expression in all faiths. He is religiously tolerant, unlike many militantly secular extremists.

Not only has he visited mosques and temples, but held dinners and visits to the White House, celebrating Ramadan and lighting menorrahs.

But I guess if it’s Bush doing it, these things just don’t count because they defy the BDS stereotype. Even when he said this on September 20, 2001…

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam … [Islam's] teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah …The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

…somehow President Bush is still a hate-monger, warring against Muslims and conquering their lands.

November 1, 2001:

Thanksgiving is not the only holiday this week at the White House. On Monday night, Bush became the first president to host a traditional Ramadan dinner, or iftar.

The event was attended by representatives of 53 Muslim countries and senior U.S. officials. The Pentagon and State Department plan Ramadan meals for next week.

Continuing the interfaith message that Bush has repeated since the start of the war on terrorism, Bush told attendees that Ramadan, Christmas, and Hanukkah are opportunities for nations to celebrate together and understand one another better.

“America respects people of all faiths and America seeks peace with people of all faiths,” the president said at Monday’s dinner. “I thank you for your friendship and I wish you a blessed Ramadan.”

Also found in WaPo’s On Faith, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, writes:

The historic significance of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. Obama directly enlisted a religion to build global peace and to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, end nuclear proliferation and stop terrorism.

In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the “Clash of Civilizations,” which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved.

Perhaps most important, he put religion at the core of the peacemaking process. For too long, Americans had come to fear Islam as an intolerant, violent religion. Obama cited examples from the Quran that belied those stereotypes. He emphasized the core similarities among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism,” he said. “It is an important part of promoting peace.”

To Muslims, that was a powerful statement. “Islam is the solution” is the mantra of many Muslims. They believe their religion can and does solve problems.

The position of the American government as non-hostile to the religion of Islam itself even as we collide with the mullahs in Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is nothing new:

While the intensity of the current debate is new, the substance of current U.S. government statements on Islam is not. The latest statements develop the themes and arguments of a policy articulated over the past decade. That policy has four main elements, each of which has become a policy mantra: There is no clash of civilizations. Terrorism is not Islamic. Islam is compatible with American ideals and adds to American life. Americans must learn to appreciate Islam.

~~~

President Bush’s speech to a Muslim audience during his visit to the Islamic Center in Washington: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. … The face of terror is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”²⁸ White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went further, calling the attacks “a perversion of Islam.”²⁹ Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same point even more emphatically, casting the hijackers not only out of Islam but even out of Arabdom; their acts, he argued, “should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists.”³⁰

This distinction between Islam and terrorism, however it is made, has a profound implication for the post-September 11 concept of the enemy: the United States is fighting a war “on terror,” not on militant Islam or any type of Muslims. President Bush told Congressional leaders “we don’t view this as a war of religion, in any way, shape or form.”³¹ According to Powell, “this is not a conflict against Arabs or Muslims or those who believe in one particular religion.”³² Terrorism “is a threat not only to our civilization but to theirs as well,” explained Department of State spokesman Richard Boucher. “We don’t see this as an effort against Arabs; we don’t see this as an effort against Muslims.”³³ More succinctly, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz declared that “our enemy is terrorism, not Islam.”³⁴

Even the judicial branch now has views about terrorism not being Islamic. At the sentencing of Ramzi Yusuf, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Judge Kevin Duffy berated the defendant: “Ramzi Yusuf, you are not fit to uphold Islam. Your God is death. Your God is not Allah. … What you do, you do not for Allah; you do it only to satisfy your own twisted sense of ego.”³⁵

Rather than coddling and pandering, infantilizing and talking down to his audience, here’s a more sober speech Muslims need to hear, delivered by the American president who liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny and repression:

June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON – President Bush visited a mosque yesterday, removed his shoes in respect, and challenged Muslim clerics to more aggressively denounce terrorism.

“We must encourage more Muslim leaders to . . . speak out against radical extremists who infiltrate mosques, to denounce organizations that use the veneer of Islamic belief to support and fund acts of violence,” Bush said at the rededication of the Islamic Center of Washington.

Bush also urged leaders to do more to thwart the notion held by many “young Muslims – even in our country and elsewhere in the free world – who believe suicide bombing may some day be justified.”

That call to sanity comes after a nationwide poll released last month showed that one in four young Muslims in the United States believe suicide bombings that kill innocents in the name of Islam are OK in some cases.

The Islamic radicals are “Islam’s true enemy,” Bush said, and ticked off some of the atrocities they have committed against fellow Muslims and even their own holy sites.

“In Iraq, they killed a young boy and then booby-trapped his body so it would explode when his family came to retrieve him,” Bush said.

“They put children in the back seat of a car so they could pass a security checkpoint and then blew up the car with the children still inside.”

The terrorists have beaten and killed teachers in Afghanistan, bombed a wedding reception in Jordan and blew up a hotel in Jakarta, the president said.

“Men and women of conscience have a duty to speak out and condemn this murderous movement before it finds its path to power,” the president said.

“We must help millions of Muslims as they rescue a proud and historic religion from murderers and beheaders who seek to soil the name of Islam.”

Moderate Muslim leaders, he said, “have the most powerful and influential voice.”

Bush thanked those who have already aggressively condemned radicalism and noted the outpouring of American goodwill that has been spent on Muslims around the globe “in times of war and natural disaster.”

Specifically, he cited the 2004 tsunami that devastated Indonesia, the U.S. intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo and efforts to stop genocide in Sudan.

Yesterday’s speech, marking the 50th anniversary of the Washington Islamic Center, is part of a White House move to recast the war on terror as an effort to “rescue” the Muslim faith from extremists who use religion as “a path to power and a means for domination.”

Bush also sought to improve America’s image among Muslims worldwide and said their real enemy is not America but Islamic radicals.

“I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism and claim their liberty and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace,” he said.

If Muslims around the world want to understand what America’s about, Bush suggested they look no father than the mosque where he was speaking – it’s located down the road from a synagogue, Lutheran church, Catholic parish, Greek Orthodox chapel and Buddhist temple.

Each, he said, has “followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace.”

Bush’s visit to the Muslim center on Embassy Row was the third of his presidency. His first visit came six days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when he visited the mosque to denounce prejudice against Muslim Americans.

Of course if President Obama can make successful inroads by his methods, by his tone, by his charisma, by his background, by his cult of personality, by his charm offensive, then more power to him.

But it’s a lie to believe President Bush hasn’t reached out to the Muslim world and sought to make them partners in the war on terror to marginalize the “violent extremist” takfiri terrorists murdering in their midst, in the name of Islam.

But when you make statements like this what purpose does it serve other than to strengthen extremism?

OBAMA: Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Someone please inform me when the Israelis murder six million Palestinians, then we can talk moral equivalence between the Holocaust and suffering the Palestinians. All Obama did was excuse the violence that Palestinians continue to direct towards Israel despite the many concessions the Israelis have made.

Here’s the Wordle of Obama’s speech. The larger the word, the more times it was used:

6,000 words is a speech which approaches the snooze fests regularly delivered by nutcases like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. What a shame any good parts of Obama’s speech were lost in clouds of political correctness, moral equivalence, and Bush blaming.

For too long, the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent. And this casts a dark shadow over an entire region. For the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East.

It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimised by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself.

In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born.

I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East.

In the work ahead, we all have responsibilities. The Palestinian people are gifted and capable, and I am confident they can achieve a new birth for their nation. A Palestinian state will never be created by terror – it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism.

Today, the elected Palestinian legislature has no authority, and power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few. A Palestinian state can only serve its citizens with a new constitution which separates the powers of government. The Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body. Local officials and government ministers need authority of their own and the independence to govern effectively.

The United States, along with the European Union and Arab states, will work with Palestinian leaders to create a new constitutional framework, and a working democracy for the Palestinian people. And the United States, along with others in the international community will help the Palestinians organise and monitor fair, multi-party local elections by the end of the year, with national elections to follow.

Today, the Palestinian people live in economic stagnation, made worse by official corruption. A Palestinian state will require a vibrant economy, where honest enterprise is encouraged by honest government. The United States, the international donor community and the World Bank stand ready to work with Palestinians on a major project of economic reform and development. The United States, the EU, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund are willing to oversee reforms in Palestinian finances, encouraging transparency and independent auditing.

And the United States, along with our partners in the developed world, will increase our humanitarian assistance to relieve Palestinian suffering. Today, the Palestinian people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights. A Palestinian state will require a system of reliable justice to punish those who prey on the innocent. The United States and members of the international community stand ready to work with Palestinian leaders to establish finance – establish finance and monitor a truly independent judiciary.

Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. This will require an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability and a unified chain of command.

America is pursuing this reform along with key regional states. The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.

With a dedicated effort, this state could rise rapidly, as it comes to terms with Israel, Egypt and Jordan on practical issues, such as security. The final borders, the capital and other aspects of this state’s sovereignty will be negotiated between the parties, as part of a final settlement. Arab states have offered their help in this process, and their help is needed.

I’ve said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror. To be counted on the side of peace, nations must act. Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media, and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel – including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah. Every nation actually committed to peace must block the shipment of Iranian supplies to these groups, and oppose regimes that promote terror, like Iraq. And Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organisations.

Leaders who want to be included in the peace process must show by their deeds an undivided support for peace. And as we move toward a peaceful solution, Arab states will be expected to build closer ties of diplomacy and commerce with Israel, leading to full normalisation of relations between Israel and the entire Arab world.

Israel also has a large stake in the success of a democratic Palestine. Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy. A stable, peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for. So I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.

As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.

The Palestinian economy must be allowed to develop. As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. Palestinian legislators and officials, humanitarian and international workers, must be allowed to go about the business of building a better future. And Israel should release frozen Palestinian revenues into honest, accountable hands.

I’ve asked Secretary Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realize the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution-building.

Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.

We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees, and a final peace between Israel and Lebanon, and Israel and a Syria that supports peace and fights terror.

All who are familiar with the history of the Middle East realise that there may be setbacks in this process. Trained and determined killers, as we have seen, want to stop it. Yet the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties with Israel remind us that with determined and responsible leadership progress can come quickly.

As new Palestinian institutions and new leaders emerge, demonstrating real performance on security and reform, I expect Israel to respond and work toward a final status agreement. With intensive effort by all, this agreement could be reached within three years from now. And I and my country will actively lead toward that goal.

I can understand the deep anger and anguish of the Israeli people. You’ve lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms. The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security; and I deeply believe that you need a reformed, responsible Palestinian partner to achieve that security.

I can understand the deep anger and despair of the Palestinian people. For decades you’ve been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. Your interests have been held hostage to a comprehensive peace agreement that never seems to come, as your lives get worse year by year. You deserve democracy and the rule of law. You deserve an open society and a thriving economy. You deserve a life of hope for your children. An end to occupation and a peaceful democratic Palestinian state may seem distant, but America and our partners throughout the world stand ready to help, help you make them possible as soon as possible.

If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government.

I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations.

This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple. The Bible says, “I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.” The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace, and hope, and life.

Thank you very much.

Pressure. Defiance. Collision. After George W. Bush’s terms of endearment for Israel — a country he once described as a “light unto nations” — a different terminology is being used to describe its cloudy relationship with his successor, Barack Obama.

At odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Palestinian statehood and Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the new U.S. president will try to patch ties with the Muslim world in an address he will deliver in Egypt on Thursday.

Israelis and Arabs will be listening carefully for one of Obama’s expected messages — policy Netanyahu has met with defiant words — that creation of a Palestinian state is essential for peace and settlement expansion must stop.

The U.S.-Israeli rift after eight years of a Bush presidency that pursued statehood only late in its second term and turned a blind eye to settlement building is raising questions over whether a close alliance will deteriorate into alienation.

Maariv, a popular Israeli newspaper, summed it up in a one-word, front-page headline on Tuesday: “Pressure”.

~~~

Possible scenarios for twisting Netanyahu’s arm could range from U.S. inaction at the United Nations in thwarting resolutions critical of Israel to choking off some military supplies, political sources and commentators said.

“Delaying the shipment of spares for the Apaches can ground the air force,” political columnist Ben Caspit wrote in Maariv, referring to Israel’s U.S.-made attack helicopters.

“The replenishment of ammunition and weapons supplies in the event of another expected conflagration in the Gaza Strip or Lebanon is a matter of American goodwill,” Caspit said.

While few expect the US to apply pressure using Israel’s defense system as the carrot, Obama’s finding himself pressured by Congressional members in his own party.

“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”

“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said.

~~~

But even a key defender of Obama’s Mideast policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), is seeking to narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama. And the unusual criticism by congressional Democrats of the popular president is a sign that it may take more than a transformative presidential election to change the domestic politics of Israel.

Other Democrats, in interviews with POLITICO, raised similar concerns. While few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state, they question putting public pressure on Israel while — so far — paying less public attention to Palestinian terrorism and other Arab states’ hostility to Israel.

“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”

“I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who said he thinks there’s “room for compromise.”

“I have to hear specifically from the administration exactly how they define their terms and is there room for defining the terms,” he said, referring to the terms “settlement” and “natural growth.”

The Israelis are patiently waiting exactly what the TOTUS will prompt the POTUS to say. For unlike Obama’s predecessor, no advance copy of Obama’s speech was provided. And this, they say, is a harbinger of the relationship to come.

“The situation is very gloomy. They are waiting to see what Barak can achieve in Washington,” the source said.

“And they are waiting to hear (Obama’s) speech. They have no idea what he will say. With Bush they would have had the draft in advance. But they are in the dark. This is part of the American withdrawal of cooperation.”

Offering an incentive, Mitchell told the Israeli delegation that Netanyahu sent to London that if he agreed to a settlement freeze, Obama would press Saudi Arabia to do more to normalise Arab relations with Israel, the source said.

That now seems unlikely, given Israel’s position.

Netanyahu has said Israel had a historic opportunity to pursue peace now with an Arab world that largely shared its concern about Iran’s nuclear programme.

The nuclear issue was high on the agenda of Netanyahu’s talks with Obama in Washington two weeks ago and on many Israelis minds on Tuesday, when air raid sirens sounded as part of the country’s biggest-ever civil defence drill.

Yet, as Curt points out, Obama does not offer that same firm stance with the Iranian threat when he suggests that Iran has a legitimate need for nuke power… knowing full well that the current regime is not quick to offer up their real intentions on their enrichment programs.

Instead of pressuring Ahmadinejad, the POTUS prefers to practice “tough love” tactics with an ally, Israel.

On the eve of his trip to the Middle East, President Obama promised today a dose of tough love for a new Israeli government that has signaled significant disagreement with his administration’s policy for the region.

Obama described the U.S.-Israeli relationship as a special one in which Americans are “deeply sympathetic” toward what he called a “stalwart ally,” but he made it clear that he will continue to push the country’s new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, toward acceptance of a Palestinian state.

“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Obama told National Public Radio in an interview taped this afternoon. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.”

Obama called the status quo “unsustainable when it comes to Israeli security,” and he promised to use his trip to make clear that the United States will follow through on its commitment to peace in the region.

“It is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace,” Obama said. “That there is not equivocation and there is not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side. It’s going to have to be two-sided.”

An obviously history deficient Obama does not recognize that all Israel talks with Palestine have been one sided, with the majority of concessions being offered by Israel, and spat upon by the other side.

But we’ve seen the Obama approach… it’s to take a step back in diplomatic civility from allies, and a step forward towards traditional enemies… from Latin America to the Middle East and Africa. And it is, on this wave of increasing approval from Arabs – [except for decreasing approval among Palestinians and Lebanese] – he intends to sail into a hoped for Middle East peace legacy on his magic carpet.

As even the liberal BBC points out, the two-state solution is hardly novel, nor Obama’s original idea.

In advance of the speech, the president said in an interview with the BBC that he hoped to see progress by the end of the year, through “tough, direct diplomacy”.

He has already provoked a row with the Israeli government over West Bank settlements, demanding that all activities cease. This includes what is called “natural growth”, which is defined – at a minimum – as the building of more housing for the children of settlers.

This is not in fact a new demand. It was made, using the same phrase, in the 2003 roadmap for the Middle East, endorsed by the Quartet of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia.

The row between Israel’s adamance for “natural growth” for the settlements and willingness to give up the outposts and Obama’s attempt to apply pressure for old demands highlights a reality Obama seems unwilling to accept – that a two-state solution is a far away as it ever was. Yet, following a meeting with PA’s Abbas, Obama still walks away, exuding “confidence”. Insuring his appointed minions are on the same international stage, SOS Hillary joins her boss in the demands to Israel saying there are no exceptions to the US demands on Israel INRE settlements.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with her Egyptian counterpart, Mrs Clinton said that the president was “very clear” with PM Benjamin Netanyahu at their recent meeting that there should be a stop to all settlements.

“Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interest of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease,” Mrs Clinton said.

The Israelis describe construction inside existing settlements as natural growth. Mr Netanyahu has said that this will continue.

“There is no way that we are going to tell people not to have children or to force young people to move away from their families,” a senior official quoted Mr Netanyahu as telling the Israeli cabinet on Sunday.

However, he has said he is willing to remove makeshift outposts in the West Bank – small settlements, sometimes with only a few people – that the Israeli government itself considers illegal.

True to the prozac mentality that seems widespread of late, the world remains “hopeful” to the anticipated soaring and empty rhetoric, regurgitation of old ideas – delivered in a new, smooth TOTUS style from Cairo. Against the back drop of pyramids, perhaps? And while Obama may score popularity points with some Muslim nations with his “just words”, it will not change their attitude towards Israel’s right to exist…. the heart of the stumbling block.

But then, as Obama knows, it’s easy to push around our allies. I’ve said for a while, much to the poo pooh’ing of many friends, that this President was going to alienate our allies in the world. As it stands today, we have stalwart friends, and dedicated enemies that hate us.

By the time Obama’s through, we’ll have lukewarm friends, and dedicated enemies that still hate us. Big improvement, eh?

• Iran is still closing in on starting its nuclear bomb factories (if it hasn’t already).
• Pakistan is still on verge of collapse, and
• North Korea is 100% unstoppable

There are many MANY more problems to be sure (not the least of which is the confusion over whether or not we’re all support the pursuit of success in Iraq after Obama and Democrats told us to oppose it for the past seven years). Afghanistan is the land of foreverwar. Somalia and East Africa are in anarchy, and much much more. However, those three foreign policy failures threaten not one, not two, but THREE major wars if Obama can’t produce results soon. Clocks are ticking. Nations are literally preparing for total, “all-out war.”

Obama’s foreign policy-the idea of forcing enemies to unclench their fists by offering them open hands is not producing results (could it be the Iranians are left handed?). Even Barack himself recognizes that the effort to “talk” to Iran is failing, and despite years of promising to meet Iranian leaders without preconditions, he’s announced that Iran has but till the end of the year to demonstrate considerable efforts towards peace. Israel probably doesn’t have that long, shouldn’t wait for President Obama’s pipedream, pie-in-the-sky, hail Mary effort to stave off total, all-out regional war. The Israelis are literally facing the threat of another genocide. They know it, and because Obama’s foreign policy has not produced a single positive result with Iran, there is no practical reason to wait. War is coming to the Middle East-a war that will make the invasion and occupation of Iraq look like kids play.

In Pakistan, President Obama’s stepped up air strikes and Special Forces raids have killed so many civilians that locals actually look at Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban more favorably! They’re backing the Taliban’s offensive that is threatening to collapse that country. If Pakistan falls to extremists or collapses into anarchy, then a war with India is very likely. Any war with India threatens 1-2 billion people with nuclear Armageddon. Obama’s efforts to prevent this have produced zero results. He must change the course of events.

In regards to North Korea, even the BBC is admitting now that nothing shy of total war will stop the unchained dictatorship. No amount of sanctions, no harsh letter from the UN, no speech about fake outrage is going to stop or even deter the weapons exporting nation. They’re military is among the biggest and most dedicated in the world, and while armed with antiquated weapons, their artillery alone could kill 2million people in the South Korean capital at any given moment. If North Korea is not stopped (and it doesn’t look like Obama’s charm can do it), then a regional arms race must begin. Japan must build anti-ballistic missiles, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. China must then increase its abilities with both. The chain reaction proliferation threatens billions of lives. It would be far cheaper in blood and treasure for the world to lose a million troops in an attack into North Korea than to lose a billion or two billion to a regional nuclear war, and if Obama’s charm doesn’t start paying off soon, history will make the decision.

We’re told, “These things take time.” No. They don’t. It’s very easy to see if one side of a conversation is interested, willing, or even capable of barter. Once that’s determined, then the ugly balance sheet must come out. There’s no way around it. He has to ask himself what is the cost of inaction vs what is the cost of action-however horrific. In each of the three cases above (Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea), the price of inaction far outweighs the cost of direct military attack. That’s why it’s so important for diplomacy to work, to start showing results, and to stop being reduced to a Monty Python joke.
“STOP! Or we shall be forced to say ’stop’ again!”

…and no, I have not finished drafting the image for my “Don’t Let Bush Bomb Iran!” t-shirts. When I do, I expect them to be big sellers at the anti-war rallies preceeding Obama’s response to Israeli strikes on Iran. Updates to follow

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama set a rough timetable for his diplomatic outreach to arch-foe Iran for the first time on Monday, saying he wanted to see serious progress by the end of the year.

He also held out the prospect of tougher sanctions against Tehran “to ensure that Iran understands we are serious.”

Obama’s comments came after talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which the new Israeli leader was expected to stress Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

For those few still in denial, this timetable/timeline/deadline is called a:
PRECONDITION

Iran’s response?

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran launched a missile with a range of close to 2,000 km (1,200 miles) on Wednesday and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Islamic state could send any attacker “to hell,” official media reported.

The stated range of the surface-to-surface Sejil 2 missile would be almost as far as another Iranian missile, Shahab 3, and analysts say such weaponry could put Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach.

Ya know…when even the Democrats’ Congress starts sending Obama formal, public letters saying, ‘Hey! Iran’s a real threat. Take em seriously & get us away from the brink of a world war!’ Well, that’s effectively The Clue Phone ringing.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A vast majority of US senators on Tuesday urged President Barack Obama to mind the “risks” to Israel in any Middle East peace accord as he presses for a two-state solution to the six-decade conflict.

“As we work closely with our democratic ally, Israel, we must take into account the risks it will face in any peace agreement,” 76 of the 100 senators wrote Obama in a letter released to reporters.

Simple question:
Does ANYONE think that talks are gonna work with Iran? ANYONE?

Israel stood firm against demands from Barack Obama on Monday to cease the construction of Jewish settlements and embrace the “two-state solution” to achieving peace in the Middle East.

Every single President believes they can somehow, magically, bring peace to this situation. The only problem has been the Palestinians DO NOT want peace. Never have, never will. Isreal understands this and has survived this long exactly because they understood this. They have given up little concessions, pretty much to expose to the world what the Palestinians really want. A one state solution.

Sitting side by side in the White House, the two leaders hailed the friendship between their two countries but remained far apart on how to proceed towards a resolution of the 60-year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr Obama said the Palestinians had to take steps to guarantee Israel’s security – but took a tough line on the construction of settlements on Arab land.

“Israel is going to have to take difficult steps as well,” he said. “There is a clear understanding we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to stop.”

~~~

There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the “benefit of having served” previously as prime minister and for having “both youth and wisdom”.

The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.

Though Mr Netanyahu made clear he wanted to hold peace talks with the Palestinians, he refused to utter the words “two-state solution”, the consensus approach towards peace agreed by previous Israeli governments and US administrations.

Best line from Netanyahu came when he said that any peace deal which places a “terror base next door” is worthless, and won’t happen. He stated Hamas must first recognize Israel AND the Iranian nuclear situation must be dealt with before any peace deals get started.

Don Surber:

President Obama — like his predecessors — fails to grasp the basic problem: Palestinians do not want peace.

And until a president realizes that basic fact of life, he is doomed to waste a lot of time, prestige and money chasing that unicorn.

Obama will chase that unicorn for as long as it makes him look good. In the end, that’s all he cares about.

More here.

This day is designated by the Jewish people to remember those who were lost in the Holocaust.

Jews who were classified as “not fit to work” waiting in a grove outside of Crematorium IV before they were to be gassed.

‘Men to the left! women to the right!’ Eight words spoken quietly, indifferently, without emotion. Eight short, simple words. Yet that was the moment when I parted from my mother. I had not had time to think, but already I felt pressure of my father’s hand. We were alone. – Elie Weisel, Night

I am not Jewish. I was born into and raised by a Christian family but have always had very close Jewish friends. My friends welcomed me into their homes and families and I became very aware of their deeply rooted traditions and the reasons behind them. As a Christian, and a believer in the Old Testament, I was able to relate to these traditions because Christians share a heritage with the Jewish people.

My friend Judy’s mother, Marilyn, lost all of her family with the exception of one uncle in the concentration camps. Marilyn vividly recalls how they were herded up with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. She tells of how they were packed shoulder to shoulder in cattle cars and hauled away. She has told me the stories of how her grandparents stitched diamonds and gold into the hems of their coats and dresses in an effort to keep them away from the Germans.

If you haven’t read Elie Wiesel’s book Night, I encourage you to do so. It is a haunting account of his first person experiences at the hands of the Germans.

The following photographs are from The Auschwitz Album. This is the only surviving photographic record of what went on withing Auschwitz as it was happening.

In a world where Jewish people are still hated and targeted for nothing more than their heritage and religious beliefs, we must never forget what can happen when evil is allowed to run rampant.

h/t – Atlas Shrugs for the first picture.

The challenges stem in part from lingering unhappiness around the world at the way the Bush administration used American power. But they have been made more intense by the sense in many capitals that the United States is no longer in any position to dictate to other nations what types of economic policies to pursue — or to impose its will more generally as it intensifies the war in Afghanistan and extracts itself from Iraq.

~~~

“The rest of the world is yearning for him,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist. “On the one hand, they’ll all be criticizing him, and criticizing the American model. But they all want to hear that he does have a miracle to deliver.”

A miracle from the messiah….it must be coming right?

Love this line from the article:

“an immense popularity around the world…”

Yes, he is so popular. Why wouldn’t he be? He insults the British PM, angers the Israelis by not backing them against terrorism, sends secret letters to Russia offering to throw Poland and other Eastern European states under the bus if they would only help with Iran, throws Tibet under the bus, insults Switzerland, reaches out to the Taliban, and on and on….such a great leader.

Expect more of the same “it’s all Bush’s fault” type crap to lower expectations of the messiah.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed overtures from President Barack Obama on Saturday, saying Tehran does not see any change in U.S. policy under its new administration…

”They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven’t seen any change,” Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad…

Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.

~~~

Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama’s language compared to that of his predecessor.

Which is actually completely untrue. Obama went and kissed the Iranian governments ass in that video and basically told them the policy of regime change is kaput. But the Iranian government understands they cannot, nor will they ever, agree to some kind of reconcilation because the US is the great satan. That is what their whole regime is based on. The evil of the west and of Democracy.

I mean come on, over the last twenty years the Iranians have said “hey, just do this and we will sit down with you,” and once we did what they required they gave us the middle finger. Kenneth Pollack’s book, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America, describes some of this during the Clinton administration: (h/t Tigerhawk)

In truth, many American officials, myself among them, were beginning to get frustrated with Tehran: the United States had now made nine gestures (liberalizing visas, sending the wrestlers and other cultural exchanges, putting the MEK on the terrorism list, taking Iran off the counternarcotics list, allowing the sale of food and medicine, agreeing to the ILSA waivers, sending Albright to the “six-plus-two” talks on Afghanistan in hope of meeting Kharrasi, [President Clinton's] Millennium Evening dinner near apology, and the spare parts for the Boeing aircraft). In return, the United States had not gotten very much, especially since the smuggling of Iraqi oil through Iranian waters had resumed in 1999. Nevertheless, we thought it worth making one last grand gesture….

So, on March 17 [2000], Albright gave the famous speech. She issued the apology quoted in the introduction to this book. She announced the lifting of the import ban on Iranian foodstuffs and carpets. She said any number of other warm, welcoming things about Iran. And she again called on the Iranian government to begin an official dialogue with the United States, with no preconditions and no demands for a rapid solution to what we acknowledged were extremely complicated problems. The Europeans were ecstatic. Our Iranian interloculators were impressed and hopeful that it would have a positive impact in Tehran. A number of groups inside Tehran hailed the speech and the partial lifting of the sanctions as a remarkable gesture on the part of the United States, to which Iran should respond positively. Then, ten days later, [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah] Khamene’i gave his thoroughly negative response… (337-339)

Just a few days ago an American minister delivered a speech. After half a century, or over 40 years, the Americans have now confessed that they staged the 28th Mordad [August 19, 1953] coup. They confessed that they supported the suppressive, dictatorial, and corrupt Pahlavi shah for twenty-five years. Please pay attention. We are in the year 1379 [by the Islamic calendar], more than forty years have elapsed since 1332 and the coup d’etat of the 28th Mordad. It is only now that they are admitting that they were behind the coup d’etat. They admit that they supported and backed the dictatorial, oppressive, corrupt and subservient regime of the shah for twenty-five years. And they are now saying that they supported Saddam Husayn in his war against Iran. What do you think the Iranian nation, faced with this situation and these admissions, feels? … In the course of those days, during the war, we repeatedly said in our speeches that the Americans are helping Sadam Husayn. They denied this and claimed they remained impartial. Now that 12 years have elapsed after the end of the war, in a center [the American-Iranian Council] this American Secretary of State is official admitting that they helped Saddam Husayn. The question is, what good will this admission do us? … What goes does this admission — that you acted in that way then — do us now? … An admission years after the crime was committed, while they might be committing similar crimes now, will not do the Iranian nation any good. (xxv)

And now Iran says you want better relations Obama? Stop fighting us about a nuke and give up Israel and THEN we will sit down with you.

Tigerhawk puts it well:

Americans, in the end, should understand this and be realistic about it. We have, with fits and starts, been exporting our own revolution — founded on individual liberty and popular sovereignty — for more than two centuries. The Islamic Republic understands this, and is going to do everything possible to keep us from winning. As long as the Islamic Republic rules Iran, our only policy is sustained and coercive containment and, if necessary, interdiction. Appeasement will do nothing but make us look helpless, which will erode, rather than enhance, American power.

Sometimes “soft power” is not power at all. It is just softness.

Sometimes? Soft power never works. Appeasement never works. As Tigerhawk said, it just makes us look weak…..and with Obama as President who can blame them for thinking we are once again the paper tiger.