'Bushies' enjoying the spoils of Iraq's war ...

In Salon, here

" ......Armitage advised Powell on more than one occasion to tell the neocons to "go fuck themselves," and, at one point, even refused to deliver a speech about Iraq drafted for him by Vice President Dick Cheney's office. Yet, three years after those epic battles, Armitage is enjoying life as a stakeholder in a dozen private companies that are making money directly from the war started by his former nemeses.....

Take the case of George Tenet, who retired in 2004 from his service as President Bush's CIA director. As he was writing his memoirs and preparing for a new career as a professor at Georgetown University, Tenet quietly began cutting deals with companies that earn much of their revenues from contracts with the intelligence community. And, as I was the first to report a year ago in Salon, Tenet began to make big money off of the Iraq war. By the end of 2007, he had made nearly $3 million in directors' fees and other compensation from his service as a director and adviser to four companies that provide the U.S. government with technology, equipment and personnel used for the war in Iraq, as well as in the broader war on terror......

One of the most spectacular transitions from intelligence to business took place at Blackwater USA, the security contractor infamous for its trigger-happy soldiers in Iraq. One of Blackwater's first major contracts, negotiated by founder Erik Prince, was a secret no-bid $5.4 million deal with the CIA signed shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Shortly thereafter, Blackwater hired as its vice chairman Cofer Black, the CIA's former top counterterrorism official who was dispatched by Tenet in the days after 9/11 to brief President Bush and his advisers on the CIA's plans for overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan. Rob Richer, the CIA's former Associate Deputy Director of Operations and, before that, head of its Near East division, became Blackwater's Vice President of Intelligence, and later went to work for a private intelligence company...."

Pakistani "official of law enforcement agency" accuses the WSJ of spying?

Via W&P in the CPJ, here

".... But we are also concerned about the source for this scurrilous information, someone the reporter identified as “an official of law enforcement agency, who requested anonymity.” Could this be a deliberate government attempt to intimidate Rosenberg and other foreign correspondents working in Pakistan? That’s a deeply chilling possibility that must be investigated."

Are you bothered by the lack of virture on Facebook? ... fear not: the Saudi religious police are here to help you!

In the Cable/ here

If you are like me, you were probably also bothered by the lack of virture on Facebook and other social networking sites. Well, fear not: the Saudi religious police are here to help us. Al Arabiya has more (h/t Chanan Weismann):

A group of Saudi's launched a group on a popular social networking website called The Facebook Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and have so far to attracted more than 500 members.

The group, named after the kingdom's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice also known as the religious police, aims to introduce people to the religious police, the London-based al-Hayat reported Friday.

The group's administrators have set several conditions for membership, including, no foul language or slandering officials, only serious topics open for discussion and posters should be tolerant and open-minded.

If members insult Islam they will be allowed three warnings before they are deleted from the group.

Many Saudis were keen to join the group and a large portion of members praised the role the committee plays in the Saudi society and the way they protect citizens and imposes order.

"al-Maliki said the rumors that he will create an election bloc with Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council & Muqtada al Sadr, ... are untrue"

AP/ here

"... But al-Maliki also welcomed all parties — including his Shiite rivals — to come under the umbrella of his party for the vote or afterward.... "The door is open for all."

Earlier this year, the Supreme Council and the Sadrists joined together to form the Iraqi National Alliance. Both parties enjoy close ties toIran. The bloc also includes smaller Shiite, Sunni and secular groups...... The alliance has emerged as the main threat to al-Maliki's hopes to win another four-year term at the helm after elections......"

"When the time comes to settle scores, they may be more likely to choose bullets rather than ballots to do the job"

ALB is telling us that Hariri's followers are not happy, and that they might still show it! I tell him: It's been tried before: May 2008' (thank you reader)! TIME, here

"... But the government's caving in to Hizballah and Syria will have its consequences: most importantly it's a message to those in Lebanon — and the wider Middle East — who put their trust in the U.S. and political reform that guns are still more powerful than votes. Watching the Syrian-backed opposition hamstring the investigation into his father's murder will have been a bitter pill for Hariri and his followers to swallow. When the time comes to settle scores, they may be more likely to choose bullets rather than ballots to do the job."

90,000 casualties, but who’s counting?

Via War In Context, AntiWar, here

"... Usually, there is nothing more powerful than a personal story to pound home the cost of eight years of war overseas, but I think today there is something even more disturbing to bear.

It’s the number 89,457

As of Nov. 9, that’s how many American casualties there were in Iraq and Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001, when the Afghan war officially began. That includes a tire-screeching 75,134 dead, wounded-in-action, and medically evacuated due to illness, disease, or injury in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and 14,323 and counting in Afghanistan, or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

"... interests & prerogatives of Syria,... without any reduction in Damascus' ties to Iran..."

Flynt Leverett, in the RFI, ".......three points deserve special attention.

"First, the view that the March 14 movement “beat Hizballah” and that it would be able to form a government on its own after the June elections was never grounded in reality. If one simply goes by the number of votes cast for March 14 and March 8, March 14 did not “win” the elections – Hizballah and its allies received roughly 55 percent of the votes cast across Lebanon, while March 14 received roughly 45 percent. However – thanks in no small part to Saudi money that enabled March 14 to move its supporters into swing constituencies and fly in sympathetic expatriates to participate in the June elections – Hariri’s group won a majority of the seats in parliament. (The March 14 movement is routinely romanticized in the West as champions of democracy, but, if you suggest to a Hariri supporter that Lebanon adopt “one man, one vote” democracy, your image of March 14 as truly democratic will be quickly brought back to earth. The only real champion of “one person – including women – one vote” democracy in Lebanon today is Hizballah.) Since Hizballah won a larger share of popular support than March 14, it was inevitable that no government could be formed which would exclude them.

Second, Hizballah was never going to agree to join a “national unity” government in an atmosphere of hostility toward Iran and Syria. Saudi intervention in the June elections was meant to prevent Hizballah from winning, but it was also part of a broader Saudi effort to “push back” against what many in Riyadh see as rising Iranian influence in Lebanon, stemming from Tehran’s ties to Hizballah, and growing Shi’a influence in regional politics. From an Iranian and Syrian perspective, Saudi intervention in the elections violated understandings that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had reached with Saudi King Abdallah to let the electoral process play out and to cooperate afterwards in helping their respective Lebanese allies create a national unity government. Under these circumstances, neither Hizballah, Syria, nor Iran was inclined to facilitate the creation of a unity government without a clear acknowledgment – by March 14 and Saudi Arabia – of their interests and prerogatives, both in Lebanon and regionally. When we were last in Beirut and Damascus in July – it was clear that everyone knew then what the terms of reference for a unity government would be. But the deal could not be struck until a different regional context had been created.

Third, after five months of futile politicking, Saudi Arabia has now acknowledged the interests and prerogatives of Syria – and through Syria, of Iran as well – in Lebanese politics. This acknowledgment came, most vividly, with Saudi King Abdallah’s visit to Syria last month – a dramatic reversal after years of Saudi efforts to isolate and press Assad following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri (Saad’s father) in 2005 and a de facto Saudi boycott of the Arab League in Damascus last year. Saudi Arabia calculates that it must now allow Syria to re-establish its traditionally important role in inter-Arab politics – without any meaningful reduction in Syrian ties to the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s rising influence in the Middle East flows, to a large degree, from its support for groups like Hizballah and HAMAS that significant portions of local populations see as their legitimate representatives and as the only political forces engaged in serious resistance to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region. Bashar al-Assad has not allowed Arab allies of the United States to use a restrictive interpretation of Arab solidarity to undermine his ties to the Islamic Republic and Iranian-backed forces of resistance—ties that cut across Arab-Persian and Sunni-Shi’a divides. This is a testament to Assad’s diplomatic acumen, which contradicts both the facile stereotypes of the Syrian leader that took hold in the West after Hariri’s assassination and expectations that he was in “over his head”. It is also a testament to Iran’s indispensability to settlements of the Middle East’s core conflicts, including those in Lebanon and Palestine."

Saudis & Egyptians "no longer masters of their universe"...

NYTimes, here

"...... Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say. They have been challenged by Iran, opposed by much smaller Arab neighbors, mocked by Syria and defied by influential nonstate groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Even while Iran has been focused on its domestic political crisis, and Syria has struggled with an economic and water crisis, their continued support for Hamas and Hezbollah has preserved for them a strong hand in matters like the formation of a new government in Lebanon and efforts to reconcile Palestinian factions, officials and analysts said.

Officials in Saudi Arabia and Egypt acknowledge all this; they admit that they are no longer masters of their universe. What they do not agree upon is how to respond.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has decided that Arab unity is the only way to re-establish the kingdom’s role and to blunt Iran’s growing influence. The king has begun a diplomatic drive to smooth relations with Muammar el-Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Egyptian officials say they wish the king well but have declined to participate in his reconciliation initiative because they think it will fail as long as Syria determines that the advantages of playing the spoiler outweigh the gains of pushing for peace.

“If there is no peace, then all those who bet against peace are winning,” said an Egyptian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid increasing tensions with the United States or Saudi Arabia. “And all those who act and bet there will be peace are losing, like us. We are losing because we are putting this bet.”....

Even as its vast reserves of oil money have expanded its global influence, Saudi Arabia finds itself unable to exert its will even on its own border, ...in Yemen; or in Lebanon, where its chief source of influence, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was assassinated. Even its goal of leading the Persian Gulf states, under the umbrella of the Gulf Cooperation Council, has faltered......... “The leadership now feels it has to try to reset the agenda.”

The Saudis have decided that the key to re-establishing a strong hand in the region rests broadly in Arab unity and specifically in Syria. Syria has close economic and political ties with Iran. It hosts the political leadership of the militant group Hamas. It shares a border with Iraq and has been accused of allowing militants and weapons to cross over. It has a close alliance with Hezbollah. All of these are excellent tools for undermining Saudi efforts to blunt Iran and push for peace with Israel.....

But Saudi Arabia’s challenge is also one of leverage, political analysts and Saudi officials said. How does Saudi Arabia persuade Syria to switch from the antipeace camp, to the pro-peace camp?

The Saudis have hinted at two strategies. One involves giving Syria much needed economic assistance. The other, though not stated directly, involves Lebanon. Syria has made it clear that it views events in Lebanon as central to its national security, as well as its pride. Saudi Arabia has tried in recent years to keep Lebanon in its orbit through proxies and cash infusions. But lately it has suggested that it might not object to Syria reasserting political control there.

“What is recognized is that Lebanon is more important to Syria than any other Arab country,” said a Saudi official who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize officials in either country. “It’s in its backyard. We understand that. But what we are looking for is some kind of Arab unity to stop foreign intervention in our Arab affairs.”..... “Does the West give any support to those moderates on the Palestinian front, on the Arab side, that advocate peace, that say, ‘It is not about resistance any more, but what we want can be achieved through negotiations?’ ” said the Saudi government official. “The answer is, ‘No.’ Do we have an empty hand? The answer is, ‘Yes.’ ”

Greek Orthodox Priest attacked in Anti-Muslim rage ...

Via the Huffington Post/ here

It's not for nothing that General George Casey warned against an anti-Muslim backlash in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. But a whole slew of childlike nimrods, spurred to action by Casey vowing that it would be "a shame if our diversity became a casualty," have taken the stage to decry such concerns as "political correctness." Michelle Malkin complained that this was worshiping "the false god of diversity."Pat Robertson demanded that Muslims be treated as "members of some fascist group." So much good sense, being made! And so, naturally, the backlash Casey warned of has now expanded to include Greek Orthodox priests.

"'Arab Terrorists' practicing their evil-terroristic-arab-muslim ritual"

Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, "Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron." The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, "and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him."

"Arab-Muslim-Suicide-bombing-female-Terrorists scouting .. (Oh Lord) the Vatican!"

Handling the "Saudi-Yemen" challenge is an early test of a bunch of new Princes ...

WINEP, here

".... Handling this challenge looks to be an early test of the executive competence of a new generation of Saudi leadership....

The Houthis, who take their name from the family of their leader, say they want increased local autonomy and a greater role for their Zaydi version of Islam, which is Shiite and typically regarded as moderate. The group has close links to local Sunnis, who are in the majority. Indeed, President Ali Saleh of Yemen is himself a Zaydi. Until the latest fighting, analysis based on discussion of a Sunni-Shiite divide, often a useful way to understand other parts of the Middle East, was usually inappropriate for Yemen. Now, however, the fighting in northern Yemen has the makings of a proxy war, with Iran (Shiite) supporting the Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia (Sunni) responding with support for President Saleh.....

Although the Houthi forces lack aircraft and armored vehicles, they arguably have a tactical advantage in the confrontation owing to their numbers and training as well as their skillful use of land mines. Houthi websites show rallies with high attendance, along with disciplined training sequences reminiscent of Hizballah activities in Lebanon....

The present story of possible Iranian involvement goes back into late October, when Yemen seized an Iranian ship loaded with weaponry that included antitank weapons. Adding to the intrigue, the most recent video to appear on a Houthi website shows a captured Saudi special forces soldier, seized Saudi arms and vehicles, and what appears to be Saudi aircraft dropping white phosphorus on rebel positions in the mountains....... The border between the two countries has also been in question, with the Yemenis previously making claims to the kingdom's southern provinces. While that issue has now apparently been resolved, Riyadh sometimes mishandles the local population, the majority of whom are Zaydis (as are Yemenis across the border) and Ismailis. Both groups are subject to discrimination by the Saudi (Wahhabi) religious police....

In the current crisis, the Saudi council of ministers has pledged "zero tolerance for intruders," an apparent reference to Houthi rebels. Interestingly, King Abdullah has effectively delegated management to the next generation of princes. Prince Khaled bin Sultan, ..... Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, ..... Prince Mishal bin Abdullah, ..... and the king's nephew Prince Mishal bin Miteb, ......

For Washington, the border tension compounds an already complicated relationship. Ever since the USS Cole was blown up in Aden harbor by al-Qaeda in 2000, the United States has felt that Yemen has not acted strongly enough against al-Qaeda fighters. Even imprisoned fighters have often been released or apparently allowed to escape. This scenario complicates the Obama administration's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where Yemenis form the largest residual national contingent. U.S. efforts to persuade President Saleh to allow these detainees to be sent to Saudi rehabilitation programs -- because Washington does not trust Yemen to look after the detainees sufficiently -- have failed so far. The State Department has aired its view that the conflict between the Houthis and the Yemeni central government will not be resolved through military means. But, for their part, Yemeni officials warn privately that the state could be threatened if Sana is not helped with military supplies and given latitude to pursue its military campaign. On the diplomatic front, Sana hopes that it can sort out its relations with Iran while, for now, simply asking the Houthis, estimated at between 6,000 and 7,000 armed men, to give up their military positions. Sana fears that the Houthis -- encouraged by Tehran -- aim to undermine U.S. and Saudi interests in its corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Such a view will be tested during the coming winter months, which, in Yemen's mountains, unlike much of the rest of the world, are the best time for fighting."

Kouchner: "It seems Israel no longer wants peace"

Haaretz, here

"... Speaking on France Inter radio, Kouchner made clear he was not expecting any swift break through in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. "What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace," Kouchner said.

"It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it," he added...."

... and the winner is: Bashar Assad?

Judah Grunstein, in WPR, here

"The big winner from yesterday's frosty meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu? Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. With the Palestinian peace track once again derailed, that leaves Syria as the only credible peace player in town.

That's the guiding logic behind a diplomatic fact-finding report just delivered to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, anyway. The advantage of an Israel-Syria deal preceding the Palestinian track being that Hamas would almost certainly be forced to adapt to the changed landscape in ways that would favor intra-Palestinian reconciliation and facilitate a subsequent Israeli-Palestinian deal. It's in that context that France believes the offer of lifting its diplomatic embargo on Hamas, if played at the right time, could move negotiations forward.

and Le Figaro, here

«Il n'est plus possible de maintenir un cordon sanitaire autour du Hamas» : dans le rapport sur la diplomatie française au Proche-Orient qu'il vient de remettre à Nicolas Sarkozy, le sénateur de l'Oise (UMP) Philippe Marini préconise un rapprochement avec le mouvement islamiste palestinien.

Au cours de sa mission qui l'a conduit dans la plupart des pays de la région, le parlementaire s'est entretenu, en février dernier à Damas, avec Khaled Mechaal, le dirigeant politique de la branche syrienne du Hamas, qu'il avait déjà rencontré une première fois en juillet 2008. La France proscrit tout contact officiel avec l'organisation radicale palestinienne, considérée comme terroriste par l'Union européenne. Au printemps 2008, la visite effectuée auprès de responsables du Hamas par un ambassadeur en retraite, Yves Aubin de la Messuzière, avait mis en lumière les «passerelles» que Paris était prêt à jeter vers le mouvement islamiste.

«Aujourd'hui, souligne Philippe Marini, il faut investir davantage pour mieux connaître ce mouvement complexe doté d'une tête politique, d'une tête militaire et dont le pouvoir de facto se situe à Gaza.» Car, selon le sénateur UMP, «le Hamas ne pourra pas éternellement demeurer dans son isolement. Et la France est une puissance qui lui inspire confiance»....

De fait, poursuit-il, après l'enlisement des discussions interpalestiniennes du Caire, la priorité urgente est «de retisser les liens, de retrouver un autre concept de négociation dans lequel la France serait plus directement impliquée, avec l'Égypte et la Turquie». Selon Philippe Marini, ceci doit s'accompagner d'une autre orientation, l'approfondissement de la relation avec la Syrie, dont le chef de l'État, Bachar el-Assad, sera mercredi à Paris. «Nous pouvons utiliser cette carte encore davantage», insiste le sénateur de l'Oise, en pointant notamment les enjeux d'un règlement de la question du Golan et de l'avancée de la relation bilatérale syro-israélienne. «S'il y a un réchauffement entre la Syrie et Israël, il faudra bien que le Hamas s'adapte au contexte de paix», analyse Philippe Marini."

Next step: "Defining HEZBOLLAH 'RESISTANCE'"

In the CSM, here

"... after a Western-backed coalition narrowly beat the Hezbollah-led opposition in in Lebanon's June elections, the two sides reached a deal Monday night....."The cabinet will either allow the Lebanese to renew trust in their institutions, or it will lead them to repeat their past failures to achieve consensus," Hariri said (read the later!)......

The next stage is the drawing up of a government policy statement. The key element of the statement will be the status of the "resistance" ...The previous national unity government granted legitimacy to the "resistance" to seek the liberation of remaining Lebanese territory under Israeli occupation.

"The drafting of the ministerial statement will not be a problem at all, on the grounds that in parallel to Lebanon's commitment to Resolution 1701 it is the right of the people, Army, and the resistance to restore land by all means available," Suleiman was quoted as saying in Lebanese newspapers Tuesday, echoing the phrase contained in the previous government's policy statement....

... says Ousama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies. "We should experience a modicum of stability for a while, but do not expect any earth-shattering changes from the government."

Saudi Arabia & Moscow "taking Israeli sensitivities into account"...

WPR/ here

".......the most significant Russian arms deal in the Middle East since the Soviet Union transferred SA-2s to Nasser's Egypt...... part of a larger process that leads to a significant realignment in the external relations of both parties......In all, the Saudi market may absorb up to $7 billion worth of Russian equipment in the future.

The precise timing for the deal seems to have been guided by the worsening Iran nuclear crisis and the increasing enmity between the Iranians and the Saudis. The Saudi defense requirements also come at a time when Russian newspapers are awash with reports of the monetary loss -- in the billion-dollar range -- that Moscow must incur on the sale of S-300 air defense systems to Iran. That deal has been stalled due to pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv. Clearly, handsome compensation seems to be in the pipeline from Saudi quarters.

Beyond the Iranian angle lies the Saudi need to diversify its sources of military equipment and thereby raise its bargaining power as a buyer. With the deal, Russia has beaten out the French, who have fallen out of favor lately with the Saudi establishment, especially since King Abdullah has been directly overseeing weapons procurement. The French practice of bundling additional weapons not sought by the buyer in a consolidated package has irked the Saudis. The turn to Russia effectively thwarts French pressure to buy weapons that the Saudis do not need, allowing them to focus on those that they do.

Saudi Arabia also seems to have responded favorably to Russian feelers with respect to coordinating production and pricing on the international oil market. These two countries lead the world in oil exports and have huge reserves of gas as well. In the future, the Saudis may provide a bridge for the Russians to OPEC.

From the Kremlin's point of view this deal represents an immense leg up for the Russian military-industrial complex, and a possible inroads with a country known to have access to key U.S. and European defense technology. Also, beating out the French in the defense realm might give Moscow a leg up in the nuclear sweepstakes as well, given that Riyadh seems set to debut nuclear energy in the kingdom.

There might also be an Indian role somewhere in all of this. India has in the past served as a parts supplier and maintenance station for Russian hardware operated by countries in its neighborhood.... It is conceivable that given the recent upturn in Indo-Saudi relations, the latter may also look towards India for keeping future Russian origin weapons up to speed. India may also help the Saudis in setting up Russian-origin nuclear reactors.

Indo-Saudi ties have experienced a drastic improvement since King Abdullah's visit to India in 2006. On the other hand, India and Iran have been steadily drifting apart, ever since India's anti-Iran vote at the IAEA in 2007 and amid differences over the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. Iran's increasingly bellicose statements on Israel and its Holocaust denial have made the relationship a difficult one for India. Israel, after all, is a "special" supplier of strategic technologies to India, and New Delhi cannot afford to jeopardize this relationship. Moreover, another nuclear-armed nation in the vicinity is hardly in India's interests.

Saudi Arabia can offer many of the same benefits to India that Iran can, and seems to have managed its relationship with Israel decently in the recent past. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the single largest source of Indian petroleum imports and may become a key recipient of Indian IT exports in the future.

The Kremlin is also increasingly taking Israeli sensitivities into account. One of the main reasons for this is that a lot of Russian equipment can be made "hotter" through the replacement of Russian electronics and sensors with those from Israel. Indeed, Indian military imports from Russia increasingly contain India-specific Israeli inputs. Years of operating captured Arab-owned Soviet equipment has given Israel an amazing niche capability to integrate its own technology with Russian military architecture....

Irrespective of whether the Obama administration succeeds in bringing Iran around, it is clear that both Washington's partners and rivals are hedging against Iran's uncertain trajectory. In fact, in the event of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement, Riyadh and Moscow may find themselves even more irresistibly drawn towards each other."

"... US officials said they believe Obama took too confrontational an approach toward Netanyahu ..."

The WSJ, here

"...... The brinksmanship over a one-on-one meeting between the two leaders represents a rare display of pique by the White House toward Israel. Mr. Netanyahu had long been scheduled to visit Washington to speak at the assembly of Jewish groups. While he had no confirmed plans to meet Mr. Obama, it would be rare, but not unprecedented, for an Israeli prime minister to visit Washington without meeting the U.S. president......

The trip presented a major tactical dilemma for the White House. Mr. Obama risked enflaming Arab and Palestinian dissatisfaction if he appeared too warm toward Mr. Netanyahu. But snubbing him altogether would carry risks too, threatening to further sap Israeli support for the peace efforts.....

Palestinian officials have told Mrs. Clinton and other U.S. diplomats in recent weeks that they were concerned they could be drawn into negotiations with Israel that fell short of establishing an independent state. Mr. Netanyahu in the past has described granting Palestinians broad autonomy, but without total control of their defenses and foreign policy.

Some U.S. officials said they believe the administration took too confrontational an approach toward Mr. Netanyahu soon after Mr. Obama took office, insisting early on a total settlement freeze and turning Israeli public opinion strongly against the U.S....."

Ashkenazi: "Iran is not irrational"... (and yes, the Iranians "halted their program in 2003'")

Haaretz, here

".... "The Iranian regime is radical, but it's not irrational," said Ashkenazi. "If the regime sees international insistence, its not illogical to assume that it will change its direction." "In 2003, the Iranians halted their nuclear program (agree with the 2007' NIE?!) after they understood that the Americans were on their way to Iraq, and knew that Iran was next in line," he added.

Meanwhile, Turkish and Iranian officials met secretly this week on the sidelines of an Istanbul summit, according to a Turkish daily.

President Barack Obama said on Monday that an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers.

Obama told Reuters in an interview that the United States had made more progress toward global nuclear non-proliferation in the last several months than in the past several years. "But it is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues," he said at the White House...."

A 'well-behaved' Netanyahu offers 'no policy shifts'....

Laura Rosen, in Politico, here

"U.S. officials said the delay, which stretched until late Sunday, stemmed from last-minute discussions aimed at gaining a more robust and public commitment to the peace track from Mr. Netanyahu," the Wall Street Journal reports. "One official said the U.S. wanted Mr. Netanyahu to express stronger support for negotiations on an independent Palestinian state at his speech Monday before the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington. 'We're in the part of the process where you can't expect something for nothing,' the official said."

That, it seems, they got. Netanyahu was notably on his best behavior in the speech. Although offering no new policy shifts, he held back from underhanded punches at the U.S. administration to a potentially friendly audience and did not invoke the "we have no Palestinian partner" cry..."

"... the peace they favor is defined as requiring Palestinians to accept the status quo, that is not a choice of peace over territory..."

Henry Siegman in Haaretz, here

"Bradley Burston is offended by my characterization of Israel's inability to let go of the occupied territories as a pathology, a characterization he says can only be made by someone who hates Israelis.......

I challenge Burston to cite a single instance of my having touched on the subject of the "venality" of Israel's leaders (i.e. that they can be bought with money) in any of the hundreds of columns I have written over the past forty years, although it is a subject that Israeli columnists have had a field day with. I have avoided it entirely, because my concern has been the damage that Israel's occupation policies and its denial of the human rights and national rights of the Palestinian people are doing to Israel's ability to survive as a Jewish and democratic state.

It is not true, as Burston claims, that I said Israelis lie when they tell pollsters they favor peace. I said that when the peace they favor is for all practical purposes defined as requiring Palestinians to accept the status quo, that is not a choice of peace over territory.

Yes, I have repeatedly written about the deceitfulness of proclamations by Israeli governments about their commitment to a two-state solution. The relentless pursuit by these governments of the settlement enterprise can only be understood as a commitment to prevent such an outcome.

...... Prime Minister Ariel Sharon claimed that he removed the settlements in Gaza as a prelude to further withdrawals from the West Bank and a peace agreement with the Palestinians. But the man who negotiated the deal for President Bush's letter of April 2004 to Sharon on the subject of settlements, Dov Weisglass, told Ari Shavit of Haaretz that Sharon's real purpose was to "effectively remove this whole package that is called the Palestinian state from our agenda indefinitely." .....

To blame Palestinians, rather than their occupiers, for their responsibility for remaining under a forty-year, oppressive military occupation when Netanyahu's government refuses to consider anything resembling a viable or sovereign Palestinian state, insists on retaining far more Palestinian land than was demanded by previous Israeli governments, rejects the idea of equal land exchanges, and has taken Jerusalem entirely off the table, is to add insult to injury. ...."

"terrorists' homes should be destroyed shortly after the attack" ... not so fast....

'Americo-Israeli Jack Teitel'

YNETnews, here

".... Barak said a year ago that "terrorists' homes should be destroyed shortly after the attack in order to deter potential terrorists." He made the remark after another bulldozer attack carried out by an east Jerusalem resident. But is similar deterrence needed in case of a Jewish terrorist? Barak has been avoiding answering this question...."

I am ready to be "generous" .... but I need a 'yellow light' to do Lebanon again ...

The usurper-in-chief is ready to throw a bone to Abbas ... He is ready to give Abbas from his own stock! Oh and yes, he'll be asking for a 'yellow light' for a Hezbollah redux!

Haaretz, here

" .... "We mean business," Netanyahu planned to tell the American president, and add that Israel was ready to be "generous" in scaling back the construction in West Bank settlements.

In the past, Netanyahu has rebuffed Obama's calls for a complete freeze on settlement activity, including the expansion of current ones. The opposing standpoints have effectively brought the peace process to a halt.

Netanyahu was further set to tell Obama that there was never any Israeli intention to halt settlement construction before entering into talks with the Palestinians. "What more do I need to do?" he was to ask.

Sources close to the prime minister have said that Netanyahu is convinced that he is doing everything in his power to advance the peace process......

He was to add that up until this point, the security arrangements between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Gaza have proven ineffective.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs fielded questions ahead of the meeting, saying that the "policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations."

US to give Iran more time .....

Reuters/ here

"..... "There have been communications back and forth. We are in extra innings in these negotiations. That's sometimes the way these things go," said Glyn Davies, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA. "We want to give some space to Iran to work through this. It's a tough issue for them, quite obviously, and we're hoping for an early, positive answer from the Iranians."......

Diplomats say Western powers will reconsider sanctions if there is no breakthrough with Iran by the end of the year..."

ElBaradei proposes Turkey as a third-country destination for Iranian enriched uranium ...

In Zaman, here

" ... “It should work,” he said during an interview on Public Broadcasting’s Charlie Rose television show as he ends his tenure as IAEA chief. “Iran has a lot of trust in Turkey.” The Obama administration would agree to this proposal because the US is “very comfortable with Turkey,” he said. ElBaradei, meanwhile, noted that, although he hasn’t presented the idea to the Turkish government, he is confident that Turkish officials would be receptive to holding the material in IAEA custody. Iran would then get fuel for its research reactor in Tehran from Russia. Iran is considering the proposal, he said......

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), however, on Saturday, quoted “an informed source in Tehran” who announced that Iran had rejected the IAEA proposal to transfer its enriched uranium to Turkey in order to allay the US and European Union concerns. The proposal was presented a long time ago by ElBaradei and Tehran rejected it at that time, ISNA quoted the same official as saying, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It seems that the IAEA chief is trying to take advantage of the Iranian president’s upcoming trip to Turkey in the media, the official added in reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to İstanbul ..."

"Time To Purge Muslims From Military ... (and if we can, from America!)"

Devout Muslims a threat to America's National Security ... unless what? they convert?

Huffington Post/ here

"... Bryan Fischer, AFA's Director of Issues Analysis, put up a relatively unnoticed blog postlast Friday arguing that U.S. command needed to "stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military."

"The reason is simple," Firscher wrote, "the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers."

"Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms."

"This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism."

"Saad Hariri's Al-Mustaqbal & Al-Arabiya had difficulty concealing their joy at the Israeli success..."

In WALLA (Israel) here

"... Immediately after the Israeli report about the capture of the vessel at sea, the Arab television stations and Internet sites broadcast the item, except for one that ignored it: Al-Manar, which is subordinate to Hezbollah. Instead of dealing with the hot news item, station officials chose to report about the never-ending efforts to establish a national unity government in Lebanon and of the criticism of American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Cairo. Not a word about the captured arms ship. On the other hand, the television stations that oppose Hezbollah, such as Al-Arabiya or Saad Hariri's newspaper, Al-Mustaqbal, had difficulty concealing their joy over the ship's capture...."

Obama wants Netanyahu 'to sweat'...

Benn in Haaretz, here

"... The White House wanted Netanyahu to sweat before being granted an audience with the president, and wanted everyone to see him perspire.

The delays in finding a time to meet, and pushing it to a late hour - after the news programs on Israeli television - make Netanyahu look as if Obama threw him a bone. In such circumstances, it is no longer important what will be said at the meeting, and the extent to which there will be an attempt to present it as an achievement. The prime minister of Israel was humiliated before all.

Netanyahu likes to say that the United States is big and that the Israeli public is mistaken in identifying the American viewpoint only with the president. The true America, Netanyahu says, begins 70 miles west of New York and ends 70 miles east of Los Angeles, and within this enormous space, Israel has millions of loyal supporters.

In his view, the friction with the White House needs to be put in the appropriate proportion, and that falls within the tremendous support of American public opinion that favors Israel.

Those close to Netanyahu, who can express themselves more freely than him, ridicule Obama's inexperience and political amateurism of the administration. In their view, the White House thought it would be possible to bring Netanyahu down, but he only strengthened, according to public opinion polls.

They pressured him to freeze settlements, but he did not surrender.

These neat explanations seem to miss the point: The relations are not symmetrical. Netanyahu may be an experienced diplomat and politician, and Obama may be a novice, but Obama is the president of a superpower, and Netanyahu represents a small country that depends greatly on the United States.

It sometimes appears that Netanyahu forgets this, and pretends he is the head of a superpower, for example when he identifies himself with Winston Churchill, or in declaring that the Israeli mind will free the world of oil dependency in a decade.

Of course Israel can and should use influence and support in the United States, in order to push the policies of the administration in its favor. But in moments of truth and during a crisis, it would be good for Netanyahu if Obama was quick to respond to his call, and not place him on hold.

Obama is not always fair: Denying the existence of understandings between Israel and the previous administration on the settlements harmed his credibility. It is also unclear why he humiliated Netanyahu after Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Prime Minister's proposal to limit settlement construction as "unprecedented."

The opaqueness of the administration rallied Israeli public opinion behind Netanyahu, instead of creating domestic divisions.

But even when the president is not being nice, he is still stronger in the relationship. Instead of making excuses and explaining the terrible situation, Netanyahu should make the effort to resolve the crisis with the American administration. He should listen to the American complaints which sound like the gripes of a couple married for 30 years. Israel complains about the absence of intimacy but only takes and does not give anything in return"

.

"The good news is that despite the division on the streets, when it comes to the nuclear programme, there is still a clear & solid chain of command"

In the Guardian, here

"An analysis in the New York Times attributed Iran's negative reaction to deep divisions within the regime, and the political system's inability to make decisions of this magnitude. However, if we look closely at the decision-making body for the nuclear programme, we see that this conclusion is inaccurate......

It is very possible that there are certain individuals, such as Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's representative to the IAEA, who may back the deal. However there is no sign whatsoever of a consensus large enough that could challenge the supreme leader's opposition to the point that it would render him and Iran's decision-making process powerless to take "a decision of such magnitude"........

There is good news and bad news for President Obama. The bad news is that Khamenei is still intent on pursuing the military part of Iran's nuclear programme......"

Info-Int'l': "Lebanon's cellular revenues US$12 billions... of which US8 billions of state revenues!"

[Note: The report states that from 1994 to 1999 (the 'pre-Lahoud-raising-hell' era) Libancell & cellis just and simply divided the cake!]

Jawad Adra's Info-Int'l in AsSafir, here

'Cellis' Mikati & Uberzionist Jane Harman... and JF'

ويتبيَّن من مراجعة الجدول رقم 1 أنّ إجمالي إيرادات الاتصالات المقدَّرة بلغت 17,552,6 مليار ليرة (11.8 مليار دولار) منذ العام 1994 وحتى العام 2009. والمبلغ المقدر تحويله من هذه الإيرادات الى خزينة الدولة هو 11,768,5 مليار ليرة (نحو 8 مليار دولار).

'Libancell's Dalloul...'

ويتبيّن أيضاً أنه في السنوات الخمس

الأولى لم يحوَّل إلى خزينة الدولة أي مبلغ بل أنّ إيرادات الاتصالات بما فيها إيرادات الخليوي (والذي كان بعهدة Cellis وLibancell) كانت تنفق على مشاريع تحديث الشبكة الثابتة.

خلال مراجعة قطع حساب موازنة 2003 يظهر أنّ إجمالي المبالغ المحوّلة إلى وزارة الاتصالات 984 مليار ليرة منها 711,1 مليار ليرة هي إيرادات الخليوي أي ما يمثِّل 72% من إجمالي إيرادات الاتصالات.

وبشكل أوضح إنّ الهاتف الثابت وبالرغم من ضخامة الأرقام التي أنفقت عليه والتي ناهزت 2 مليار دولار لا يؤمِّن سوى نسبة 28% للخزينة.

وزارة تصل نفقاتها السنوية إلى نحو 200 مليون دولار تتوزع بين رواتب وتعويضات وتجهيزات وإنشاءات وتلزيمات، وتتحكم بقطاع الخليوي وهو من أكبر القطاعات الاقتصادية اللبنانية من حيث حجم الأعمال المتفرّعة منه، وتؤمِّن للدولة إيرادات مالية سنوية لا تقل عن مليار دولار، ولها دور أساسي في خصخصة قطاع الاتصالات وكذلك في التنصّت، أما تكفي كل هذه الأسباب لكي تتسم بالأهمية وتسعى الأطراف المتنافسة للإمساك بها وتكون بالتالي أكثر من عقدة

بعد تشكيل أول حكومة لبنانية برئاسة رفيق الحريري إثر إجراء الانتخابات النيابية للمرة الأولى بعد انتهاء الحــرب اللبنانية في العام 1992 كانــت هذه الوزارة إلى جانب وزارة المالية من الوزارات المهمة بالنسبة إلى الرئيس الحريري حــيث احــتفظ بها لنفسه أو لمقربين منه، ومنذ تشرين الأول 1992 وحتى تشرين الثاني 2009 توالى على الوزارة 8 وزراء وفقاً للجدول الآتي حيث نتبيّن أنّ الوزير جان لوي قرداحي تولى الــوزارة لأطــول فترة (أربع سنوات وخمسة أشهر و25 يوماً). ولم يتولَّ أي وزيرٍ شيعي هذه الحقيبة خلال الفترة المذكورة

Netanyahu 'stuck it' to Obama, but Israeli ambassador can rely on US Jews on Iran!

Haaretz/ here

" .... Speaking at the opening ceremony for the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, Michael Oren said that while Israel "is in better geopolitical situation than ever before," it still faces threats, from members of the Palestinian leadership who do not want peace, as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and their patron, Iran....

It is up to American Jewish communities to add Iran to their list of causes, Oren told the conference...... there should also be banners calling for sanctions on Iran, and to "stop the Iranian bomb."

On the UN report into the Gaza fighting, Oren said when Israel tries to defend itself from danger, "much of the world rushes to condemn Israel for committing war crimes, and even crimes against humanity. The condemnation such as that in the so-called Goldstone report cast widespread doubts about Israel's legitimacy." .... He said Israel was now facing questions about its legitimacy, not only from its traditional enemies but also from young people in the U.S., both Jews and non-Jews. ..."

His Imperial Majesty, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi cannot "sit down & say nothing anymore..."

His Imperial Highness' last glimpse of Iran, Jan.16, 1979

He is angered by the "repression" of Iranians by Ahmadinejad ...So, he offers these insights! In the Telegraph, here

" ... I met him this week in a hotel room in Washington DC, near where he lives. While we talked over mineral water and fish and chips he pulled out his BlackBerry to see the latest news of the street protests in Tehran.

The repression of his fellow Iranians by the Ahmadinejad regime, still in place after the rigged elections of the summer, angers him profoundly.

"When I think that today we Iranians have to be represented by these people, warmongering, terrorist-sponsoring, Holocaust denying – can I possibly sit here and say nothing? I don't want anything in return. I do it because it is my duty," he says.

In exile since his father was deposed in 1979, the Prince, 49, remains the figurehead for the three or four million strong Iranian diaspora.

'Iranians, running in joy, as the Shah's army opens fire, December 27, 1978'

Since the elections he has stepped up calls for civil disobedience by Iranians, and for external support for that. ........"None of this could have happened without foreign support – but that is not the same as an occupying army that comes in and changes a regime – I don't see how that can ever be legitimate."

'Town-hall-type-meeting' between the Shah's army & the Iranian People ...

December 27, 1978'

Saudi 'success' only a "temporary reprieve"

'Assistant Minister for Defence & Aviation, General, Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin abdul Aziz, known as the 'Arab Schwarzkopf', salutes Saudi forces

Al Jazeera/ English

"The situation is calm ... especially in Jebel al-Dukhan, of which full control has been regained," Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, the assistant minister for defence and aviation, said on Saturday, according to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

Theodore Karasik, an analyst at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, said that it was likely that the apparent success of the Saudi action was only a "temporary reprieve".

"The Saudis have been able to push back the rebels but they are going to continue to have problems with the rebels if the Yemeni army is indeed using the southern part of Saudi Arabia for operations and for supply lines," he told Al Jazeera from Dubai....

Prince Khaled was reported as saying that three members of the Saudi security forces had been killed and 15 wounded in the fighting along the Saudi-Yemeni border. He also acknowledged that four Saudi soldiers were missing following the five days of fighting, but dismissed claims that anyone had been captured..."

Dozens of Abbas supporters shout "Abbas, don't step down! You are the foundation"

"... Waving flags, Abbas supporters lined the streets of Hebron to greet the president as he conducted a rare tour of towns in West Bank, part of the territories where the Palestinians aim to establish a state.

"Mahmoud Abbas, don't step down! You are the foundation," chanted the crowd.

The scenes were broadcast live on official Palestine television, which has been airing programs in support of Abbas since his declaration on Thursday that he did not want to run in the election he recently scheduled for Jan. 24. ..."

Sy Hersh: "US trained for years to remove or dismantle parts of the Pakistani arsenal by a unit of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).."

Hersh in the NYorker/ here

"......the Taliban overrunning Islamabad is not the only, or even the greatest, concern. The principal fear is mutiny—that extremists inside the Pakistani military might stage a coup, take control of some nuclear assets, or even divert a warhead......

Obama did not say so, but current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that his Administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis. At the same time, the Pakistani military would be given money to equip and train Pakistani soldiers....

The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust. Many Pakistanis believe that America’s true goal is not to keep their weapons safe but to diminish or destroy the Pakistani nuclear complex. The arsenal is a source of great pride among Pakistanis, who view the weapons as symbols of their nation’s status and as an essential deterrent against an attack by India. (India’s first nuclear test took place in 1974, Pakistan’s in 1998.)

A senior Pakistani official who has close ties to Zardari exploded with anger during an interview.... Today, he said, “you’d like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d’état in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India’snuclear weapons?” the official asked. “Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way. The truth is that our weapons are less of a problem for the Obama Administration than finding a respectable way out of Afghanistan.”...

In response to a series of questions, Admiral Mullen acknowledged that he and Kayani were, in his spokesman’s words, “very close.” The spokesman said that Mullen is deeply involved in day-to-day Pakistani developments and “is almost an action officer for all things Pakistan.” But he denied that he and Kayani, or their staffs, had reached an understanding about the availability of American forces in case of mutiny or a terrorist threat to a nuclear facility. “To my knowledge, we have no military units, special forces or otherwise, involved in such an assignment,” Mullen said through his spokesman.....

In interviews in Pakistan, I obtained confirmation that there were continuing conversations with the United States on nuclear-security plans—as well as evidence that the Pakistani leadership put much less weight on them than the Americans did. In some cases, Pakistani officials spoke of the talks principally as a means of placating anxious American politicians. “You needed it,” a senior Pakistani official, who said that he had been briefed on the nuclear issue, told me. His tone was caustic. “We have twenty thousand people working in the nuclear-weapons industry in Pakistan, and here is this American view that Pakistan is bound to fail.” The official added, “The Americans are saying, ‘We want to help protect your weapons.’ We say, ‘Fine. Tell us what you can do for us.’ It’s part of a quid pro quo. You say, also, ‘Come clean on the nuclear program and we’ll insure that India doesn’t put pressure on it.’ So we say, ‘O.K.’ ”

But, the Pakistani official said, “both sides are lying to each other.” The information that the Pakistanis handed over was not as complete as the Americans believed. “We haven’t told you anything that you don’t know,” he said. The Americans didn’t realize that Pakistan would never cede control of its arsenal: “If you try to take the weapons away, you will fail.”...

team was put on alert after receiving an urgent report from American intelligence officials indicating that a Pakistani nuclear component had gone astray. The team, which operates clandestinely and includes terrorism and nonproliferation experts from the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the F.B.I., and the D.O.E., is under standing orders to deploy from Andrews Air Force Base, in Maryland, within four hours of an alert. When the report turned out to be a false alarm, the mission was aborted, the consultant said. By the time the team got the message, it was already in Dubai...."

(Continue, here)

Before the FRANCOP, remember the MOSSAD & the Arctic Sea?

In the London Times/ here

"..... The response fuelled reports that the ship was carrying a secret cargo. Suspicion mounted when sources close to Mossad claimed that Israel had tipped off Russia that the vessel was smuggling missiles to Iran .

The ship was finally intercepted near the African islands of Cape Verde , 24 days after being seized. Eight men from Latvia , Estonia and Russia were arrested and flown in a military transport to a Moscow jail.

A flurry of diplomatic activity between Russia and Israel followed. President Shimon Peres visited Moscow the next day and Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, made a secret trip to the Kremlin.

Speculation about the ship’s supposed weapons cargo centred on whether the hijackers had been set up by Mossad or Russia ’s secret service, allowing the Kremlin to take control of the cargo while claiming to have foiled an act of piracy. But the Russians denied that the Arctic Sea had been carrying missiles........

The crew dismissed the claims that the Arctic Sea had been smuggling weapons loaded during repairs in the Russian port of Kaliningrad . They said they would have been discovered when the ship docked in Finland to take on its cargo of timber.

“There was no secret cargo,” insisted one crew member. “We’d all be in jail if we’d been caught smuggling weapons to Iran .”... Israeli sources nevertheless insisted last week that Mossad had alerted Moscow to a secret cargo. Experts said the vessel might have been carrying weapon parts that could easily have been hidden......"

"Yaakov (Jack) Teitel is the American aid secured by moderate Israel ..."

Haaretz/ here

".... This is how the Americans abandoned the refugee issue, and this is why they abandoned the opposition to settlements. Netanyahu is no genius. He is simply not interested in saying good-bye to the occupation. That is all. After all, he came to power because of this. To complain about him is to complain about November rain.

The Israeli public's choice is a different matter. The spokesmen of the dovish camp tell us horror stories about a future binational state. But the binational state is already here. It has a rigid apartheid legal system, as the High Court of Justice fades away.

The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being "temporary." Occasionally, Israel's indifference comes up with allegations against the Palestinians.

Abba Eban captured the allegation by coining a phrase repeated by the doves of all parties, who never really went to battle over Israel's future and allowed the "settlement project" to spread. After all, occupation makes Israelis richer. Why oppose it?

Yaakov (Jack) Teitel is the American aid secured by moderate Israel. What Yitzhak Rabin failed to do after the massacre by the last import, Baruch Goldstein - to uproot the Jewish settlement in Hebron - will not happen now either. Shvut Rachel, Tapuah or any other such town will not be moved, nor will the smaller "illegal" outposts.

Beyond the two Palestinians whose murders were never really investigated, and past what Ami Ortiz or Professor Ze'ev Sternhell went through, Teitel is a Made-in-the-U.S.A. reminder that "no one will do for you what you fail to do for yourselves."

How to do what needs to be done? Surely, not through the rules drafted back in the 1970s, when "we" were in power and "they" were the opposition. The settlers are in power. The Shin Bet security service and Obama will not fight them."

Obama & Fayad 'secret understanding': US recognition of a Palestinian State?

the amount of 'secret' reports, understandings & al. that the Israelis are privy to is amazing! Haaretz's Ravid (Agit-prop), here

".... Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.

In late August Fayyad presented the international community with a detailed plan for building up Palestinian Authority institutions and set a timetable of up to two years for its implementation. Senior Israeli officials said Fayyad's plan initially met with positive reaction in Jerusalem for its emphasis on institution-building and making security services more efficient.

But some Israeli officials told Haaretz that alongside the clauses reported in the media - which are similar to elements of Netanyahu's call for "economic peace" between Israel and the Palestinians - Fayyad's plan also contains a classified, unreleased portion stipulating a unilateral declaration of independence.

The plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a "claim of sovereignty" to the UN Security Council and General Assembly over the borders of June 4, 1967 .......also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 in the hope of winning the international community's support for the borders of a Palestinian state and applying stronger pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

Several Israeli officials told Haaretz that Fayyad had spoken to them (remember, this is a 'secret plan'!) of positive responses he had received over the plan from prominent EU member states, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Sweden. Fayyad added that he presented the proposal to the U.S. administration and did not receive any signal of opposition in response. ..."

Obama:" Israel won't know peace while Palestinians are gripped by despair"

Haaretz, here

"Thousands gathered Saturday at Tel Aviv's Rabin Square to remember slain prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the exact spot where he was gunned down 14 years ago by a right-wing extremist. Remarking on Rabin's quest for peace during his life, U.S. President Barack Obama said in a video message that "Israelis will not find true security while the Palestinians are gripped by hopelessness and despair." ....

The video is another step in the U.S. leader's attempt to speak directly to the Israeli public in light of the very low level of support he has among Israelis...."

Obama leaning toward 34,000 additional troops to Afghanistan... well short of McChrystal's 80,000 "low-risk"

McClatchy's, here

"... It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" one that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" one that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops....

Although the administration privately is holding out little hope of persuading Canada or the Netherlands to abandon their plans to withdraw combat troops, much less getting additional allied troops, it wants to avoid creating the impression — at home and abroad — that the U.S. "is going it alone" in Afghanistan, said one military official.

Administration officials also want time to launch a public relations offensive to convince an increasingly skeptical public and a wary Democratic Congress — which must agree to fund the administration's plan — that the war, now in its ninth year and inflicting rising casualties, is one of "necessity," as Obama said earlier this year."This is not going to be an easy sell, especially with the fight over health care and the (Democratic) party's losses" of the governors' mansions in New Jersey and Virginia last week, said one official..........

U.S. allies already have begun applying pressure. On Thursday, Kouchner called Karzai "corrupt," and the next day, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that "Sadly, the government of Afghanistan had become a byword for corruption," Brown said in a speech. "And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.".........

Other military officers, particularly in the Army, warn that committing more troops to Afghanistan could risk "breaking" the force by reducing the time soldiers can spend at home between deployments, overtaxing equipment and destroying families. Those problems could worsen if Iraq's January elections are delayed or disrupted, and with them the administration's timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from that country. ........ Obama campaigned saying that he'd fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the defense budget, but Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that the Afghan war — which some administration officials privately concede could cost $700 billion to $1 trillion — might require a supplemental funding bill next year. Among the cost estimates the Pentagon is considering is $1 trillion over 10 years, two senior defense officials told McClatchy...."

'US-friendly' Lebanese Army: "The FRANCOP was totally loaded in Damietta, EGYPT!"

صدر عن قيادة الجيش - مديرية التوجيه، البيان الآتي:

"واصلت مديرية المخابرات في الجيش اللبناني، التحقيق مع أفراد طاقم الباخرة "francop" التي رست في مرفاء بيروت بعد ظهر أمس، بعد الإفراج عنها من قبل البحرية الإسرائيلية، ووفقا لأقوال أفراد الطاقم المذكور، فإن الباخرة قد تم تحميلها بشكل كامل في مرفأ دمياط بمصر (ترانزيت)، على أن يتم تفريغها على التوالي في كل من المرافىء الآتية: ليماسول، بيروت، اللاذقية، وقبل وصول الباخرة الى مرفأ ليماسول، تعرضت للقرصنة الإسرائيلية، وتم إجبارها على التوجه الى مرفأ أشدود في فلسطين المحتلة، حيث احتجز طاقمها، وجرى سحب 97 مستوعبا من حمولتها، أعيد جزء منها الى الباخرة، وتم إبقاء 36 مستوعبا في المرفأ المذكور.

ووفقا لأقوال أفراد الطاقم، فإن عملية الكشف على محتوى المستوعبات في مرفأ أشدود، لم تجر على مرأى أي منهم، مع الإشارة الى أن المستوعبات ال 36 التي مازالت قيد الإحتجاز في أشدود، كان من المقرر تفريغها في مرفأ اللاذقية".

"نحن لسنا أتباعا حتى تحركنا كالعميان، ساعة مع العروبة وساعة مع إيران".

أكّد مفتي جبل لبنان محمد علي الجوزو، في حديث لصحيفة "الديار" ينشر غدا، "أن البطريريك الماروني نصر الله صفير هو ضمير لبنان"، مشيرا إلى "أن سبب اعتزاز المعارضة ومطالبها هي أحداث السابع من أيار حين استعمل سلاح "حزب الله في الداخل"، موجها اللوم لجماعة السنة لأنهم لم يضعوا شروطا على رئيس المجلس النيابي نبيه بري قبل انتخابه رئيسا للبرلمان.

وسأل الجوزو: "هل مصير لبنان سيقف عند شخص أو عائلة؟"، مضيفا: "هكذا بتنا واقفين أمام تيار وعائلة النائب ميشال عون وصهره".

وتوجه الجوزو الى رئيس "اللقاء الديمقراطي" النائب وليد جنبلاط، محذرا إياه من أن إقليم الخروب هو الذي يرجح الانتخابات في الشوف، وقال: "نحن لسنا أتباعا حتى تحركنا كالعميان، ساعة مع العروبة وساعة مع إيران".

Houthis capture Saudi soldiers ...

Al Jazeera/ English, here

" .....Saudi Arabia has not commented on the claim, but has previously said that its operations against the Yemeni fighters have been limited to air raids and artillery strikes...."

Hariri gets a halfhearted 'go-ahead' signal from Feltman

Reuters, here

"Lebanon's Prime Minister-designate Saad al-Hariri will announce a new national unity government in the next two days after clinching a deal (read details of the 'deal') with the opposition on its make-up, politicians from both sides said on Saturday.... A government acceptable to all main parties is seen as key to maintaining stability in a country facing sectarian and political tensions, as well as a huge debt burden....

Leaders of the opposition, including Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, agreed to join the proposed government during a meeting on Friday night. "Participants at the talks have agreed to forge ahead with the formation of the national unity government in accordance with the regulations that were agreed upon during the negotiations that had been conducted," Hezbollah said in a statement after the meeting, held at a secret location. .... Political sources said the opposition would officially inform Hariri of its decision and hand him over the names of their proposed ministers.... At the heart of the dispute were the demands of Christian leader Michel Aoun, an ally of Hezbollah. Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement holds more seats in parliament than any other Christian party..."

Gen. James Jones: "'Afghanistan Will Swallow Them Up'"

(Full interview later) Spiegel online, thanks to Guthman, here

In a SPIEGEL interview, the national security adviser to the White House, General James Jones, has expressed strong skepticism regarding the request of General Stanley McChrystal for another 40,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

US President Barack Obama's national security adviser, General James Jones, has expressed strong skepticism regarding the request of the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for another 40,000 troops to be sent to the country.

"Generals always ask for more troops. Take it from me," Jones told SPIEGEL in an interview. "I believe we will not solve the problem with troops alone. The minimum number is important, of course. But there is no maximum number, however." General Jones explained: "You can keep on putting troops in, and you could have 200,000 troops there and Afghanistan will swallow them up as it has done in the past."

Instead of nation building, he brought up the idea of transferring responsibility to Afghanistan as soon as possible. General Jones said: "We need a better plan with the allies to gradually turn over responsibility for the country to Afghan institutions and organizations in as short a time as possible." When asked about when US troops will be withdrawn, he answered: "I don't know when that will be. But I do know that our president and other leaders are very insistent on doing everything that we can to make sure that it happens sooner rather than later. That we can in fact, begin to turn over responsibility to the Afghans."

General Jones emphasized several times during the interview that it's time for the Afghan authorities to take care of their country. "If they want the promise of a democratic society and peace and stability, better opportunities for their children then this government and all of the governors have to do a much better job than they have done so far," he said...."

"Obama is convinced that Netanyahu stuck a knife in his back"

Yediot's Nahum Barnea, via TWN, here

Steve Clemons says: "... in my estimation, this is an extremely informed analysis of the dynamics between Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama and simply must be read and considered before Netanyahu lands in Washington. My guess is that the author has spoken directly to many of the very top tier Israeli principals."

Half a Meeting

Yedioth Ahronoth -- 6 November 2009

"The Prime Minister's Bureau labored and discovered that there was one visit of a prime minister to the US--by Sharon in May 2005--in which there was no meeting between him and the president (Sharon had met with Bush in April, and the two saw no need to meet again). This precedent was meant to explain that it would no disaster if, in the course of Netanyahu's trip to Washington next week, there would be no meeting between him and Obama. For days the White House has refused to set a date for a meeting. It was embarrassing and humiliating. Netanyahu was angry. Not mildly angry. He was incensed.

I'm guessing that in the end there will be a meeting. It will take place because not having it will depict Netanyahu as the victim and Obama as the enemy of Israel. That would damage Obama in the Jewish community, damage that he can less and less afford.

Should it take place, the meeting will not meet the role it was assigned. It will be forced, coerced. It will not give Netanyahu an opportunity to clean the slate, to turn over a new leaf, to create trust, to build intimacy. Relations are cloudy, admit sources on both sides. There is mutuality in this crisis, there is symmetry: Obama is convinced that Netanyahu stuck a knife in his back; Netanyahu is convinced that Obama is the one who stuck the knife.

Above this troubling story, which has still not turned into headlines, hovers a cloud of failure. The Obama administration failed abysmally in the strategic step it took, which was meant to turn the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians into the engine that would bring the entire region under America's wing, from the Mediterranean Sea to the edges of Afghanistan. His failure is liable to ultimately be our disaster. Ironically, the only ray of light at the moment is the activity relating to Iran.

Netanyahu is sure that he knows who is to blame: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He heard inside information, from the White House, verified information. Emanuel drips venom. My sources may be less good, but the picture they paint is different. Netanyahu's problem, they say, is not Emanuel. It is Obama.

Netanyahu is convinced that since the first day of his term, Emanuel has been plotting to isolate Israel from America, to shrink it in the eyes of its voters and to destroy it politically. This step failed. Support for Israel in American public opinion has only increased. It's not Israel that is isolated in America, but rather the Palestinians. Personal admiration for him also increased. It increased in wake of his speech at the UN General Assembly. There are no other leaders in the world today that speak to Americans in their own language. They've known him in America for 30 years now.

Netanyahu read polls (one of them was apparently carried out by Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton's and Barak's adviser). The polls showed him the degree to which his standing is strong in American public opinion. America is not Europe. In Europe, Netanyahu could be described as a peace rejectionist. Not in America. The president is very important, but so is Congress. With all due respect to the president and his aides, when the public has an opinion, public opinion decides.

From Netanyahu's point of view, relations started off on the left foot. The emphatic demand of Obama administration to freeze construction in the settlements completely, a demand meant to hurt him, led to a confrontation. He was accused of being stubborn. He was also accused of the opposite, that he was easy to coerce. The assumption was that he would take a blow and collapse. This didn't happen in Israel and it didn't happen in America.

It didn't happen because he chose a combined response. In his Bar Ilan speech, he promised to support the idea of two states. He promised to be forthcoming toward the Americans, but made it clear that he would not go all the way. He went farther than what the majority of Israelis want to go and the majority of Jews in America. He acted with integrity and transparency: every Israeli step was reported to the Americans in real time, including the secret trip to Putin.

In the meantime, the Americans have learned a few things. The Arab rulers, who were supposed to provide the quid pro quo in unfreezing relations with Israel, gave nothing. Abu Mazen changed his spots. Because of domestic political considerations, he refused to begin negotiations. The Arab rulers betrayed him. He is now threatening to resign.

An argument waged in the White House. According to the information that reached Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton and Mitchell and others explained to the president that he had to rely on Netanyahu. Not out of love: out of recognizing reality. A parallelogram of forces was created: they on one side, Emanuel on the other. Netanyahu believes that Obama is pragmatic. After consideration, he will go with public opinion.

I'm not certain that Netanyahu realizes to what degree Obama is different in character than his two predecessors. It's hard to bend him, and even harder to win his heart. In Netanyahu's first term, he got into a frontal clash with president Bush the father. He learned then that despite the support, despite the accessibility, despite the common language, in such clashes, he cannot win.

The question of who is right in the crisis that has been created is of secondary importance. Israel is dependent up to its neck on the American administration's good will. It is dependent on it if it wishes to reach a solution to the conflict (Netanyahu believes that he is capable of reaching an agreement. He knows that he is the only one of his ministers who believes that he, of all people, will reach an agreement).

And it is dependent on the administration in the Iranian matter. Our old acquaintance Dennis Ross plays a major role in the administration's handling of the Iranians. The good news for Israel is that there has been progress toward imposing concrete sanctions. The bad news is that Obama was angered again, with the criticism of the Americans that Ehud Barak made. Netanyahu was quick to fix it. So was Barak. Nevertheless, the damage was done."

"Dubai’s troubles have just begun"

The Eurasia-CALL, here

"The most obvious long-term effect of the financial crisis is a shift in economic decision-making power from capitals of finance to capitals of politics. We see this trend in the United States, where decisions on how best to value assets and allocate capital are now made in Washington on a scale unthinkable until about this time last year. Outside the United States, nowhere is this development more obvious than in the United Arab Emirates, where power and wealth have shifted at startling speed from Dubai to Abu Dhabi (the seat of political power). But the American trend is temporary; the UAE's might not be......

Faced with that, Dubai announced a $20 billion bond program to raise the needed cash. In February 2009, Abu Dhabi moved in with $10 billion bailout, underwritten by the UAE's central bank. So far, Dubai has yet to find the other $10 billion, and Abu Dhabi may have to step in again. But the bursting of Dubai's real estate bubble and the sudden collapse of its economy have already allowed Abu Dhabi's ruling al Nahayan family to buy a big share of the al Maktoum's assets.....

There's plenty of reason to fear that things won't get better soon. ....overbuilding on many projects continues because the state controls many of the emirate's largest construction companies.....leaving the emirate with large amounts of unused commercial space. .....

..... there's another cloud on the horizon. If the United States moves to intensify sanctions on Iran next year (a good bet given the low likelihood that the current diplomatic optimism will last), Dubai will be vulnerable. Much of Iran's financial flows move through Dubai, and sanctions would hit the emirate especially hard."

Afghan strategy rollout imminent

The Cable/ here

"... Reliable sources tell The Cable that the review has entered its final stages, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Jim Jones now taking the lead and putting on the final touches. Today, Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke cancelled a planned speaking event scheduled for Wednesday, November 18, at the Women's Foreign Policy Group, "due to unforeseen changes in the speaker's schedule," a group representative said. And the administration sent a team to Brussels this week to consult with all 43 member nations of the International Security Assistance Force, including all 28 NATO nations......."

Jim Jones: " Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Epicenter... "

Laura Rosen/ here

With a plate full of the economy, jobs, health care, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc., and ever aware that you can't want Middle East peace more than the parties, there's been some chatter that if its current efforts continue to stumble, eventually the administration may simply set aside the Middle East conflict until a riper day. Who has time, right? But Ben Smith notes that National Security Advisor Jim Jones as Obama himself has indicated that they consider the Middle East conflict a central priority, despite the considerable frustration and setbacks:

"... National Security Advisor James Jones's departure from his prepared remarks in his J Street address -- which I noted earlier -- offers an unusual sense of the White House's foreign policy priorities, a reader notes.

"[O]f all the problems the administration faces globally, that if there was one problem that I would recommend to the president that if he could do anything he wanted to solve one problem, this would be it," he said of the Middle East conflict, calling the Israeli-Palestinian situation "the epicenter" and a problem that "has ripples that echo, that would run globally and affect many other problems that we face elsewhere in the globe."

Now, he was speaking to a group focused on the region, and perhaps the passage is intended for that audience. Because otherwise, it seems quite odd to place the conflict ahead of Afghanistan, Iran, and China, among other White House priorities."

Meantime, a Washington Jewish community activist notes, there is still no meeting time confirmed between Obama and Netanyahu who is coming to town this weekend

"A Liberated Lame Duck"

WINEP, here

".... He is particularly upset with the Arab states for not backing him in the Gaza war aftermath. He knew the U.N. report would be a detour from peacemaking, but his Arab allies did not seem to care. In his speech Thursday, Mr. Abbas accused Hamas of "destructive" practices, making it clear he thinks the group is more concerned with their own ideological agenda than with the Palestinian cause.

Mr. Abbas also seems to feel that he has no partner in the Israeli government. .......also seems to believe the Obama administration boxed him in, first insisting on an absolute freeze and, once Mr. Abbas had no choice but to go along with this approach, backed off, leaving him politically exposed.....

Nonetheless, Mr. Abbas has not yet resigned, and he could change his mind. The outcome seems to be in the hands of Hamas, who will view Mr. Abbas's statement as the sign of his personal defeat and a vindication of their own path. If Hamas reverses course and agrees to participate in elections in January as originally favored by Mr. Abbas, Hamas could force the president to make good on his promise. But Hamas may not take the initiative. Their popularity is low and they have opposed elections. Mr. Abbas could remain president indefinitely.

Not having to face the voters could be a strength for Mr. Abbas, rather than a weakness. His Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert found being a lame duck liberating. While Mr. Olmert announced his decision to resign last summer, he continued in office for another eight months and used the time to nearly reach a peace accord with Mr. Abbas. Indeed, he conditioned Israelis to the idea that they would have to yield most of the West Bank and even agree to compromises on Jerusalem. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Abbas adopts the Olmert paradigm. Indeed, he might be able to do more to advance peace on his way out than he would by remaining in office."

"Get us rid of Erdogan" says WINEP to the Turkish army ...

WINEP's David Schenker does not trust Turkey anymore! Unless the Military (Turkish that is) sends Erdogan packing to comfort Israel.... ! Here

"The European Union has long debated the merits of Turkish EU membership. But now, nearly a decade after Islamists took the reins of power in Ankara, the central question is no longer whether Turkey should be integrated into Europe's economic and political structure, but rather whether Turkey should remain a part of the Western defense structure.

Recent developments suggest that while Turkey's military leadership remains committed to the state's secular, Western orientation and the defining principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the civilian Islamist government led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) seems to have different ideas. Ankara is increasingly pursuing illiberal policies at home, for instance by attacking independent media, while aligning itself with militant, anti-western Middle East regimes abroad.

The latest demonstration of Ankara's political shift was its cancellation last month of Israel's long-standing participation in NATO military exercises in Turkey. Even worse, on the same day Israel was disinvited, Turkey announced imminent military exercises with Syria, a member of the U.S. list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism."....

Ankara is simultaneously moving closer to the mullocracy in Tehran, even though the Islamic Republic is undermining stability in Afghanistan and Iraq by providing insurgents in both countries with explosives that are killing NATO and U.S. soldiers. The Iranian regime is also threatening to annihilate Israel,...

While Ankara's politics have changed, the military's pro-Western disposition reportedly has not. But over the past decade, the dynamics between the politicians and the general staff have been transformed. For better or worse, Western pressures have compelled the Turkish military to remain in the barracks (get them out NOW!), and refrain from interfering in political developments. Today, the Turkish military can do little but watch as the secular, democratic, pro-Western republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the early 1900s is undermined.

While it's still too early to write Turkey out of NATO, in the not so distant future, the alliance will reach a decision point. In 2014, NATO's next generation fighter plane, the Joint Strike Fighter, will be delivered. Given the direction of Turkish politics, serious questions must be asked about whether the Islamist government in Ankara can be trusted with the highly advanced technology.

It's time that NATO start thinking about a worst case scenario in Turkey. ......... absent a remarkable turnaround, it would appear that the West is losing Turkey. Should this occur, it would constitute the most dramatic development in the region since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran."

"Gamal Mubarak courting the military, which remains hesitant about the prospect of a non-military president..."

OXFAN: Excerpts: "... The National Democratic Party's (NDP's) Sixth Annual Conference took place between October 30 and November 3. The conference set out the party's economic and political programme for the coming year, but all eyes were on Gamal Mubarak, who may succeed his father as president......, touching on a number of key areas: 1. Economics. Productivity and foreign investment were among the topics discussed, with President Hosni Mubarak hailing an increase in both, .....Such claims -- and associated promises to continue in this manner -- will not satisfy Egypt's population, ...... The misuse of funds, corruption, and poor supervision are common complaints -- the latter reflected, for example, in the recent rubbish collection crisis in Cairo. 2. Politics. .... He insisted that reform requires courage, but comes at a price. This apparent price has been referred to repeatedly by the NDP, in a seeming effort to stall political reform by suggesting that political openness would create an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to rise to power and derail democratic progress. Yet such fears are overstated -- since the 1970s, the MB has renounced violence and has actively participated in state institutions, adjusting its ideology on a number of issues -- with its reformists supporting change. ...... Succession. The conference focused attention on Gamal, who is tipped to succeed as president -- although there has been no confirmation of this by the NDP, and other possible candidates including intelligence chief Omar Suleiman are also discussed. There have recently been other possible names presented, such as Amr Moussa, who heads the Arab League and IAEA chief Mohammed El Baradei. However, these prospective new candidates face a number of obstacles .... The presentation of new names obscures the position that Gamal has secured for himself during the last nine years,...... Opposition response. The opposition were unimpressed by the NDP conference, ... (yet) the MB realises that its opposition to the succession will lead to fierce confrontation with the state, risking hundreds of arrests. There has been talk of possible engagement with Gamal's representatives to reach an agreement, but this seems unlikely given the attack on the MB at the conference. Outlook. The NDP's attack on the opposition and presentation of itself as the only viable political option for Egypt will go down well with party stalwarts, but are unlikely to raise its credibility among the general public, ..... He will also court important sectors -- such as the military, which remains hesitant about the prospect of a non-military president. Gamal and the political elite will probably respond by presenting Suleiman as a possible vice president to ensure that military interests are adequately represented..."

"... Israel has no great appetite for taking on Iran on its own ..."

WINEP/ here

" ... The Israeli political leadership -- in government as well as in the opposition -- refrains from addressing this very complex dilemma except by making brief vague statements. The military and intelligence communities are under strict instructions to avoid making remarks except to affirm that Israel is preparing itself for "any eventuality." They also refuse to take part in off-the-record briefings related to Israel's possible response to the challenge. The Israeli media has not generated a public debate on the pros and cons of military action -- partly in view of censorship restrictions. Even members of local think tanks and academic circles prove reluctant to venture into this domain.........

Israel has no great appetite for taking on Iran on its own, recognizing the difficulties involved in an attack as well as the potential that Iran could retaliate either with its Shehab-3 missiles, already operational, by embarking upon a large-scale terrorism campaign, or by having Hizballah ignite a conflict on the Lebanese front. Many view the military option as the "worst possible course" other than tolerating an Iran equipped with nuclear warheads. The Israeli leadership would, therefore, prefer action by the United States to stop Iran from acquiring a bomb either through diplomatic dialogue, effective sanctions, or -- if it came to it -- military strikes. Needless to say, a U.S. attack is bound to be much wider in scope and more devastating than any blow delivered by the Israel Defense Forces.

At the same time, many in Israel feel strongly that the country does possess the military capability to launch a successful strike against a limited number of Iranian nuclear installations to delay the pace of Iran's nuclear program by at least a couple of years. At least some in Israel believe that Iranian reprisals would be more restrained than public warnings from Tehran might indicate, and that Hizballah may attempt to employ its long-range Iranian missiles in a manner that would not necessarily lead to full-scale war. The argument would be that although the organization's long-range missiles are effectively under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force, Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah would hesitate to provoke the Israelis into undertaking an all-out counteroffensive. Some Israelis argue that Iran would not necessarily retaliate against the United States and its Arab allies in the Gulf or Iraq for fear of compelling President Obama to strike back.......

Assessing Iranian missile power, Israelis tend to believe that as time passes Iran's ability to launch more missiles simultaneously will grow considerably. In the near term, they feel Iranian retaliation would essentially entail a repeat of the first Gulf war experience in 1991, when Israel had to absorb forty Iraqi Scuds -- mainly directed against Tel Aviv and Haifa -- with minimal casualties. The Iranian air force simply does not have the ability to reach Israel, and a naval attack of any sort is a remote possibility......

The current assessment in Israel is that although the Iranian regime long ago decided to get "within reach" of a bomb and is doing its utmost to move toward this objective, no decision has yet been made to go for a "breakout." The reason is that Iran would not risk the consequences of a breakout for a bomb or two but rather would only contemplate such a dramatic step when it had enough low-enriched uranium for a modest "arsenal" of about a half dozen bombs. In effect, Israel shares the assumption that very limited time still remains, though without much hope, for attempts to persuade Iran to halt its pursuit of atomic weapons.

Yet, for Israel, not only the purely nuclear clock is ticking. Aside from watching the speed with which the Iranians assemble a "mini arsenal," Israeli strategic planners have their eyes on another ticking clock: that marking the pace of Iranian efforts to improve defenses for their most sensitive targets, whether by burying them underground or by trying to make them otherwise immune to attack by air forces or by Israel's missile force. Israel's decision on whether to go it alone will depend greatly on its estimation of the likelihood that a strike would succeed. Thus, a concern may be Iran's successful protection of its installations, which could force Israel to make an early decision.

Israelis are concerned that a nuclear Iran will trigger an arms race among neighboring Arab states. They suspect Saudi Arabia may already have tacit understandings with Pakistan regarding some form of nuclear assistance, and the Israeli intelligence agencies are closely watching moves by Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and others to develop nuclear programs for so-called peaceful purposes. The Arab media is rich with calls to have a "Sunni Arab bomb" to counter Iran's quest for hegemony with a "Persian Shiite bomb."

One scenario advanced by Israelis assumes that the Iranian leadership may resolve to "hang in" for a considerable period just below the weaponization red line, while upgrading and broadening its technical capabilities and enjoying the political clout associated with being an "almost" nuclear power. One good reason for the Iranians to "hang in" would be to wait for the development of future generations of long-range missiles. This scenario would translate into an extended period of regional tension and uncertainty.

As Israelis monitor the ups and certainly the downs of the current negotiations of the so-called P-5 + 1 with Iran, they will not rush their decisions. Those Israelis charged with following Iran are convinced that, at present, a deal could prove elusive. This means the time for Israel to determine its course may come by around mid-2010."

"... Moscow only understands the stern language of action and resolve ..."

Forget Iran, North Korea and China ... Go after Russia says the Weekly Standard', here

"... No one wants to be drawn into conflict with the Russians. But it's useful to remember that time after time, we've extended our hand to Moscow only to have it slapped away. Putin clearly has grand aspirations for his burgeoning CSTO, with Poland shaping up to be the new Germany in another round of US-Russian geo-political chess. If Moscow only understands the stern language of action and resolve, then the Obama administration must atone for shabby treatment of our key Polish allies and move quickly to strengthen defensive ties between our two nations."

"Charismatic Dahlan ..."

Replacing the "bear-hug" boy, in YNETnews, here

"... Despite estimates that Abbas will not deliver on his threat and will eventually seek reelection, several names have been mentioned in connection to a possible successor. The most high-flying candidate mentioned is Mohammad Dahlan, who in the wake of the Fatah convention is seen as the most prominent figure in the Fatah movement's central committee.

Dahlan enjoys growing support from extensive public sectors and also among the veteran leadership, which at this time is out of the decision-making loop. He is perceived as the most charismatic and worthy figure for leading Fatah.

However, Dahlan's problem is the personal campaign managed against him by Hamas and media outlets associated with it. By engaging in an intensive character assassination effort, they turned him into a highly controversial figure...."

WaPo: ""Obama, Obama -- either you're with them, or with us."

"Five weeks"? ... I guess the 8 years imbroglio in Afghanistan, the 7 years Iraq mess, thousands of Afghani, Iraqi & American casualties and Trillions of US Dollars pale when compared to "Five weeks"....

From the great minds of the WaPo editors, here

"IT'S BEEN five weeks since the Obama administration announced that Iran had agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for fuel rods for a research reactor -- a deal that promised to delay Tehran's nuclear program by a year or so. But there have been no shipments; instead, Iran rejected the technical terms proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is trying to change the deal ....

....The administration appears to be hoping that what officials believe is a debate inside the regime will be won by proponents of a rapprochement with the West. They also want to ensure that, if there is a breakdown in the negotiations, Iran is blamed by all concerned -- including Russia and China, whose support would be needed for new U.N. sanctions.

These calculations are sensible enough. Yet, as a practical matter, they facilitate what many experts believe is Iran's underlying strategy. That is to prolong talks with the United States and its allies for as long as possible, ...... And each day Iran's known centrifuges produce another six pounds of enriched uranium.

The Obama administration and European governments have set the end of the year as a deadline for the transfer of the uranium out of Iran and for progress in the overall negotiations. But the administration must consider whether it makes sense to grant the regime two more months of grace. On Tuesday, after all, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected the overtures he said he had received from President Obama, declaring that negotiating with the United States was "naive and perverted." On Wednesday, the opposition protesters chanted: "Obama, Obama -- either you're with them, or with us." Sooner rather than later, Mr. Obama ought to respond to those messages."

Israel losing clout in Congress?

We'd like to believe, but remain weary ...

Mondoweiss, here

" ....I’d say that the kryptonite was Gaza itself, which has resonated in countless ways. Though J Street may also deserve credit for giving pols political cover. What follows is a friend’s analysis of the vote. Note that a couple of the congresspeople who lost religion on Gaza had visited the place (Holt, Ellison, Edwards).

H.RES.34 (JAN 09): 390 yeas, 5 nays, 22 presents, and 16 no votes.

H.RES.867 (NOV 09): 344 yeas, 36 nays, 22 presents, and 30 no votes.

Similarities and difference between January and November votes:

Compared to January, three fewer Republicans yesterday voted yea; 43 fewer Dems voted yea yesterday; the numbers of those voting present were identical; there were 14 more non-votes, which this means that 14 people could have been on the fence about speaking their minds…

Abercrombie; Blumenauer; Dingell; Edwards (MD); Ellison; Grijalva; Hinchey; Kilpatrick (MI); Lee (CA); McCollum; McDermott; George Miller; Moran (VA); Olver; Stark; and Woolsey went from present in Jan to No vote yesterday

Baird and Snyder went from not voting to nay.

Regarding those who voted yea in January, Becerra, Cooper, Dahlkemper, Duncan, Eshoo, Heinrich, Hirono, Honda, Kaptur, Loebsack, Lofgren, Lujn, Obey, Speier, Tierney, Welch, and Wu went from yea to present. Ackerman, Bachmann, Barret (SC), Brady (PA), Capuano, Conyers, Davis (AL), David (TN), Deal (GA), Gordon (TN), Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Holt, Meeks (NY), Patrick Murphy, Nunes, Pallone, Pascrell, Pingree (ME), Price (GA), Linda T. Sanchez, Sires, Souder, Stupak, Towns, Velazquez, and Wamp went from yea to no vote.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat: "Israel working with Al Qaeda against Hezbollah"

Via Haaretz, here (original in Arabic, here)

" A senior Lebanese defense source said Friday that militants allied with Al-Qaida are working in collaboration with Israel against Hezbollah, A-Sharq al-Awsat reported on Friday

According to the official, the Lebanon-based Al-Fatah al-Islam fired a Katyusha rocket at northern Israel last month precisely so that the finger of responsibility could be pointed at Hezbollah.

This is not the first claim from within Lebanon regarding collaboration. Lebanese President Michel Suleiman last month suggested that Israel had arranged for collaborators in his country to fire Katyusha rockets at the Galilee earlier this week, in a bid to keep tensions high in the area.

According to the Lebanese newspaper A-Sapir (yup...), Israel's declarations that it would not cease its intelligence activities on Lebanese territories validate Suleiman's accusations.

A panel of inquiry established by the Lebanese Army found that the rockets, fired from Houla in southern Lebanon, were launched from the home of the village's mayor. The mayor was not present in his home, according to the panel, and has no connection to the rocket."

State Department: "We’re concerned" by the Saudi incursion ...

In the WSJ/ here

"The State Department is "concerned" about reported Saudi incursions over the Yemeni border. "It's our view there could be no long-term military solution to the conflict between the Yemeni Government and the the Houthi rebels," Kelly said

" ... The Houthis, who aren't connected to al Qaeda, are fighting against what they call an ineffectual and corrupt central Yemen government. The Yemeni government calls the uprising treasonous. Saudi Arabia is a strong supporter of the Yemeni president and is a major financial donor to Yemen's internal security...."

UNGA adopts 'Goldstone' and Israel hurries a predictable boat-arms story...

"An Arab Child...South Lebanon..."

Usurper-in-Chief says: ""This was a ship carrying a massive amount of weapons which the Iranian regime tried to ship to Syria, and from there to Hezbollah,..... The bulk of the shipment included rockets whose aim is to hurt our citizens and kill as many civilians as possible. This constitutes a war crime. .... The UN General Assembly should have investigated and condemned this crime and the UN Security Council should have convened a special session to debate this incident,"..."

Note to Netanyahu: Katiyushas are NOT the arm of choice of Hezbollah.

"... Tyre, South Lebanon..."

Israel continues window dressing: Ambassadors, Military Attaches invited to 'check' the weapons of the Francop

IDF/ here

"Rent-a-Talib" price tag: $1.3 billion

UPI/ here

"A defense appropriations bill signed by U.S. President Barack Obama includes ... $1.3 billion to fund "reintegration" programs in Afghanistan meant to court individuals "who have renounced violence against the government of Afghanistan."

"Stop the presses: the Egyptian government is riddled with corruption & cronyism ..."

FP/ here

"The United States provides Egypt with an annual injection of around $200 million in development aid -- a vestige of the U.S. wheel-greasing that accompanied the 1979 peace deal between Israel and Egypt. It is the job of USAID to distribute a portion of that money to democracy promotion programs. A recent audit offers a depressing verdict on USAID's efforts: the impact of its programs was "unnoticeable" in improving Egypt's democratic environment. Of the programs for which USAID distributed funds, donors carried out only 65% of the activities promised and achieved only 52% of the planned results, based on predetermined metrics.

The audit lays the blame for USAID's failure at the feet of the Egyptian government. The government, "has shown reluctance to support many of USAID's democracy and governance programs and has impeded implementers' activities," says the report. Egyptian delays are caused by a combination of resistance to democratic reforms, bureaucratic red tape, and plain old cronyism...."

IAEA: "nothing to be worried about ... a hole in a mountain"

Beware of Israeli window dressing.

Reuters, here

"U.N. inspectors found "nothing to be worried about" in a first look at a previously secret uranium enrichment site in Iran last month, the International Atomic Energy chief said in remarks published Thursday.

Mohamed ElBaradei also told the New York Times that he was examining possible compromises to unblock a draft nuclear cooperation deal between Iran and three major powers that has foundered over Iranian objections.....

ElBaradei was quoted in a New York Times interview as saying his inspectors' initial findings at the fortified site beneath a desert mountain near the Shi'ite holy city of Qom were "nothing to be worried about." "The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things," ElBaradei, alluding to Tehran's references to the site as a fallback for its nuclear program in case its larger Natanz enrichment plant were bombed by a foe like Israel. "It's a hole in a mountain," he said..."

Abbas is said to be "pushing back" (but in the photo he seemed like holding on!)

Politico, here

"A day after Hillary Clinton returned from a swing through the Middle East where she pushed the Palestinians to go into peace talks with Israel short of a full Israeli settlement freeze, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is threatening to not run (again?) in Palestinian elections he has called to be held in January, reports say. UPDATE: He won't run. Decision is final.

Abbas is expected to give a major speech at 1:30pm EST. His expected announcement that he will not run in Palestinian elections "set off a flurry of calls from regional leaders, with the presidents of Egypt and Israel, the king of Jordan and Israel's defense minister all urging Abbas to change his mind, aides said," the AP reports. .... "What Abbas is trying to do is leverage his weakness to the extreme," said one Washington Middle East hand who asked for anonymity. "'Give me something or you will have no leadership here.' Conceivably what he is asking for is a setlement freeze. .... His sense is that 'Hillary tried to push me around. And I will show her.' Then fine, you [try to] go on without me."

"This is vintage Abbas ..."Like elections themselves (unlikely to be held) the threat of resignation is a ploy as well -- reflecting his personal frustration, but also designed to grab attention and get others not to take him for granted. On balance the threat changes nothing, although an actual resignation would."......

Abbas' expected threat comes a day after Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reportedly floated a one-state-solution "warning shot to the Israelis," the former U.S. official said. "'We don't want independence. We want you to impose Israeli law on all of us, with passports, etc.' This is something being talked about in closed intellectual circles in Palestine."..."

The regime which fought US-backed Saddam ...., unaided by anyone, would not be swayed by "crippling sanctions"...

Via the Race for Iran, In the AsiaTimes, here

"While the tone of the Barack Obama administration is different from that of its predecessor, and some of its foreign policies diverge from those of George W Bush, both administrations subscribe at their core to the same doctrine: whatever the White House perceives as a threat - whether it be Iran, North Korea, or the proliferation of long-range missiles - must be viewed as such by Moscow and Beijing.

In addition, by the evidence available, Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predecessor's failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots simply is not going to work in the case of the Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House were willing to consider Iran's recent history. It is unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein's Iraq (then backed by the United States) to a standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the consequences of US-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington's fresh threats of "crippling sanctions".

Most important, the Obama administration is ignoring the altered international order that has emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis triggered by Wall Street's excesses. While its stimulus package, funded by taxpayers and foreign borrowing, has arrested the decline in the nation's gross domestic product, Washington has done little to pull the world economy out of the doldrums. That task - performed by the US in recent recessions - has fallen willy-nilly to China. History repeatedly shows that such economic clout sooner or later translates into diplomatic power........

When it comes to the nuclear conundrum, what distinguishes China and Russia from the US is that they have conferred unconditional diplomatic recognition and acceptance on the Islamic Republic of Iran. So their commercial and diplomatic links with Tehran are thriving. Indeed, a sub-structure of pipelines and economic alliances between hydrocarbon-rich Russia, Iran, and energy-hungry China is now being forged. In other words, the foundation is being laid for the emergence of a Russia-Iran-China diplomatic triad in the not-too-distant future, while Washington remains stuck in an old groove of imposing "punishing" sanctionsagainst Tehran for its nuclear program.

There is a deep and painful legacy of animosity and ill-feeling between the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and the US. Iran was an early victim of Washington's subversive activities ...... Half a century later, the Iranians watched the Bush administration invade neighboring Iraq......

Iran's leaders know that during his second term in office, as Seymour Hersh revealed in The New Yorker, Bush authorized a clandestine CIA program with a $400 million budget to destabilize the Iranian regime. They are also aware that the CIA has focused on stoking disaffection among Sunni ethnic minorities in Shi'ite-ruled Iran. These include ethnic Arabs in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan, adjoining Iraq, and ethnic Balochis in Sistan-Balochistan Province, abutting the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

............ unless Washington ends its clandestine program to destabilize the Iranian state and caps it with an offer of diplomatic acceptance and normal relations, there is no prospect of Tehran abandoning its right to enrich uranium. On the other hand, the continuation of a policy of destabilization, coupled with ongoing threats of "crippling" sanctions and military strikes (whether by the Pentagon or Israel), can only drive the Iranians toward a nuclear breakout capability.

Bush's eight-year presidency, .......What he passed on to Obama was the Great Recession in a world where America's popularity had hit rock bottom and its economic strength was visibly ebbing. All this paved the way for the economic and political rise of China, as well as the strengthening of Russia as an energy giant capable of extending its influence in Europe and challenging American dominance in the Middle East.

In this new environment, expecting the leaders of Iran, backed by China and Russia, to do the bidding of Washington means placing a bet on the inconceivable."

Hillary & the "Bibi-does-Gandhi show"...

In TIME, here

"... It was Halloween night in Jerusalem, and Benjamin Netanyahu came dressed as a peacemaker. ......It was a tough moment for Clinton, playing second fiddle at the Bibi-does-Gandhi show. President Barack Obama had softened his language on the settlements a few weeks earlier: instead of a total freeze, he had talked about Israeli "restraint" in settlement-building. And now Clinton seemed to cement the Administration's retreat, agreeing that Netanyahu's proposal was, indeed, "unprecedented," even though the U.S. still favored a total freeze. The most important thing, she added, was for the parties to get to the table as quickly as possible. The onus was back on the Palestinians — and the Palestinians quickly expressed outrage at the Obama Administration's retreat. Their Arab neighbors soon joined in, causing Clinton to backtrack two days later, telling reporters the Israeli plan "falls far short" of U.S. expectations, although she still insisted on calling it "unprecedented," which was neither diplomatic nor wise.

Suddenly the Obama Administration seemed wobbly on the Middle East; clearly, Clinton had been too bullish on Netanyahu's proposal (which had been negotiated over months with Middle East envoy George Mitchell and was seen, privately, by the Americans as real progress). But the Administration's mission was to get the parties into peace talks without preconditions. The Israelis were now in favor of talks. The Palestinians were setting preconditions. And Clinton had violated an essential rule of her job: boring is almost always better...."

(Continue, here)

"... It's not Mousavi, Khatami, or Karroubi ..."

Dismay with Iran's 'reformers' continues. It was only yesterday that the 'reformers' were lauded as champions, just to come tumbling down with the appearance of Mohajerani at WINEP's conference. (see story below.) Mehdi Kalaji (WINEP) and the 'dismayed' pro-Israel crowd are fantasizing about grass root movements ... in FP/ here

"... But the solidarity on the streets hides wide -- and growing -- splits within. The ostensible leaders of the movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami, and Mehdi Karroubi, are former high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic who would likely keep much about the Islamic Revolution in place. Contrast this with the young men and women on the streets, and you see differences that go beyond the generational. The protesters are aiming to bring down the very system of which their leaders are a part.

Despite being lauded as modernizers, opposition front-runner Mousavi and his two green movement colleagues are deeply loyal to the ideals of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and advocate a theocratic political system. Had Mousavi come into office following the June 12 presidential election, he would not have challenged the political order. He would have tried to fix the Islamic Republic's internal and external crises through slight policy tweaks. Nor would the West have seen an "opening" of the sort that some suggest. Indeed, Mousavi's rivalry with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has little to do with the current regime's foreign policy and far more to do with internal power struggles, economic policy, and, to some extent, cultural agendas. A new leader would not have fundamentally changed Iran's position on nuclear policy or its regional role. The reason is simple: Everyone who ran for president concedes that foreign-policy decisions should fall to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

(continue, here)

"... He represents all that is wrong with Egyptian politics and society ..."

In the Guardian, here

"... What Egypt needs, the younger Mubarak cannot offer. He represents all that is wrong with Egyptian politics and society. He achieved his position at the top of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) not because of his qualifications as a politician, but because his father is president..."

Saudi air force hits Yemen rebels after border raid

Reuters/ here

" ... Saudi Arabia has launched heavy air strikes on rebels in northern Yemen and is moving troops nearer the border after a raid into its territory by the Shi'ite insurgents, a Saudi government adviser said Thursday.

Saudi government officials said only that the air force had bombed Yemeni rebels who had seized a border area inside the kingdom, which they said had now been recaptured. The officials said at least 40 rebels had been killed in the fighting.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, has become increasingly anxious about instability and militancy in Yemen, which is also facing separatist sentiment in the south and a growing threat from resurgent al Qaeda fighters....

Al Jazeera television quoted a rebel spokesman as saying the Saudi air force had raided six locations inside Yemen. One position had been hit by about 100 missiles in one hour.....

The Saudi government adviser said no decision had yet been taken to send troops across the border, but made clear Riyadh was no longer prepared to tolerate the Yemeni rebels......Saudi Arabia and the United States fear the conflict in Yemen's north and a separatist movement in the south will loosen already tenuous government control and empower al Qaeda...."

Abul Ghayt: "Hizbullah's arms are not obstacles to cabinet formation ...& no indications or criticisms pointing at Syria in the Hariri report..."

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu Al Ghayt said that Hizbullah's arms have nothing to do with the fact that Lebanon has failed so far to reach a Cabinet formation considering that "the Internal Lebanese balances on one side and the foreign visions on the other are what's weighing heavily on this government and its formation."

On the other hand, Abu Al Ghayt announced in a statement in Al-Siyasa newspaper that he has taken a look at the reports referred to the Security Council found in the court file regarding President Rafik Hariri's assassination. "There are no indications or criticisms pointing at Syria; on the contrary, there's an international confession of Syria's cooperation in the matter," he added. The Egyptian minister found it hard to believe that anyone can escape the international investigations for "it is a decision coming from the Security Council".

al qardawi to oversee 'Muhammad biopic'...

In the Guardian/ here

"Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.
Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".

Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen..."

WaPo: Pro-Israel crowd "infuriated" by Iran's 'reformers'

WaPo/ here

"... The mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad... What they heard, instead, was a speech that started with a rehashing of U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup in Tehran and went on to echo much of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about the United States and the nuclear program. ...

But he went on to assert, as per the current regime, that the countries seeking to freeze Iran's nuclear program themselves possess nuclear weapons, as does Israel; that Israel had contracted to supply nuclear weapons to Iran's former shah; and that Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel were no different than what Hillary Clinton had said about Iran during her presidential campaign. Asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond. (at WINEP, hoohoooo...) As for Western support for Iranian democracy and human rights, "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever," Mohajerani declared with a sarcastic smile. "When we say we have no expectations, then our expectations will be met."
....... "We don't disagree with whatever Ahmadinejad says," Mohajerani told me in an interview after his speech. "The point of disagreement is mainly the election," in which there was blatant government-sponsored fraud. ...... He concedes readily enough that Iran's opposition is a coalition of many disparate elements, some of which are considerably more liberal than he is. Maybe that's the reason for his other discouraging message -- that the green revolution should not be expected to succeed anytime soon..."

Jeff Feltman half asleep & ... Dan Brown?

photo by Laura Rosen, somewhere on the tarmac in Cairo....

"Hey Congress: Grow a spine on Israel!"

Steve Walt in FP/ here

"Back in 2007, we wrote that AIPAC has an "almost unchallenged hold on Congress." Little has happened since then to alter that conclusion, and we will probably get another demonstration of Congressional spinelessness this week. On Tuesday, the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 867 (see below story), an AIPAC-sponsored resolution denouncing the recent Goldstone Report on possible war crimes by Hamas and Israel during the Gaza War last year. You can read the resolution here. You should then read Judge Goldstone's response here, which points out the errors in the House resolution. And then read historian Tony Judt's eloquent statement here. If you're convinced that the resolution makes a mockery of America's professed commitment to justice and human rights, then you might express that sentiment here or here. Or just call your Congressman's office and tell him/her to grow a backbone and vote against it.

Meanwhile, over in Israel itself, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is completing the Obama administration's humiliating retreat from the principles set forth in the president's Cairo speech of less than five months ago...."

US House of Representatives: Goldstone is "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy,..."

In the CABLE/ here

"... The Congressional resolution, which simply expresses the opinion of Congress and has no actual force of law, deems the report "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy," and "calls on the President and the Secretary of State to strongly and unequivocally oppose any further consideration of the [report] and any other measures stemming from this report in multilateral fora."

Sponsored by House Foreign Affairs heads Howard Berman, D-CA, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL, the measure is expected to pass by a wide margin.
Justice Richard Goldstone, the primary author of the report, wrote a lengthy memorandum to the bill's sponsors criticizing the text of the House resolution. In a dear colleague letter circulated Monday, Berman and Gary Ackerman, D-NY, responded to each of Goldstone's complaints...."

Israel admits spying on its northern neighbor ...

LATimes Blog, here

"Israel has openly admitted to collecting intelligence in Lebanon, an uncharacteristically frank admission and a slap in the face of its neighbor.

But in the past, for the sake of politesse, Israel has refused to acknowledge mounting espionage operations in Lebanon, although their existence is an open secret........

Israel is unlikely to face serious criticism from the international community over its latest revelation...."

Charles Pasqua: Israeli-Russian-French Gaydamak was agent for the French intelligence DST ...

Haaretz/ here

"... Gaydamak was sentenced to six years in prison and a fine of 1 million euros for gunrunning in Angola. Pasqua was convicted in the same trial, for taking bribes from Gaydamak and his business partner, Pierre Falcone. ......

Gaydamak told Haaretz he won citations from the French government for those efforts, but the operations were so secret the citations spoke of his contribution to "agriculture" instead. .......

Pasqua said in the interview that then-president Jacques Chirac knew of Gaydamak's contributions and personally authorized the citations...."