open Democracy News Analysis - the middle east - Comments

St. Michael Traveler on "Iraq, Iran and the United States: problems and prospects "

St. Michael Traveler — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:03:36 +0100

Jewish Neoconservative and the American Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Iran

Do American people have any understanding about the negative influence of Jewish neoconservatives on the US foreign policy? Their influence has been greatly responsible for the negative international image of the United States. The neoconservatives have followed Israel and in some cases have initiated the negative perception among about the Muslim world, specifically Iran.

This negative influence has resulted of wasted 30 years in not having an effective diplomatic interaction with Iran. Foreign Policy of President Bush and Iran ,
http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2008/06/foreign-policy-of-president-bush-and.html
dictated by neoconservative advisers had been to sabotage the basic premise of diplomacy by under cutting the actions of European Union foreign policy Chief Javier Solana.

Undersecretary of State William Burns attended the Geneva meeting, the first direct meeting between USA and Iranian representatives. We had build up the expectations before the meeting that mere presence of Burns would stop Iranian producing nuclear fuel; we completely ignored the diplomatic rule of engagement and expected an instant result.
Before we could be effective in our interactions with Iran, we would need to have an understanding of their interests and positions, fears and expectations. To start we would need to know what Iran wants.
What would you do if you were the president of Iran? What does Iran Want?
http://straveler-myamerica.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-would-you-do-if-you-were-president.html
Before drawing a red line with Iran, we must be clear about our own motivations and the expected outcomes.

We have multiple options in our relationships with Iran. Among these is the continuation of the present status, or a robust start of diplomatic interaction. Anatol Lieven and Trita Parsi recent article: Drawing a red line with Iran

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/28/opinion/edlieven.php

provides a realistic expectation for both USA and Iran. Let us stay cool and use diplomatic rules of engagement and talk with Iran. However; Israel similar to the past 45 years, has been a negative influence in our relationship with Iran. This problem is not knew, even during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/M_R_Pahlavi.htm
http://www.geocities.com/usasaintmichael/ShahLobby.htm

Iran suffered in her interaction with US due to the negative influence of Israel and her lobbies.

johannabartley on "Beirut and contradiction: reading the World Press Photo award"

johannabartley — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:48:01 +0100

I have seen a similar picture in a commercial for discount auto parts and the first thing that went trough my head was: how can they promote vanity over pain? What happened there? And how come these girls were there?

Bartosz Wasilewski on "Washington's choice: subdue Iran, secure Iraq"

Bartosz Wasilewski — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:03:45 +0100

Interesting... When everybody talks about withdraw, Paul Rogers is talking about making further moves forward. I don't know how Mr. Obama would tell his voters: 'sorry amigos, but we must stay in Iraq'. I am afraid that new administration (if Mr. Obama will win ) will do everything only to leave Iraq, whatever stupid it seems.

www.ego.riki.pl
a new Internet newspaper

kerrywinn on "Washington's choice: subdue Iran, secure Iraq"

kerrywinn — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:23:00 +0100

Our volunteer force is stretched too thin for an invasion. We will probably look the other way while Israel take the nuclear site out, just as she did with Syria. Can't blame Israel though, especially considering Iran's beligerant tone.

Ask youself, is taking out another "bad guy" bad?

Ahmad Mousa on "Lebanon’s Palestinian shame"

Ahmad Mousa — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:25:13 +0000

The information that I wish to disclose is quoted from a history text titled 'A History of the Middle East' by Peter Mansfield. This is in response to the inscrutable attack directed on the Palestinians from KerKarage and Peter.

1) Re: Earlier clashes between the Maronite Christians and Druze in Lebanon prior to the 1975 civil war & the condition of the Lebanese armed forces.
The historian mentions in his book (refer to Pg 72) of a number of clashes between Maronite Christians and Druze in Lebanon a century before the Palestinians became a burden on the Lebanese state. He recorded that in 1860 a civil war erupted in Lebanon between the Maronites and Druze, which was followed by another in the 1950's. On page 309, the author goes on to say '"the plethora of armed militias representing Lebanon's many sects and political trends acted with increasing independence in open defiance of the inadequate Lebanese armed forces". As illustrated in Mansfield's statement the state of the Lebanese armed forces was indeed fragile.

2) Re: The PLO's involvement in Lebanon's 1975 civil war.
As mentioned on page 309, the conflict in Lebanon in the 70's was primarily between the right wing Christian militia and an alliance of leftists under the leadership of the Druze politician Kemal Jumblatt. Without doubt, the ongoing conflict between the rivals continued a century later. According to the historian, the Palestinians were dragged unwillingly into this mess. As indicated in his statement: "The Palestinian leaders initially tried to keep out of this war but were dragged in, until by January 1976 they were fully engaged on the side of the leftists". We need to keep in mind that this conflict was fueled by external players as well including Israel, some Arab states and the CIA.

3) Re: Palestinian activities in Jordan - 'The Black September".
In March 1968, during the battle of Kerameh in the Jordan valley, there was evidence of a cooperation between the Jordanian army and Palestinian commandos against an Israeli reprisal raiding force. This cooperation inflicted heavy losses on Israel and bolstered the Palestinian guerrilla organization. When Israel retaliated against Jordanian territory threatening Jordan's stability, ultra-loyalist elements of beduin origin expressed their resentment towards the Palestinians which escalated into the events of 'Black September'. A number of historians have also shed light on the negotiations between Jordan with the the Jewish Agency as far back as 1946. These negotiations focused on Jordan's interest in occupying certain areas of east Palestine so that they become included into the future Greater Jordan. Obviously, these negotiations were at the expense of the Palestinians.

Considering the above, how about we stop blaming the Palestinians. It is their cause that has been manipulated by most countries in the Arab and Islamic world for political gain.

Michael T Sager on "Israel after Lebanon: warning siren, deaf ears"

Michael T Sager — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:26:43 +0000

This is, IMHO, a misreading of the the public mood and the political response. (I live in Israel)

The conclusion that most people I have discussed this with hold is that the major error of the 2nd Lebanese war was that Israel entered it too quickly and without an exit strategy. History shows that Israel does not always succeed at first, but its ability to maintain its existence against implacable hostility from its neighbours derives from its ability to learn.

Israel may not have achieved over ambitious goals (to destroy Hizbullah) but by any conventional reading of history and warfare it did not lose. It destroyed strong Hizbullah fortifications next to the border, killed a large number of Hizbullah fighting forces, and was pushing them back to the Litani river when the war ended. That Hizbullah has subsequently been able to restore itself it a direct result of the UN and the real Lebananese government's moral and physical weakness to resist.

The author seem to imply that Israel is looking for a war to win to restore its credibility. Quite the contrary: Hizbullah and its patrons are well aware (but do not say so to their public) that it would do no good to invite another war.

In fact, Hizbullah have a serious strategic dilemma. They have refrained from terror on a global stage, and do not want another war. How do they retain their credibility in the face of the recent assassination? In fact, what is their real objective - to take over Lebanon or destroy Israel? And how do they achieve it?

abuelita42pj on "The quiet revolution: energy futures in Iran, the Gulf, and Israel"

abuelita42pj — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:20:08 +0000

From what little I've read elsewhere Dubai and other emirates have renewable sources of energy on "blueprint" but it's mostly planning not action. We/US and Europe have held off in the planning and building the necessary materials for wind and solar in particular. We're spoiled by subsidies from the taxes of everybody else, instead of just Doing It. My engineers in the family say US has had electric and hydrogen and mixed forms of the car since the '60's at least on paper. My brother helped design some. But the oil and gas corporations have kept them off the market so they could collect more profits--just as the drug cartels in the West paid off their competition with the generic corporations.

Most of the Middle East has a good chance of improving their own way of life and selling it to anyone else if they took the time to train the engineers and put out the money to make the batteries and solar panels and windmills.

The West has it too easy just using the gas and oil. If anything we're going to give up the store by laziness and lack of preparation for the future. I have a neighbor here that has driven an electric car for 12 years--trial; had solar panels that pay for his electricity for at least 9 months of the year so much of the winter cost is ":credited" by extra payment charged usually by accident or is minimal.

I rent so I can merely recycle paper, plastic, glass etc and use LED light bulbs which I have done for 18 months. I have lights on 12-18 hours per day but pay only $17-20 per month. Before I paid over $35.

If US/West doesn't get off our/their duffs and get busy with the renewables, we'll be purchasing them from Saudi Arabia and Iran instead of buying their oil or firing rockets at them.

BB™ on "Beirut and contradiction: reading the World Press Photo award"

BB™ — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:22:22 +0000

Rick HAUSER Founding Partner, Beyond Broadcast™ Co-Founder, THE PERFORMANCE LAB™ In the sense that the photographer observes (only), I find the remarks about the picture interesting and the equation invited with Helmut Newton and voyeurism provocative. Yet the "capturing" of the moment is meaningless to me; "being there" is not enough of a motivation. Surely we don't mean that the apparent banality of the subject matter and the accident of its recording "elevates" it to the level of art? Truly fine war photography captures/has captured moments of universal — anguish — hope — iconographically. This picture is little more than a snapshot — little choice other than to snap the shutter has been made . . . And — in that — all the meaning, I wager someone will say . . .

pdebeer on "Beirut and contradiction: reading the World Press Photo award"

pdebeer — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:54:18 +0100

What is wrong with this picture and with Mai Ghoussoub's views about Beirut? This picture shows us a slice of Beirut as it is and not as some politically correct minds - from Hizbullah to ... - would like Lebanon to be seen. Yes, thanks God or nature, there are beautiful women in Beirut, whose house as been destroyed or not. And there are also a lot of bright women, obviously more than bright men, otherwise Lebanon would not be in the present state of affairs. And, among these bright women is also Nadine Labaki, whose movie, Caramel, has just been released in Paris. It shows life in Beirut through four women who meet to gossip in the most unexpected of peace havens, a beauty parlour where religion, social origin disappear behind layers of cucumber slices and beauty creams. Whenever there are bright and brave women, there is still hope.

Unknown2007 on "Beirut and contradiction: reading the World Press Photo award"

Unknown2007 — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:05:51 +0100

... thinking about what you've written some more, I guess what it comes down to is something like the 'orientalism' you mention (ie exposing the prejudices in the audience, not necessarily capturing any other 'truth' about the situation) - but since the people in the photgraph have commented on it, it's worth letting their voices be heard too. And if you live in Beirut, of course you'll know the Isrealis bombed the rich too. My apologies!

Unknown2007 on "Beirut and contradiction: reading the World Press Photo award"

Unknown2007 — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:52:06 +0100

The people in the car were inspecting the damage to their house - they weren't being disaster tourists at all. More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6385969.stm (8 March 2007). Another example of prejudice overriding reality. Do you think the Israelis only bombed poor people?

gray on "Washington in Lebanon and Palestine: fatal manipulation"

gray — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:30 +0100

In criticising the policy of the US, one begs the question of the role of the other potential players in the region, in particular, the EU, the Arabs and the UN itself. The US is one of the least legitimate powers to provide unbiased mediation or resolution, why does everyone else treat them as the ultimate power?

kimrich on "Washington in Lebanon and Palestine: fatal manipulation"

kimrich — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:05:34 +0100

While US intentions and conduct in the region are far from benign, it would be difficult to attribute the nefariousness of Hizbollah and Hamas to this alone. Their unpleasant rhetoric is not the fault of anyone but their own ideologues. That they are terrorist organizations cannot be denied and moreover cannot be "blamed" on the great and little Satans- however ostensibly sophisticated this analysis might be. Liberation movements are not necessarily terrorist organizations. The latter is a designation earned by a combination of rhetoric and ,well, terrorist conduct. Hezbollah and Hamas achieve this distinction with flying colours.

hari_1 on "Washington in Lebanon and Palestine: fatal manipulation"

hari_1 — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:06:41 +0100

My comment on the article is that it clearly reflects Arab thinking and that this WH has succeeded in destroying decades of US policy in the region by first refusing to deal with Arafat and then Hammmas. One must question what's driving GWB on Arab politics. Is it APIAC and its supporters in NSC and/or is it fundamentally a racisist oriented policy which reflects current domestic politics inside Israel? In my three decades of following Palestinian issues, I fail to understand what US is going to gain by refusing to not only acknowledge Hammas and its politial imperative to a Palestinian state; as well as, its vast social network which maintains the social fabric of its fragile society. By aliging only with "corrupt" Fatah and upgrading their military capacity, this WH is, in fact, demanding dismantling of Hammas or its outright erradication in national interest of Israel. My Israeli friends even find this policy outreach simply unrealistic (in light of above). So what's the driving force, now that 18mths are left of GWB regime? My conclusion is that a last ditch effort is being undertaken now to foreclose Iraninan state power and influence on Palestinian issue (ie.Hammas) once Iran and its nuclear ambitions become a reality. Lack of understanding and cultural affinity to Arab nationalism and unwarranted acquiesence to Israel's national interest might finally boomerang on US policy in the region.

jdubow on "Lebanon divided"

jdubow — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:45:56 +0100

This is a good article about an important issue. Rabil writes like an old school reporter, and I mean that like a high compliment. Most journalists today couldn't get a job on my college newspaper when I was in school. The article details failure by the UN to alert the security council and the general assembly so that something can be done. Sanctions against Syria would be a good start. Supplying Syrian insurgents with advice and arms from Iraq (by the US) and from Israel would be a second good start. Yet the UN stands by and does the minimum. The question for the UN isn't whether they can field a team in Lebanon, it is whether anyone can trust it to win a few games. Its' record over the past fifty years is one of continual failure. It is said that, on an examination, getting every answer wrong is as hard as getting every answer right. Statistically speaking the UN should have, even mistakenly, gotten a few missions to work out. It hasn't and that raises questions of motives for the UN to fail on a grand scale. The US media is in a similar situation. The market share of mainstream media is declining precipitously and the doctrine of liberal political correctness dictates what stories can be covered and what can be said in those s stories that are. Why this form of self-censorship is rigidly maintained seems mysterious since it is hard to fit a model of self-interest onto the facts. That the Wall Street Journal is the only US paper to cover this story is by now so familiar as to become a cliche. However, with the new ownership there is a good chance that the dedication to quality journalism will be compromised by accounting and legal standards that will end up leaving no one to cover the important stories of the day. This story, along with the Chinese now controlling who may become leaders in the Tibetan Buddhist religion and the increasingly aggressive Russian attitude towards Eastern European republics are again neglected by the US mainstream media. Instead the media printed their 5,000 hagiography of Hillary Clinton and printed a catty put down of Fred Thompson's wife along with the obligatory slams on the Bush Administration. I have taken to following a story in Google News by clicking where it says "see another 200 stories on this subject. It is amazing to track the stories from the US media. Of, say, two hundred stories about 100 to 150 of them are from US media and of them about 99-149 all say the same thing, often in the same words but, even if the words differ slightly, the outlook is essentially the same. It is as if there is a US press story, a Western European story and a bunch of independent stories from other outlets around the world. No wonder consolidation in the press is so prevalent-there is no reason for most media outlets in the US to exist. The personal stake in this is that the Middle East, China, Russia and elsewhere situations are festering because there is no way for the public to express themselves to politicians because it is very difficult to find anything out about what is going on in the world. This could lead to a drift into war and a compromise of the freedom of the press that, seemingly, no one wants. Given the lack of awareness or movement on these issues what the US might need is a Japanese newspaper, perhaps run by Toyota with its dedication ot quality, published in the States so that the issues of the day are at least available to the public.