As a long-time critic of Israeli foreign policy, I always wondered how far Israel would have to go before it brought down the wrath of the moderate international community. It seems the flotilla debacle was one blockade too far. The Lebanon Wars weren’t apparently enough to anger Israel’s allies.  Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza that saw weapons of mass destruction directed at a blockaded densely populated area and resulted in 1400 or so deaths didn’t do it. It took the rather cynical storming of a flotilla ship during morning prayers that ended up with 9 Turkish citizens dead, some apparently shot in the head at point blank range to finally anger observers. The ideal that was Israel admired and supported by so many may well have also taken a fatal wound that day as the Iron Wall philosophy ensnares Israel more deeply.

The reactions have been swift and from many places around the world. There has been condemnation from European powers, distress from the UN, palpable anger from Turkey, and the usual, insipid noncommittal words from the US. However, in region there have been more serious rifts. The ever-moderate Queen Rania from Jordan took to the press to pen a sharply worded piece condemning Israel’s actions.

The attack stunned the world because of its blatant and absurd disregard for anything resembling international law, human rights, and diplomatic norms. Its glaring outrageousness stunned, but didn’t surprise, me. It cannot be viewed in isolation. It is another upshot of a dogma long fermenting on Israel’s political landscape.

It is a doctrine that lives for itself and off others. It survives by tapping into the subliminal and cognisant levels. It implants into public consciousness a set of tenets that see Israeli’s very existence as eternally under threat, to be defended through any means (preferably through use of force to show the enemy who’s boss). It is best served through the adoption of an “us against the world” mentality. By its very nature, hardline ideology is self-serving and self-perpetuating. Its primary goal is to survive – and that precludes everything. If to exist it must redefine what is acceptable, redraw the lines of international law, and re-imagine what weapons are appropriate – so be it. Assigning themselves authority and immunity, Israel’s leaders feel licensed to do whatever they like and not expect an international outcry.

But this hardened path is fraught with dangers for all of us. These radical policies debar Palestinian value and, by extension, human value. Harsh measures then become more palatable. Inflicting violence upon an innocent majority to punish the guilty few now seems necessary. Every day the blockade continues is another day our humanity remains under siege.

The effect is a people trapped between a rock and a hardline policy. The product is desperation; the reaction, more hardline policies, attempting to defend previous hardline policies. After all, did this outrageous attack take place to preserve Israel's security, or to sustain the blockade itself?

What is most frustrating is Israel's defence of its actions. By attacking criticism as part of an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic propaganda war, Israel, yet again, fails to understand that the problem is policy, not PR. Now and always, hardline policy and those who embrace it are vessels for darker forces that are at once self-cannibalising and combustible.

Queen Rania of Jordan: Hardliners are now the face of Israel – Commentators, Opinion – The Independent

Even Egypt responded, opening the Rafah border apparently for an “undefined” period. This despite the fact that $2 billion of US aid is awarded based on Egypt maintaining friendship and cooperation with Israel. It is no coincidence that sees US Vice President Biden in Egypt for talks this week. Egyptian President Mubarak despite his tight clutch on power is concerned about populist anger about Israel’s action and even the $2 billion in aid and the lucrative weapons deals with the US will not keep the Rafah border crossing closed this week.

President Hosni Mubarak’s decision to open the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip for an indefinite period was described by American and British press accounts yesterday as an attempt to ease widespread fury over Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip in the wake of Israel’s raid of the Gaza aid flotilla Hurriyya.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that Mubarak’s decision was prompted by heightened public anger following the raid throughout the world and in Egypt in particular, where a peace accord with Israel was signed three decades ago, as well as resentment over the Egyptian government’s role in the suffering of Gazans.

The newspaper attributed Egypt’s position towards Gaza to Hamas’ control of the Gaza Strip, and to the group’s strong ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition movement. According to the paper, the Mubarak regime feared that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power due to its popularity among Egyptians, and thus the economic isolation of the Gaza Strip is beneficial to the regime.

World newspapers: Egypt opens Rafah to calm Egyptian anger | Al-Masry Al-Youm: Today’s News from Egypt.

How angry is the region? It is enough to even see the most petty of issues become political stone lobbing towards Israel, Even enough to se families divided. The Egyptian courts have upheld the ruling that will see Egyptian husbands married to Israelis stripped of their citizenship together with any children of the marriage. This is a brutal move for the families involved, and you have to deplore the court’s decision. It does also go to show that Israel may have just taken one step too far with its blockade strategy, and finds itself increasingly friendless as well as rudderless.

A court has upheld a ruling that strips Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.

Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting in the Supreme Administrative Court, said the Interior Ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Jewish Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.

The judge cited concerns over Egyptian national security as the reason for the judgment.

The ruling reflects Egyptian sentiment towards Israel, more than 30 years after Cairo signed an unpopular peace deal with the Jewish state.

Before reading the verdict, the judge said it would not apply to Egyptian men married to Arab Israelis, thought to be 10 per cent of the 30,000 men married to Israelis.

“The case for [Egyptian] men married to Israeli Arab women is different to those married to Israeli women of Jewish origin because [Israeli Arabs] have lived under Israeli occupation”  he told the court.

A lawyer, Nabil al-Wahsh, said he had brought the case to court to prevent the creation of a generation “disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world”;. Children of such marriages “should not be allowed to perform their military service” he said.

“The decision comes as Israel continues its assault on those who love peace”  Mr Wahsh said. &”The latest example is the aggression against the aid boat which was heading towards the blockaded Gaza Strip”

Egyptians who wed Israelis to lose rights

In the wake of the tragedy of the IDF operation to stop the peace flotilla breaching the Gaza blockade, condemnation or support are vehemently expressed by both sides, each clamoring for the dominant story. You always have to approach the Israel-Palestine issue with caution, particularly in the US. The issue is want to provoke the most violent and acrimonious comments…often regardless of how well they understand the issues involved. In this context, the old saw proves true, when it comes to opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict, everyone has one. In scanning the media commentary and the blogs, the usual suspects line up on either side of the great ideological debate. The facts are still hazy, the smoke not cleared but the blame debate rages . If you watch the You Tube video of the operation, one can see that the activists reacted with great violence. However, the video could be heavily edited, or missing provocative actions before the activists responded. Truth is as much in the pre-existing world view of the watcher as it is in the visual evidence so far presented. Many people have already made up their minds before any inquiry.

Objectively, one can also conclude that the IDF bungled the operation. There were many non-lethal responses and techniques available that any competent anti-riot group could have deployed. Therefore, given the questionable legality of the boarding and the disproportionate use of force, one has to conclude that some form of censure is appropriate. However, in the US the media the headlines are less than censorial in tone. It always surprises international observers how forgiving Americans are toward Israeli excesses, but to understand, you need to view the US-Israel relationship in its broader policy context.

There is something clearly dysfunctional at the heart of the US-Israel geopolitical world picture. Part of the problem is that Israel is mired in Zeev Jabotinsky’s’ ‘Iron Wall’ view of the world, and the mindset also exists in parts of Washington, DC. In a Guardian article Carlo Strenger, summarized the Iron Wall philosophy thus, “…Jabotinsky argued that Arabs will never accept Israel as long as they see a chance to defeat it, and that Israel needs to convince the Arab world that it is there to stay through its military might. He called this the “Iron Wall” conception.” The Jabotinsky Iron Wall credo, still in fashion in the Knesset and epitomized by the Netanyahu-Lieberman alliance, is a world picture that sees Israel’s right to exist validated not by moral right, but rather by military dominance. This partially explains why Israel favors pre-emptive action as a display of strength, when more subtle approaches would gain them praise from international observers.

You see an echo of this Iron Wall mindset in some rhetoric on the Israel-Palestine issue with the often quoted old chestnut, ‘Israel must be able to defend itself’.  This is a self-evident truth, as it is for every functional sovereign state.  The supposed existential threat to Israel presented by its neighbors (and especially from Iran) is projected in biblical proportions. While in the past, this world view may have had some credence, the countries that neighbor Israel have long, albeit grudgingly, accepted its existence. They are now struggling with how to best build relations with Israel. Acts such as the flotilla operation make such rapprochement much more difficult than it need be.

The US policy on certain matters in the Middle East seems to be based on the same world picture. This mentality sees the US pursue isolationist strategies in relation to Iran and Syria, and with a refusal to talk to either Hamas or Hezbollah. The US apparently fails to realize that such an ‘Iron Wall’ philosophy is detrimental to its regional objectives. Without engagement with Hezbollah, as European powers realized, the ability to meaningfully influence Lebanon (or be seen to atone for perceived past sins there) is null and void. It is as if the US sees the Iron Wall as a physical barrier to engagement with those perceived as potentially a threat to Israel. This is a strategic error that is costing the US dear in terms of both reputation and security. An old maxim of wisdom is to keep your friends close but your enemies closer still.

The US remains at threat, as does Israel though it appears to fail to realize this, primarily because the Iron Wall philosophy of non-engagement is a failed model and needs reinvention. Unfortunately, George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton continue to echo past, and empirically-evidenced flawed policies, in refusing to enter into any dialog with Hamas. Without Hamas, there is no realistic prospect of a solution to the Israel-Palestine conundrum. The US insistence to only engage with a perceived Israel-complicit Fatah will not allow the US to make meaningful progress on the issue.

Israel and the US often cite the Hamas Charter of non-recognition of Israel as the barrier.  This is in essence a straw man argument.   The Hamas charter was drawn up by a single individual and never officially ratified by Hamas leadership. It did not form any part of the platform that Hamas ran for office on, nor was it an underpinning of its electoral victory in the Gaza. Hamas has offered Israel limited terms for recognition as a start in this process of engagement. These terms are lengthy, in the region of 10 – 20 years in certain iterations. This term recognition, particularly if of these sorts of lengths, would almost certainly see a more formal relationship cemented over time. The Iron Wall filter is inhibiting progress in relations.

The US will need to help break this non-productive cycle between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, but in fact the relationship between the US and Israel is part of the problem.  It is as if the US and Israel are in a dysfunctional and co-dependent relationship, each reassuring the other that the way they interpret the world is correct.  However, this world picture is contrary to the evidence on the ground and now, at sea.

The opinion set in the region, and internationally has moved on.  This in a new world where recent surveys show the only nations to support the current Israel paradigm are the US and Israel, with some pockets of support in the old Former Soviet Union. After the 2006 Lebanon War, the violence of the Gaza war and the flotilla debacle, world opinion moves further and further away from the current Israeli policy direction, especially in Europe. This Iron Wall world view is also impacting the Israeli people’s psyche. The electorate there  s lurching further and further to the right,  with the rise to power of Lieberman and Netanyahu further cementing the Iron Wall in place. This philosophy has a vice like grip on the Israelis, and it refuses to moderate or modernize despite the changes that surround them.  Israel’s policies are becoming anachronistic as it distances itself further from the mainstream opinions. It actually puts its security further at risk, contrary to its plans and desires.

The US is acting as an enabler of his dysfunctional policy direction. US arms, financing, and policies are supportive of the Israeli Iron Wall mindset. The US has, in fact, created its own isolationist agenda by the selection of partners in region. Its supporters – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain as examples  – are all autocratic regimes . Several of these are the same Sunni/Salafi influence that spawned Al Qaeda and its allies. The US alliance in the Middle East is a fractious, mottled and fraying big tent.  At the same time, the US refuses to engage with highly flawed but nascent democracies in the region like Lebanon and Iran, or other autocratic regimes that could act as a bridge such as Syria. The US will deal openly with Fatah, but refuse to even speak to the duly elected Hamas representatives in the Gaza, in a mindset sadly reminiscent of a High School clique.

These policies are blatantly non-sensical in such a complex and shifting geopolitical landscape. This dysfunctional world view inhibits both the efficiency of US foreign policy and the pursuit of its economic agendas in region. Much like it was for the Berlin Wall, it is time for the Iron Wall to come down. If Israel cannot do this of its own volition, then it needs the sage advice and prodding of its long time partner, the US. When the Iron Wall is gone, then Israel has a chance for peace and safety. Israel is its own worst enemy at this moment, and for the US to be enabling this is the saddest part of this long-term, but now codependent and dysfunctional,  relationship.

In light of the latest set of nuclear maneuverings of Iran and Brazil and new proposed sanctions, it is worthwhile revisiting the confusion of global nuclear policy. Who can be and can’t be granted self-governance over nuclear development plans seems to be based on whim. It reads like a Marx Brother ‘who’s on first base’ routine.  India can get further nuclear materials while Pakistan can’t. Iran certainly can’t, according to the West, but has it already…maybe. There is a whole furor that Syria wants it, may have had it in the past but Israel destroyed it anyway, and now the UN Security Council is split whether they should get it in the future.  UAE can get it, even though they are a strategic trading partner of Iran. Israel has it, but won’t admit it and nobody presses them to.  Russia and France sell it to people that the US doesn’t want to get it.

The list of who can’t have nuclear technology seems to be based less on logic, and more on who is willing to follow the policy whims of the nuclear club members. However, even the nuclear club itself is fissured. Russia, China and to a lesser degree France, seem to have a more liberal interpretation of who is eligible for nuclear technology. North Korea, a country essentially bankrupt except for sales of nuclear technology, doesn’t seem to mind who goes nuclear as long as they can pay for it in hard currency. The US will only supply nuclear technology to a select few, but of late, and certainly under the Bush Administration, seems to have abandoned the requirement for the receiving regime to sign the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) on nuclear weapons. The US inked a deal with India allowing the sale of nuclear technology and materials that did not include any such restriction.

Nuclear power is becoming a necessity for many countries hungry for energy, but the rules are unclear. Several parts of the world are energy poor. Demand exceeds current supply for fossil based fuels. Energy is also increasingly linked with national security, where if you have power you have wealth and independence. So this all calls into question who should have nuclear power, what are the regime requirements, and why nuclear weapons restrictions should be part of a global policy?

There is confusion at every level of the nuclear policy conundrum. Making it even more complex, theoretical policy implementation differs from real life interpretation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is tasked with a difficult mission – to both promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy while policing against nuclear weapon proliferation. While it has its own charter, it also has a split reporting line. It reports to both the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council is the real power broker. The Security Council has five permanent members – the US, China, UK, France and the Russian Federation. Three of the members are liberal in nuclear technology supply while two are more dogmatic.

In addition to the 5 permanent members, there are 10 temporary members to the Council appointed for a term, and seemingly appointed by a process of political favor. All permanent members are friends to some and enemies to others, but the allegiances shift in real time. Only one of the permanent members has ever deployed a nuclear weapon in war, namely, the US.  The US is also the prosecutor of two regional wars at present, so some question it’s the impartiality in decision making. The potential for the UN Security Council’s decisions to be viewed as driven by self-interest is large. It is also easy see why some countries, for example Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, would try to circumvent the restrictions when they, from their perspective, see the authorization process as favoring their traditional enemies such as India and Israel.

Many countries do have nuclear power currently either legitimately or otherwise.  According to the World Nuclear Association there are now some 435 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with 370,000 Megawatt Electrical (MWe) of total capacity. These reactors supply 16% of the world’s electricity, as base-load power, and their efficiency is increasing. Further, 56 countries operate a total of 284 research reactors and a further 220 reactors power ships and submarines.  There is also a big rush going on in the world with many other countries intending to develop further nuclear plants. In a previous Daily Clarity report, we highlighted the global nuclear technology race. We identified that Russia is in talks to provide nuclear technology to Libya and Venezuela. Argentina is in negotiations with Algeria to provide them with the ability to create a nuclear power plant. United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey are all planning new nuclear plants in the near future.

There is however a large step from having nuclear power to having nuclear weapons. One of the requirements (in addition to missile delivery capabilities-North Korea’s Achilles heel) is the need for enriched uranium. Enriched uranium has legitimate usages as well as for use in weaponry. Many countries enrich uranium, but not all for weapon use. The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Israel and North Korea also have less open enrichment programs.

Corporate crossholdings make the situation even more complex. Belgium, Iran, Italy and Spain hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant, with Iran’s holding entitling it to 10% of the enriched uranium output. Countries that had enrichment program development in the past include Libya and South Africa, although Libya’s facility was never operational. Australia has announced its intention to pursue commercial enrichment. This cast of characters includes friends, reluctant partners and enemies. Given the sheer numbers of players involved and the varying degrees of security involved, the potential for enriched uranium to be available to some of the unsavory players of the world is relatively high.

In terms of possessing such weapons, currently, only 8 countries are known to have nuclear weapons. The odds are that given the proliferation of nuclear technology, many more will be racing to join the nuclear weapon club.  The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons, namely,  the US, UK, France, Russia and  China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council). Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty and all have nuclear weapons: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity (deliberate ambiguity) regarding its own nuclear weapon technology, but it is well-known they have at least 200 nuclear warheads. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

Again, however, what is theoretically true is not the reality. What is a cause for concern is the under-reported concept of nuclear weapon sharing. This gives a lot more countries potential access to nuclear weapon technology if war is ever declared. NATO has in place secret sharing agreements whereby the US provides nuclear weapons to be deployed and stored in other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating the articles of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controls the weapons in storage, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended “unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling”, so there is no technical breach of the treaty.

As of 2005, it is estimated that the US still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, (the burgeoning emerging countries) argue this violates the treaty and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate the agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the “non-nuclear” NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. bombs. Further, non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some information so as to breach the treaty. NATO counters that no nuclear weapons have ever been given over to non-U.S. control, so therefore there cannot have been a violation of either Article I or Article II.

So at every turn in the nuclear supply and authorization process there is a lack of clarity. Who does, who can and who will have nuclear power and/or nuclear weaponry is confusing. It is also clear why some countries are crying ‘foul’ when they are denied access and resort to illicit supply channels. This is a global priority that needs focus, detail, openness, and clarity. For some observers in the current nuclear club it seems quite a beneficial scenario. They have it, and decide at their absolute discretion who can get access to it. For the emerging nations and for those whose neighbors already have both nuclear power and weapons it is less equitable. Someone needs to solve the puzzle and it would appear only the IAEA or UN can do so but so far lack the will to do so.

Man is a political creature. This often causes conflict when it rubs up against religiosity. In so many ways, religion is often used by the powers of the day to validate their actions and excesses. It is used as a cloak for violence, a shield for tyranny and as a justification of the excesses of self-interested governance.  The poor, oppressed and uneducated may rise up against unfair secular governance, but are much less willing to do so when the ordinances are veiled in religious justifications.

The once leading Sunni Islamic institution, Al Azhar University in Cairo, is the latest religious authority to have its credibility challenged as a result of its perceived cooperation with Mubarak’s government. Mubarak’s regime has an authoritarian history, and one of the ways it has survived so long is with the implicit support of many of the clerics. The government controls the funding of Al Azhar and has used it to justify may of its actions over the years. This lack of theocratic independence has led to the interpretations of Al Azhar to be less value leaving  field clear for more extreme interpretations of Islam, the increasingly popular TV and Internet Imams. This seems like a massive cost merely to keep the Egyptian secular politicians in power. Islam needs forces for moseration at its core and the sideling og Al Azhar is not helpful at a global level.

Al Azhar today is suffering from a perceived lack of credibility in the face of pressure from the Egyptian government and a loss of popularity amid the rising influence of TV preachers and Internet imams. That has created a crisis of legitimacy for an institution whose influence once stretched from Morocco to Indonesia.

“In the Muslim world, outside this country, they used to consider Al Azhar the most important Sunni Islamic authority in the world,” says Cairo resident Mohammad Saaid, a devout Muslim who works in television. “As long as they follow the policies of the [ruling National Democratic Party] … they will never be following the policies of the Islamic religion.”

While seen as a loss for the broader world of Sunni Islam, Azhar’s waning influence presents a more pressing problem at home. In recent years, the Egyptian regime has relied heavily on Azhar to sanction its policies and support President Hosni Mubarak’s rule. Now, with the 81-year-old leader in his waning days of power, the regime is bracing for a political transition in which Azhar’s support will be crucial.

the Arab nationalist agenda of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the government took control of Al Azhar’s funding. Key positions were filled by presidential appointment. Al Azhar has since yielded to regime pressure to provide religious support for government policies. In 1956, Nasser sought religious justification for war against Britain, France, and Israel. In 1977, Al Azhar supported Anwar Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel. This year, its top cleric supported Mr. Mubarak’s plans to build a subterranean wall on Gaza’s border.

“Prior to the 1950s, Al Azhar could, and did in fact, issue fatwas [religious edicts] which were not liked by the king or by the different governments,” says Amr Hamzawy with the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon. “Al Azhar today is more politicized, dependent on the state; however, it is still a key agent for moderation.”

via Cairo’s revered Al Azhar University now overshadowed by TV imams / The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com.

Regular readers may be wondering about our recent silence. Don’t worry we haven’t run out of things to say or abandoned the good fight for insight; we just got surprised by an unexpected, lengthy overseas trip. Like many changes, being overseas produces multiple benefits. Not least of these is the chance to view the US from outside. Looking in gives one much needed perspective, more objective as it is absent the din and rush of constant embroilment in the issues. Looking at America from outside reminds one of the good and the bad. It also allows one to think more freely while standing outside the confines of the national consciousness.

We were reminded by this perspective of distance that Americans deserve, as members of a free and democratic country to deliberate fully over the key issues of the day without risk of censure. We were reminded of this by being present in another democracy where the ability to express views freely is accepted as the norm. That is not always the case in the US, where many shun controversy so as to grease the wheels of a nominal plurality.

To adapt John Kenneth Galbraith’s famous line, ‘…there is a cancer in the US body politic’ which is ’sacred cow’ issues that appear as though they must never be debated for fear of causing offense.  It is surprising that in a country where election campaigns are often bloody and personal, where nothing including parentage and birth certificates are off limits, that some key political and social issues are never brought to the surface for fuller examination. If this ‘cancer’ is not addressed, then the damage will become worse and one can only hope that the effect is not intellectually terminal.

We’ re talking about the hot issues – religion, race, same sex marriage, abortion, Israel and a few select others – that one feels shamed to whisper a potentially contrary voice. Why are the American people, in so many other ways open and free with their opinions, reduced to softening their thoughts on these matters to only share their real views with a  select few they can trust to guard their secrets?

We observe from afar that debate is often a step on the way to resolution. Discussion is the art of developing ideological integrity. Arguing a position is a way to test the logic of it. Most of all, the way to cause improvement is a disciplined approach of discussing possible paradigms. To silence, neuter or trivialize these debates is a disservice to the members of a free and robust nation.

The sacred cows should not be untouchable, and a range of opinion should be encouraged. Any view of a contentious issue stems from one side of a great divide or the other.  That type of ideological chasm cannot be crossed unless both sides at least understand their differences and can reach halfway across to hold hands and form a bridge that others might use in the future.

RELIGION

You believe and someone else doesn’t. Neither can prove that they are right, though one could argue which should have the onus of proof.  The requirement of a Christian view should not be a requirement for the office of President of the United States. If there is a divide between church and state then each belief set is, or should be, private and personal. The founding of the US was predicated on the right to religious freedom, to believe or not, and the separation of such beliefs from the governance of state.

There was a statement in a recent congressional hearing where a pro-life advocate said there was no mention of abortion in the bible. The retort from the other side was priceless. ‘Madam, you swore on the Holy Bible to uphold the constitution, not the other way around.’ Yet so many current social agendas in the US are driven by a religious view – homosexuality, birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, stem cell research and on and on. American should be able to debate each issue on its individual merit and reach a democratic consensus. Times change and the country matures. The assertion that the US is Christian is a little dates; America is now decidedly multi-cultural, multi-denominational and multi-faith.

RACE

There are racial issues in America today.  There are also major problems with and within  African-American society and other equally diverse and sometimes divided ethnic groups. The election of a somewhat African-American President has not made racial issues magically disappear. In fact one could argue this has hardened positions by extremists on both sides. By not discussing race challenges in an open and honest way, we do the issue a disservice. There is no possibility of  resolution without debate. It is time for a public analysis of the current issues as they are in a modern multi-cultural US, in an open manner, leaving blame for the psychologists but plotting the best road forward for politicians and social scientists. America needs to heal and deal with race, and nowas a nation under challenge seems an appropriate time.

ISRAEL

Being critical of Israel current policies is not anti-Zionist any more than criticizing either Hamas or Fatah is anti-Islam. The conflict here is a historical, territorial and political war, not an issue of faith – Americans need to not do the issue a disservice by making it a confrontation between Judaism and Islam.  60 years (in the modern instance) of conflict should go to show that a military solution is not on the table and that political compromise is the only way forward.  It is a complex equation, and one that can be resolved with political will but the US populace needs to be provided with fact, not just rhetoric from either side. If the average American would just read the foreign press, they would be better informed on the complexities than the vast majority, and perhaps could push the US Government towards a more conciliatory position.

THE DRAFT

Any country involved in two consecutive wars should at least be discussing the concept of a national draft, or risk the consequence of over-taxing the volunteer forces. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be ignored or sidelined in Americans consciousness if there was a draft involved. A draft focuses a nation, everyone in the nation, on the cost of war. It reminds them that every family could pay the price.  With Iraq and Afghanistan, many Americans at best bemoan the loss of life, but most know any sacrifice will be someone else’s not theirs. A draft levels the playing field. If you son or daughter was deployed in a war zone, you would follow every report of the conflict, not change channel or turn the page. Continued escalation should put the whole country on war footing that way attention would remain focused on resolution not just passive acceptance of America’s wars

TAXATION

No one likes to pay taxes, however the US is a nation under fiscal siege. It is a nation at war. It is a nation with a crippling debt load and with more than $1.5 trillion of its Treasury Bonds owned by China. It is a nation with infrastructure and education investment needs. This is a period of national emergency and still Americans expect low taxes, ultra-cheap products at Walmart and are sacrificing the future of the nation so they can afford the latest model iPhone or HDTV.  One of its largest states, California, having taxed its residents is contemplating IOU’s as it can’t has to ask why shouldn’t  Americans pay a little more for the security, stability and strength of the nation they supposedly love and value so highly. Words are cheap, but fixing the nation will demand sacrifice.

CLASS

The US is often presented as a classless society. It isn’t. Class may not be based on birthright as it is in many European nations, but rather exists through income and education levels. Not addressing the issue  leads to many policy errors on issues as diverse as accessibility to education, health care and immigration reform.  Class exists, including the ever besieged Middle Class, and economic and social reform will be inhibited by not addressing the underlying causes of the US class structure.

SECURITY VERSUS THE ECONOMY

A nation that is economically robust, energy self-dependent and with an informed, active and employed populace is more secure. The US has a habit of not investing in its economy but  rather in its military. This is an inversion of priorities. The US in part needs a strong military as it has to pursue energy and other resource needs in hotly contested areas of the world. The US will never be able to disengage from international markets, but if it was inherently stronger and more self-capable, it could be safer. Debating spending on the military is not unpatriotic; in fact, it may well be the most patriotic act of all.

There are other sacred cows in US political discourse, but even these few raise serious considerations. It should be acceptable to discuss these and to seek a better path to resolution. Americans protect and preserve these sacred cows at their peril. Intelligent discourse may prove to be just what the doctor ordered for a healthier America, and that could be just the “health reform” America needs. It is the view from outside America looking in. It could well be of benefit it this became the approach from within.

Bar Refaeli has enjoyed a long time romance with Hollywood leading man, Leonardo DiCaprio. Now in an ironic twist, Jewish extremists have called on her not to marry DiCaprio as it could in their words ‘dilute the Jewish race’. I would have thought that politicizing racial purity was not a path that Jewish people would have been supportive of. This extremist group stands against racial assimilation, though it seems that most regional commentators would argue the contrary, that engagement could lead to advancement, not further marginalization to add figurative walls to the real ones that now surround Israel.

In a letter to Refaeli, far-rightist Baruch Marzel wrote on behalf of nationalist group Lehava, which aims to fight assimilation among Jews: “It is not by chance that you were born Jewish.

“Your grandmother and her grandmother did not dream that one of their descendants would one day remove the family’s future generations from the Jewish people,” the letter continued. “Assimilation has forever been one of the enemies of the Jewish people.”

Marzel told Refaeli that he “has nothing against Mr. DiCaprio, who I have no doubt is a talented actor.” Still, he urged Refaeli: “Come to your senses, look forward and back too – and not only the present. Don’t marry Leonardo DiCaprio, don’t harm the future generations.”

Jewish extremists to model Bar Refaeli: Don’t marry DiCaprio – Haaretz – Israel News

Martin Kramer has stunned many observers in the Middle East by claiming radical Islam is not a response to Western foreign policy, poverty or domestic governance frustration. Instead he states “…that it was inherent in the demography of Muslim societies such as Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip. Too many children, he argued, lead to too many “superfluous young men” who then become violent radicals.” Apparently willing to make his comments even more incendiary he went on to say “…that that the number of Palestinian children born in the Gaza Strip should be deliberately curbed, and alleged that this would “happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies to Palestinians with refugee status.”

Such comments do  little to improve already high-tension relations between the West and the Muslim world. Kramer’s  remarks were made at a recent  Herzliya conference in Israel which has attracted US pro-Israel speakers in the past. The remarks also come at a time where any peace initiatives between Palestine and Israel seem to have stalled, and are taken by many Palestinians as evidence that the US can never be a fair broker in negotiations. Some observers  interpret Kramer’s suggestions as in incitement to genocide as defined under the UN 1948 protocol.

Kramer appeared to be equating any humanitarian assistance at all with inducement for Palestinians to reproduce.

He added, “Israel’s present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim — undermine the Hamas regime — but if they also break Gaza’s runaway population growth, and there is some evidence that they have, that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men.” This, he claimed, would be treating the issue of radicalization “at its root.”

The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, defines genocide to include measures “intended to prevent births within” a specific “national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

The Weatherhead Center at Harvard describes itself as “the largest international research center within Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences.” In addition to his positions at Harvard and WINEP, Kramer is “president-designate” of Shalem College in Jerusalem, a far-right Zionist institution that aspires to be the “College of the Jewish People.”

Pro-Israel speakers from the United States often participate in the Herzliya conference, an influential annual gathering of Israel’s political and military establishment. This year’s conference was also addressed by The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and, in a first for a Palestinian official, by Salam Fayyad, appointed prime minister of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.

Kramer’s call to prevent Palestinian births reflects a long-standing Israeli and Zionist concern about a so-called “demographic threat” to Israel, as Palestinians are on the verge of outnumbering Israeli Jews within Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories combined.

Harvard fellow calls for genocidal measure to curb Palestinian births – Arab News

An update to the ongoing saga of the Mig-29 jets that Russia is gifting to Lebanon. If you remember, at first blush this looked like a major act of Russian largesse, the gifting of 10 MIG-29 fighters to Lebanon. This would be a strategic boon for Lebanon situated in a region where neighborhood skirmishes are common and with neighboring Israel having absolute air superiority. However, then it turned out that this supposed gift of a Lebanese strategic air defense were essentially useless as they were too corroded to fly. So a new deal was hurriedly worked out and Russia will now provide Lebanon with10 Mi-24 helicopter gunships instead.

While such helicopter gunships will indeed assist Lebanon to defend itself in case of dire need, it is hardly state of the art equipment. The Russians have had Mi-24’s in service since the 70’s. These gunships saw service by the Ethiopians, by the Vietnamese in their war against Cambodia and were utilized with deadly effect in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, until the US provided the Afghans with Stinger heat-seeking missiles to combat them. Should the Lebanese need to deploy such gun ships in the case of a war against Israel for example, then we don’t believe it would give Lebanon much of an edge, even if the Mi-24’s are in a good enough state of repair to be deployed. What looks like a Russian act of strategic largesse is a gift without many teeth in an arms transaction of almost humorous dimensions.

Russia has agreed to supply Lebanon with Mi-24 helicopter gunships instead of the MIG-29 fighter jets originally agreed, the office of Lebanese President Michel Sleiman said on Saturday.

“The Russian authorities agreed to replace the MIG-29 fighters, initially foreseen in their military aid, with Mi-24 helicopters as the Lebanese army urgently needs this type of aircraft equipped with rockets and sophisticated means of defense,” a statement said.

Sleiman on Thursday held talks with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow, in the first ever visit by a Lebanese head of state to Russia.

News | Russia to supply Lebanon helicopters

There was a certain symbolism in the recent dinner in Damascus between Sheikh Nasrallah. Leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . The US has been frantically trying to reverse the mishandling of diplomatic relations with Syria and peel them away from support of Iran and Hezbollah. That attempt seems to have failed at least initially. This was a rare public appearance for Nasrallah. He is under an Israeli death threat and usually only makes televised appearances from secret locations. This was a case of Syria thumbing its nose at the West and making both Iran and Hezbollah welcome. One has to second guess that Syria is either not satisfied with the terms offered for rapprochement with the US or is still angry about the aggressive threats made against it recently by the Israeli Foreign Minister.

We did speculate previously that the seemingly warmer USD-Syrian relations might be diplomatic kabuki theater rather than a real initiative to expand the regional ‘coalition’. Syria expert Josh Landis at least is still suspicious of the maneuverings, and the important issue for Syrian pride still remains the Golan Heights

Syrian officials have been led to understand that the return of a US ambassador is linked to Mitchell’s interest in jump starting the Syrian track of the peace process now that the Palestinian track has gone cold. The Syrians welcome the return of an Ambassador, which they have been pushing for for years. All the same, they fear that the Obama administration is interested in the Syrian track for purely strategic reasons. They worry that it is a gimmick and that Washington has no genuine faith that it can actually bring the process to a conclusion – certainly not one that satisfies Syria’s key request that the Golan be returned. After witnessing Obama’s Palestinian policy collapse and the Obama’s retreat from pressuring Israel on settlements, Syrian authorities are skeptical that Mitchell will have any more luck delivering on the Golan.

Syria Comment

Given the high stakes, the Hasrallah, Ahmadinejad and al-Assasd public appearance is a backward step in the US dance for rapprochement with Damascus. This is another salvo in this dedicated diplomatic dialog.  Damascus still seems to think there is a need for the US to demonstrate that it trusts Syria and is sincere about bringing them in from the cold. The way to lever Damascus away from Tehran and bind them into the regional moderate powers is to bind them through closer relationships. It seems this relationship still has quite a way to go.

The head of the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has made a rare public appearance in the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Sheikh Nasrallah attended a dinner with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He is under an Israeli death threat and makes very few appearances in public. When he addresses Hezbollah, he does so by video from a secret location.

Both Syria and Iran provide the group with financial and military support.

Hezbollah fought a 33-day war with Israel in 2006 during which more than 1,200 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, were killed. Some 160 Israeli people, most of whom were soldiers, also died.

In November, Sheikh Nasrallah vowed to boost the capacity of its military wing and threatened to retaliate if Israel attacked Lebanon.

Since 2006, the Hezbollah leader has made few public appearances in Lebanon, even avoiding key religious and political occasions.

His fear of an assassination attempt has been particularly heightened since February 2008, when the commander of his group’s military wing, Imad Mughniyeh, was killed in a car bombing in Damascus.

Hezbollah blamed Israel for the attack, but it denied any involvement.

Before Thursday’s dinner, Sheikh Nasrallah and President Ahmadinejad discussed “the latest developments in the region, and Zionist threats against Lebanon and Syria”, Hezbollah’s al-Manar television reported.

“If the Zionist regime decides to repeat its past mistakes, the region will finish it off,” al-Manar quoted the Iranian leader as saying.

After bilateral talks on Thursday, President Assad said Syria and Iran were working together to confront “Israeli terrorism”.

Both leaders dismissed US calls for Syria to distance itself from Iran, emphasising their “deep and brotherly” ties.

BBC News – Hezbollah chief Nasrallah meets Ahmadinejad in Syria

There are many observers that think the recent really to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of murdered ex-Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, marked the end of the line for the March 14 alliance. It seems the very bastions of the largely anti-Syria movement are eroding. Syria and Lebanon are in the warm glow of rapprochement. While Syria was largely believed to be behind the assassination of al-Hariri, a lot has changed in 5 years, and there no longer seems such a strong will to get to the truth in that investigation.

The Alliance has also wanted Hezbollah to disarm, but in the light of the 2006 war and the heightened rhetoric with Israel again of late, such a laying down of arms thing seems improbable. In fact, Hezbollah seems more embedded in Lebanese tapestry than ever before, and has popular appeal due to its resistance to Israel and its social welfare programs. Despite all the high hopes that marked the birth of the March 14 Alliance, it may well be a movement that has run its course. The US is rebuilding fences with Syria and Lebanon both, so maybe it is time for the political sands to realign in Lebanon in reaction to the changing realities.

A rally marking the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, on Sunday was partly staged to revitalise the waning Lebanese anti-Syrian front, but its conflicting political speeches all but officially declared the end of the March 14 coalition.

Calls for unity and continuity of the March 14 movement sounded more like a denial of the new political reality than a reassertion of a political programme.

Re-emerging Syrian influence, the persistence of Hezbollah’ role and internal divisions have all dealt steady blows to the alliance that was brought together by opposition to Damascus.

Even before the crowds started converging on Martyrs Square in downtown Beirut, the signs of disillusionment were tangible among its supporters and members.

Many from the ranks of the Christian parties, al-Kataeb and the Lebanese Forces, along with some politicians from the Future Movement of Saad al-Hariri, the son of Rafiq and the current prime minister, were already disgruntled by the composition of the country’s national unity government which they believe does not reflect the movement’s clear win in last June’s elections.

They feel defeated by the government’s inability to strip Hezbollah of its arms and the failure of the international tribunal investigating al-Hariri’s murder to point a finger at Damascus.

By repeating the unifying call for “an independent and free Lebanon”, March 14 leaders tried to lift the spirits of their supporters, but an unsigned editorial on the Lebanon Now website stridently announced the defeat, if not the death, of the movement:

“Now it’s all over. War, blackmail, civil violence, regional horse-trading and even bare-faced hypocrisy have put an end to the dream.

Al Jazeera English – Focus – Hariri rally ‘marks March 14′s end’