Middle East: Grave mistake to attack Iran, warns Syria

It seems people are lining up to warn the Bush administration not to attack Iran, which must surely be some indication that the nutters around Dick Cheney are actually giving the matter some serious consideration. The latest to warn against such madness is Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president.

"It will cost the US and the planet dear," he told France Inter radio yesterday during his visit to Paris. "Israel will pay directly the price of this war. Iran has said so. The problem is that when one starts such action in the Middle East, one cannot manage ... reactions that can spread out over years or even decades."

Assad attacked the "warmonger's logic" of the Bush administration, but added: "We are going to have discussions with our Iranian friends to get to the heart of the matter. This is the first time that we had been asked to play a role."

There were also warnings from Hamid Karzai, the US-backed Afghan president. He told Radio Liberty that he did not want his country to be used to launch any attack on Iran. "Afghanistan wants to be a friend of Iran as a neighbour," Karzai said.

Last night Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, said that he would welcome bilateral talks with the US if both parties were on "equal footing."

"When two people want to talk, both have to be on equal terms. Dialogue doesn't make any sense if one side stands in a higher position and the other in a lower position," he said in a speech.

Up until now we have been in the bizarre position of having the Bush administration agree to talks only if Iran agree in advance to suspend the enrichment of uranium. It's a bit like being asked to pay your parking ticket in advance before the council will agree to meet with you to discuss your grievances for getting a ticket in the first place.

If you admit guilt then talks can take place. This completely ignores the fact that Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful means under the NNPT.

However, when the Iranians set off their long range missiles recently one can only hope that both Israel and the US realised that the stakes here are astonishingly high.

Scott Ritter, the man who successfully predicted what would take place if the US invaded Iraq, spells it out:

The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran which would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities.

Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are predicting, there is a good chance oil would top $500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the strain.

And, of course, Iran would immediately close the Strait of Hormuz, despite US claims that it would, somehow, keep this open.

The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait, large, fixed and well known, would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not into billions, of dollars, and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military personnel killed and wounded.

Thankfully, Ritter appears to believe that the planners at the Pentagon will have understood the message that Iran is sending out.

The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have thought that the U.S. could actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack will have to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such horrific detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community remaining mute as American military might is assembled.

I sincerely hope that Ritter is right. But, as more and more world leaders verbalise that Bush should not attack Iran, I start to worry about what they know that we don't.

Why would they even have to warn Bush/Cheney not to take part in an act of utter madness?

Click title for full article.

Tags: US, Israel, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Assad, Ahmadinejad, Bush, Olmert

Syria planned to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, Israel says

If there is one thing that simply never changes it is the ridiculous claims made by the US and Israel regarding what Israel's enemies appear to be getting up to in the nuclear arena.

Late last year Israel invaded Syrian airspace and dropped bombs on what she later claimed was a nuclear facility, at the time she claimed nothing at all officially and both the US and Israel were remarkably coy about just what exactly had taken place.

Now the Israelis are telling us a different and even more ridiculous story:

Israel believes that Syria was planning to supply Iran with spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing into weapons-grade plutonium from the site it bombed last September, and which is currently being inspected by the UN's nuclear watchdog.

The claim from an adviser to Israel's national security council, came yesterday as speculation mounts about a possible Israeli attack on Iran. The Israeli government officially backs UN sanctions to force Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment but has little faith they will succeed.

Details about the alleged Syrian reactor and the Israeli raid remain shrouded in secrecy. Syria denies it has or had a covert nuclear weapons programme and insists the Israelis hit an ordinary military structure being built at al-Kibar, in the country's north-eastern desert.

The US claimed in April that Syria had almost completed the plant with the help of North Korea, which evaded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) checks and tested a nuclear device in 2006. Officials in Damascus accused the US of fabricating evidence in collusion with Israel, which unlike Syria and Iran is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is the Middle East's only nuclear power. Washington did not mention any link to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Notice how many of both Israel's and the US's enemies they manage to bring into this fantasy. Syria was doing this to aid the Iranians according to the Israelis, but the Americans have previously claimed that North Korea were helping the Syrians to build this reactor.

Now, were Syria to have actually been doing what Israel and the US claim, wouldn't it have been more sensible for Israel and the US to have notified the IAEA and alerted the whole world to this Syrian duplicity?

The IAEA would have gone in immediately and none of us would be under any doubt about what had been taking place in Syria. But they didn't choose that path. They chose to attack a Syrian facility, which many of us think was simply a warning to show the Iranians how easily their airspace could be invaded, and they then chose to make no public statement regarding what they had just done.

They had several underlings leak stories regarding nuclear facilities and the like but, strangely, neither the Israeli nor the US government would go on the record and state what had just happened.

The IAEA put Syria on its proliferation watch-list in April after receiving intelligence photographs from the US, said to show a reactor that could have yielded plutonium. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of IAEA, condemned the Israeli raid and criticised the US for failing to share intelligence on Syria sooner. Last week ElBaradei cast doubt on his inspectors' ability to establish the nature of the site. "It is doubtful that we will find anything there now, assuming there was anything there in the first place," he said.

ElBaredei's cynicism perfectly matches my own. Now that it is almost impossible to verify what actually took place there, the Israelis come out with their story. Indeed, it is notable that neither Israel or the US have ever provided the world with a post strike satellite image showing evidence of a reactor at this facility. They have shown us evidence of a clean up and asked that we draw conclusions from this, but we have never seen any images between the date of the strike and the cleaned up facility. Why not? Obviously, in my opinion, because the images taken after the strike do not show evidence of a reactor. If they did, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be public by now.

It would have better suited both US and Israeli interests to have the IAEA inspect the facility and inform the world that the Syrians were engaged in nuclear activity, if that was, indeed, what they were up to.

The fact that they didn't do so, and the fact that - at the time - they refused to even confirm what had or hadn't taken place, makes me highly suspicious of any ridiculous claim that they now try to peddle.

Remember, had Israel taken a different path this could all now be a matter of undisputed fact. But it's not. It's murky and asks that we rely on Israel's interpretation of what took place, an interpretation that she is only now supplying months after the event.

And this latest bullshit is still not officially coming from the Israeli government, it is coming from "an adviser to Israel's national security council". Nothing about this story - from start to finish - has ever been on the record.

I'm sorry. It's horseshit, and I'm not buying it.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, nuclear reactor, US, IAEA

UN targets US over delay in Syrian nuclear evidence

The US yesterday issued a quite hysterical claim that North Korea were attempting to aid Syria to build a nuclear reactor which Israel managed to take out during their raid last year. The whole thing stunk to high heaven, and the US and Israel have been strangely silent about what took place (when Israel bombed Syria) until the US issued it's nuclear reactor claims yesterday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, has reacted with understandable fury at the United States and Israel for their failure to pass the appropriate information on to the IAEA in a timely enough fashion for the IAEA to be able to investigate and verify the US claims, leading anyone with an ounce of cynicism to come to the conclusion that the whole story is a load of old baloney.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief, issued a stiffly worded statement in which he criticised the US and Israel, as well as Syria, which should have informed the IAEA if it was building a nuclear reactor.

Noting that the IAEA was only informed by the Bush administration about the nuclear reactor claim on Thursday, seven months after the Israeli raid, he deplored the fact that the information had not been provided to the agency in a "timely" manner.

Mr ElBaradei also pointed out that, according to the information provided by the US, "the reactor was not yet operational and no nuclear material had been introduced into it". According to a Western diplomat in Vienna, that meant that if the UN inspectors had been alerted earlier, they would have been able to verify the facts on the ground. "Now nobody is ever going to know for sure," the diplomat said. In his statement, Mr ElBaradei criticised Israel for its "unilateral use of force" which undermined the "due process of verification".

Mr ElBaradei was said to be incensed by the American failure to inform the UN watchdog about the possible risk of nuclear proliferation when the Americans became aware of the nature of the site in 2006. "What kind of non-proliferation regime is this, when they come to the IAEA months after it's been bombed?" the diplomat said. The IAEA chief pledged to investigate the US information "with the seriousness it deserves".

"Now nobody is ever going to know for sure". Isn't that the very point? Israel and the US could have informed the IAEA and had them verify on the ground exactly what this facility was used for, but they chose to bomb it and then tell us all seven months later - when nothing can be verified - that it was a nuclear facility supplied by North Korea.

The Israelis are still refusing to comment on the matter and the Syrians dismiss the US claims as "ridiculous".

If the US claims are true, and we will now never know for sure, why didn't the US and Israel, rather than attack a facility which was not yet operational, not simply report it and expose this Syrian deceit to the entire world?

"It's sheer fabrication," said the spokesman for the Syrian embassy in London, Jihad Makdissi, adding that the reactor images showed a deserted military building. "The CIA giving testimony is the same CIA that briefed Colin Powell who spoke at the UN Security Council about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction."

And therein lies the rub. This is the same Bush administration which took it's nation to war on it's inflated claims regarding Iraqi WMD. On this occasion it could have led the IAEA right into Syria and pointed out the facility and ensured it's destruction. This would have strengthened the world's confidence in US intelligence, at a time when it has been undermined by the false claims made before the Iraq war, and strengthened the US's claims regarding Iran and it's supposed pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And yet, we are asked to believe that the US chose not to go down that route and instead allowed Israel to destroy all evidence that this facility ever existed.

Indeed, we are asked to believe that this facility had to be destroyed by Israel as a matter of urgency, even though the facility was not yet operational.

What a load of baloney... It's taken them seven months to come up with this story...

Why tell us now? Why didn't they tell us this at a time when their claims could be verified or proven false? This is, after all, an administration who have foregone any right to be given the benefit the doubt.

And it's highly suspicious that this information comes to light at the very moment when the US Congress is considering easing sanctions on North Korea.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Syria, Israel, United States, Bush, IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, nuclear reactor

Colin Powell Supports Obama's Views on Diplomacy

Colin Powell says that the US should be talking to other country's without laying down preconditions, which have been one of the most ludicrous aspects of the Bush/Cheney presidency.

Tags: Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Iran Syria, Israel

Rendition.

I went to see Rendition tonight which I found to be very good but, sadly, not brilliant.

I was taken by the bravery of a group of US film makers to be making a film depicting what the US is actually engaging in in it's war on a noun. And I did leave thinking that the mindset in the US must have changed a great deal since 9-11 - and those months afterwards - when criticism of Bush's policies were tantamount to treason.

Now we see a screen version of what actually happened to people like Maher Arar and what is most striking is not the utter immorality of torturing someone, but the total fucking pointlessness of it all. If someone is waterboarding you and subjecting you to electric shocks you will say literally anything to make them stop.

And, of course, unlike in this movie, the Bush thugs have never admitted that they got it totally wrong when they spirited Maher Arar off to Syria and are still claiming that he is a "terrorist suspect", despite the fact that the Canadian government have paid Arar $10 million in compensation, such is their shame for their hand in the affair.

The Bush thugs have pointedly refused to offer anything even resembling an apology:

Even worse, it refused to reveal the "secret evidence" which it claimed it had on Arar – until the Canadian press got its claws on these "secret" papers and discovered they were hearsay evidence of an Arar visit to Afghanistan from an Arab prisoner in Minneapolis, Mohamed Elzahabi, whose brother, according to Arar, once repaired Arar's car in Montreal.

There was a lovely quote from America's Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzales, the US attorney general at the time, that the evidence again Arar was "supported by information developed by US law enforcement agencies". Don't you just love that word "developed"? Doesn't it smell rotten? Doesn't it mean "fabricated"?

And, of course, we have Mukasey about to be confirmed as US Attorney General: a man who isn't sure if waterboarding is torture.

Fisk points out:

The New York Times readers at least spotted the immorality of Mukasey's remarks. A former US assistant attorney asked "how the United States could hope to regain its position as a respected world leader on the great issues of human rights if its chief law enforcement officer cannot even bring himself to acknowledge the undeniable verity that waterboarding constitutes torture...". As another reader pointed out, "Like pornography, torture doesn't require a definition."

The movie did succeed in making me very angry, but only at the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never go to jail for what they have done. And in any just world, where all were equal, they would face charges for the criminal behaviour they have indulged in.

Click title for trailer.

Tags: Rendition, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mukasey, Maher Arar

Calls Mount for Bush to Apologize to Torture Victim

Bush is still, as expected, refusing to offer any apology to Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was arrested in America and deported for torture. Surely if Bush thought torture was as abhorent as he claims, this apology would be given immediately and from the heart?

It is impossible not to be outraged listening to Arar's testimony.

“The most fundamental question that has not been answered yet is: why did the US government decide to send me to Syria and not to Canada?” he said.

The US government has sought to dismiss Arar’s case on the grounds that it would violate state secrets.

It acknowledges conducting “renditions” or secret international transfers of terrorist suspects, often to countries with dubious human-rights records, saying the programme has prevented further attacks.

Dean Boyd, a US justice department spokesman, said Arar was deported to Syria because he maintained dual citizenship there, and that Syria had assured the US that Arar would not be tortured.

Hat tip to The Largest Minority.

Tags: Maher Arar, Syria, Torture, Bush, apology

Syria denies existence of nuclear site

A UN spokesman has said that a Syrian official did not say that there was a nuclear facility in Syria and that a UN report which appeared to suggest that he had was the result of an "interpretation error".

"There was an interpretation error" (in the English translation) while the Syrian delegate was addressing the General Assembly's disarmament committee in Arabic Tuesday, Farhan Haq, a UN spokesman, told reporters.

"Although the interpreter suggested that the Syrian delegate had referred to an attack on a nuclear facility, what he said was 'like what happened on the 6 of September against my country'," Haq said after UN officials reviewed the Arabic tape of the remarks. "There was no use of the word nuclear".

Israeli newspapers have seized on the misinterpreted remarks as proof that Israel did, in fact, hit a nuclear facility when it invaded Syria recently.

The Israeli media reports have caused Damascus to issue a denial, stating that there are no nuclear facilities in Syria.

"The ministry denies media reports that Syria's ambassador in New York had said the September 6 raid targeted a nuclear plant because no such facility exists in Syria," the foreign ministry said in a statement.

"Syria has already made this clear in the past," it added.

This coincides with the opinion of the IAEA who have said that they are unaware of any undeclared nuclear sites in Syria.

Indeed, the IAEA has reminded other nations of their obligations to inform them of any information they may have if another country is in breach of the NNPT.

"We would obviously investigate any relevant information coming our way. The IAEA Secretariat expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA."

Neither Israel nor the US have responded to this.

And with the Americans and the Israelis both refusing to comment officially about what the Hell the Israelis were playing at when they illegally entered Syrian airspace, I think we can safely assume that, had the US and Israel any real proof that Syria were developing a nuclear programme, that they would be shouting that information from the rooftops.

Their silence speaks volumes.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, United States, IAEA

IAEA: We Have No Information on Undeclared Syrian Nuclear Sites.

I spoke yesterday about my incredulity at the New York Times report of the Israeli attack on Syria and about what I see as the ramifications even if the Israeli claims are true, which I seriously doubt.

However, today Newshoggers are carrying a quote from the IAEA which shows that they are also seriously pissed off at the US and Israel, once again, showing contempt for international consensus and the rule of law.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has no information about any undeclared nuclear facility in Syria and no information about recent reports," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement issued from the IAEA's Vienna headquarters.

"The IAEA is in contact with the Syrian authorities to verify the authenticity of these reports," she said.

"We would obviously investigate any relevant information coming our way. The IAEA Secretariat expects any country having information about nuclear-related activities in another country to provide that information to the IAEA."

A Vienna diplomat close to the IAEA said it had initiated contacts with Damascus shortly after the air raid but the Syrians had provided no clarification yet. U.S. officials have linked the raid to apparent Israeli suspicions of covert nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Syria. They said the site in question was identified earlier this year in satellite photographs.

Syria has denied hiding any nuclear activity from the IAEA or having anything other than energy goals with nuclear work. The Vienna diplomat said that if Syria was indeed building a new reactor, it would have been required to inform the agency, and provide design data, as soon as it decided to construct one.

No country had provided satellite or other intelligence about the alleged plant to the IAEA although such help would be crucial to detecting such a site, added the diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the topic's political sensitivity.

"With the (low) level of IAEA funding, inspectors can't go around a country checking every building. The IAEA is not a go-it-alone investigative agency," said the diplomat.

The more one hears about this attack the less sense it makes. Why, other than sending a signal to Iran that they might be next, would Israel attack a facility that couldn't be completed for another decade?

And why is there such terrible silence from both the US and Israel about what has just occurred? Newshoggers also bring up a quote from Retired CIA analyst of Arab affairs Ray Close made during an interview with Juan Cole:

"Personally, I believe that the most persuasive reason for studied silence on this subject, on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, is the reluctance (call it fear) of individual politicians that they might be put in a position of appearing to criticize Israel for poor judgment (or even deliberate deception), and thereby appearing to oppose intimate collaboration with Israel (yes, even in acts of illegitimate preemptive military action) against "supporters of terrorism."

Maybe that's it. There's a fear of ever being seen not to fully support Israel, even when she is engaging in action which only her most fervent supporters could attempt to claim as pre-emptive; and that most of the planet would see as an outright act of premeditated aggression. So, rather than risk criticising her, the US adopts a policy of non discussion of the entire subject.

And it's fascinating that, since the IAEA said they could find no nuclear facilities in Iraq - a claim that turned out to be totally correct - that the Israelis have now chosen to cut the IAEA out of the process altogether and feel free to launch pre-emptive strikes against other nations based solely on their own "evidence"; "evidence" that even Washington doesn't feel is strong enough to publicly support.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, air strikes, Olmert, Bush

Is the NNPT dead?

I'm afraid that I didn't buy the New York Times story that Israel were attacking a Syrian nuclear site in the earliest days of it's development, as it made utterly no sense to me why Israel would be so very coy about what she had done.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

Perhaps it did happen just as they say. Perhaps even the Israelis couldn't reasonably argue that an imminent threat was coming from a nuclear site which won't be completed for a decade, which is perhaps why they are being so coy about it. Perhaps another reason for the attack was to warn Iran that she might be next.

But even taking Israel at her "leaked-but-never-officially-confirmed" word that this was a nuclear reactor - and adding to this the US and Israel's objections to Iran developing nuclear power, despite this being legal under the rules of the NNPT - one must come to the conclusion that with Israel behaving in this way, and with the US apparently conniving in this Israeli behaviour, that the NNPT is dead in all but name.

I agree with LGM on this one:

The treaty has always been open to charges of unfairness, since it legitimized the nuclear programs of a select number of states while delegitimizing similar programs in other states. This was a deal worth upholding, based on the principle that fewer nuclear states is better than more nuclear states.

The deal also ensured that signatories would have the capability to engage in peaceful nuclear activity, some of which is indistiguishable from the opening steps of a long term weapons program. American complicity in this strike means that the deal is as good as dead, and has been replaced by a de facto arrangement in which states that the US approves of are allowed to have nuclear power, while states we dislike get airstrikes.

Remember, one of the obligations of the NNPT was, not only that states should desist from acquiring nuclear weapons, but that nuclear states should take steps to disarm. It was bad enough when the United States announced their plans to build a new range of bunker busting nuclear weapons, which is illegal under the treaty, or when Blair announced a new range of Trident submarines, again sending the signal that the NNPT was for others to obey whilst we carried on regardless building our new nuclear arsenals.

However, Israel's attack on Syria - if, indeed, it was an attack on the kind of facility they claim - takes preventative strikes into a new area altogether.

We are now being asked to accept that it is legitimate for Israel to attack another country because they may represent a threat ten years down the line.

And this attack is being carried out by a nation which is herself a nuclear power who refuses to sign up to the NNPT.

This is now becoming a nuclear club where certain nations have reserved for themselves the right to possess certain weapons and also the right to attack other nations if they attempt parity. We no longer even pretend that there is any sense of fairness to this arrangement. It is do as we say, not as we do.

No wonder no official from the US or Israel will go on the record here. This is simply shameful and immoral bullying.

Tags: NNPT, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, US, Syria, Israel, UK

Archbishop attacks neocons over US threat to bomb Iran

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stepped into the war of words between the US and Iran and has criticised the neoconservatives of the Bush administration and accused them of "potentially murderous folly" for suggesting military action against Syria and Iran.

Speaking to the BBC, the archbishop, who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset, said: "When people talk about further destabilisation of the region - and you read some American political advisers speaking of action against Syria and Iran - I can only say that I regard that as criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly.

"We do hear talk from some quarters of action against Syria and Iran. I can't understand what planet such persons are living on, when you see the conditions that are already there."

The interesting thing about Bush - the man of God - is how few other men of God, outside of the American Christian fundamentalists, see things they way he does.

He was famously opposed by the Pope before the invasion of Iraq, leading one to wonder why God - who Bush claimed had told him to invade Iraq - was giving different advice to Bush and the Pope.

Perhaps Bush is simply more holy than these men of the cloth. Or perhaps he is simply using his religion for political purposes. Even after all this time in office it is very hard to pin George Bush down on what he actually believes in. Oh, he gives lots of hints to his base, but that could simply be to nod to them that he is on the same wavelength, without actually giving them an explicit endorsement.

But despite the centrality of Bush's faith to his presidency, he has revealed only the barest outline of his beliefs, leaving others to sift through the clues and make assumptions about where he stands.

Bush has said many times that he is a Christian, believes in the power of prayer and considers himself a "lowly sinner." But White House aides said they do not know whether the president believes that: the Bible is without error; the theory of evolution is true; homosexuality is a sinful choice; only Christians will go to heaven; support for Israel is a biblical imperative; or the war in Iraq is part of God's plan.

Some political analysts think there is a shrewd calculation behind these ambiguities. By using such phrases as the "culture of life," Bush signals to evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics that he is with them, while he avoids taking explicit stands that might alienate other voters or alarm foreign leaders. Bush and his chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, are "very gifted at crafting references that religious insiders will understand and outsiders may not," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical journal Sojourners.

This ambiguity even extends to whether or not Bush is a born again Christian:

Because he does not claim to have embraced Jesus in a single moment, aides said, Bush does not call himself "born again." Nor does he refer to himself as an evangelical, though evangelical leaders do not hesitate to claim him as one of their own.

"I think most of us recognize him as a guy who sure has the same orthodox beliefs we do," said Charles W. Colson, a Nixon White House aide who heads Prison Fellowship Ministries.

One thing is certain. Bush may have been claimed as one of their own by the evangelical leaders, even whilst he himself refuses to say one way or the other whether or not he shares their beliefs, but amongst the other religions of the world Bush is not regarded as a man of God.

Indeed, noted theologian Father Alvin Freedkin goes as far as to label Bush's religious stances "phony", although he admits the term might be too strong.

Q: In Chapter 3 of Jumbotron Jesus you call President Bush a phony Christian. What do you mean by that?

A: Phony may be strong but not totally inaccurate. One of the concerns I raise in this book is the apparent ease with which cooption of the Evangelical movement may occur for personal political gain. Almost anyone can say, in effect, "I am one of you; therefore you can believe anything I say." President Bush is dangerously close to this type of behavior.

Is he a man of God or is he using religion for political purposes? I have no way of knowing. However, I do know this. Both Bush (and in his time, Blair) displayed a propensity for killing and a laissez-faire attitude towards other people's deaths that undermines the sanctity of life that they claim to hold so dear. And by this I am not simply referring to the Iraq war. Bush, the man of God, pointedly refused to call for a ceasefire during Israel's aerial bombardment of Beirut. Refusing to call for peace is about as irreligious as one can get.

So, for me, Bush cuts a strange religious cloth. I am far more at home with traditional religious leaders like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. People who are gloriously old fashioned enough to believe that killing is wrong and wars are bad things.

For instance it would be impossible to imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, not only refusing clemency, but mocking the person who is being sent to death. And yet that is exactly what Bush is said to have done:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed.

"I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

If he's a man of God, I am very pleased to be an Atheist.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Archbishop of Canterbury, Iran, Syria, neo-cons, invasion plans, religion, Bush

War Made Easy - How Presidents and Pundits Spin us to Death.

The Trailer



Part One:



Part Two:

Tags: US media, war complicity, Iraq war, War with Iran, Media Education Foundation, Vietnam war, Sean Penn

Israel claim Syria had nuclear materials.

There is a rather startling report in today's London Times which claims that Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month.

The report quotes unnamed "informed sources" within Washington and Jerusalem. One would think that if Israel actually had such concrete proof of Syria and North Korea colluding in such material that they would not be relying on anonymous "informed sources" to let us know what was actually going on and would be holding press conferences to show the world why they had behaved in the way that they have.

The very fact that we have to rely on such sources makes me very suspicious that we are actually being fed a line here. The Israeli government, with the exception of Bibi, have gone uncharacteristically quiet on this subject and appear happy to let "informed sources" carry the company line whilst offering no proof to back up these assertions.

Meanwhile at United Nations, Tehran upped the ante by calling for UN inspectors to be sent into Israel to check for nuclear weapons:

Iranian delegate Ail Asghar Soltanieh _ like Arab delegates before him _ said Friday that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had acknowledged last year that his country possessed nuclear weapons _ something Olmert says he never did.

Soltanieh also criticized "the continuous silence of the U.S. ... vis a vis the atrocities, aggression, bloodshed and violations of over 30 resolutions of the United Nations.''

That, he said, is "shameful and (a) dark point in the history of the United Nations, and the IAEA and the modern century at large.''

In turn, Israeli delegate Israel Michaeli alluded to claims that Olmert acknowledged Israel's nuclear weapons, saying, some previous speakers "continued to lie.''

"Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence,'' Michaeli said.

Soltanieh, in response, challenged the IAEA to send its inspectors into the country "to verify who is telling the truth.''

And, of course, the US approved "nuclear ambiguity" of the Israelis points up the hypocrisy of the US/Israeli horror at other nations in the Middle East attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.

And Israel Michaeli's claims that people are lying when they state that Olmert admitted that Israel was a nuclear power, really is asking that we suspend all disbelief. Here is what Olmert said:

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?"

Of course, Tehran's demands that Israel be subject to the same level of nuclear inspections as we demand of them will be deemed irresponsible talk. The blather of madmen.

However, the whole argument about Tehran's wish to acquire a nuclear weapon cannot seriously be resolved until we decide whether or not we are serious about our commitments under the NNPT. Our side of the bargain is that we will disarm as long as other powers desist from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Israel's "nuclear ambiguity" is only the most obvious example of our hypocrisy. Blair recommissioning Trident and Bush developing a new range of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons are another two examples which spring to mind, where we demand others obey a treaty which we ourselves are in blatant violation of.

In the meantime, Israel feels that she only has to send out "informed sources" to talk of Syrian nuclear materials in order to justify an Israeli incursion into Syrian territory.

But just imagine reversing that. Imagine what would happen if the Syrians had invaded Israeli airspace and bombed suspected Israeli nuclear sites?

It's unimaginable isn't it? A bit like imagining there would ever be a day when UN inspectors would be allowed to wander through Dimona.

"Do as we say, not as we do" appears to be our official policy when it comes to the nuclear issue. And we wonder why we find ourselves in our current situation vis a vis Iran?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, Iran, Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, NNPT

Fury as Netanyahu confirms Syria strike

You can always rely on Bibi to say what other people will not say. As Israel maintains an unusually tight lipped silence about what actually occurred during her invasion of Syrian airspace, Bibi has confirmed that an air strike did take place on Syrian territory.

Mr Netanyahu, a former prime minister, infuriated some of his political opponents by telling Channel One television that he was "party" to the operation on which he had personally congratulated Olmert. He declared " When the Prime Minister takes action in important and necessary matters, and generally when the government is doing things for the security of Israel, I give it my endorsement. I was party to this matter, I must say, from the first minute and I gave it my backing, but it is still too early to discuss this subject." Israel's government has maintained a studious, and unusual, silence since Syria first complained about an incursion into its airspace.

The row came as US President George Bush – while refusing to confirm what US officials have been anonymously briefing for more than a week was a strike on a suspected nuclear facility built with North Korean help – warned against nuclear prolifetration by North Korea.

Originally this was thought to be some kind of warning by Israel to Syria and Iran, showing just what they are capable of doing. However, Netanyahu is hinting at something much more serious here. He is implying, on the back of anonymous US briefings, that Israel actually attacked Syria.

The reaction from Israel to his comments have not included any denials, but have rather concentrated on Bibi's "irresponsibility" for allowing this information to become public.

Eitan Cabel, secretary general of the Labour Party, told Army Radio that Mr Netanyahu had been guilty of "an outburst that is severe, stupid and irresponsible". Mr Cabel, whose party leader, Ehud Barak, is seen by his supporters as the main rival to Mr Netanyahu for the future premiership, declared: "Bibi [Mr Netanyahu's nickname] is the same Bibi. I haven no idea if it is foolishness, stupidity, the desire to jump on the bandwagon, the desire to be a partner, to steal credit – or something else. It is simply very dangerous. The man simply does not deserve to lead."

An anonymous official said to be close to Mr Olmert was quoted in the Haaretz newspaper as saying: "Bibi's slip of the tongue borders on national irresponsibility. Once again Netanyahu couldn't restrain himself and he ran to tell the guys."

If Israel has struck inside Syrian territory, even if she believed that she was attacking a Syrian nuclear facility, then this is an illegal act under international law, which goes some way to explain Israeli coyness when it comes to discussing this subject.

Ha'aretz newspaper in Israel are also reporting that there was American collusion in the air strike.

The sources reportedly said the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence, prior to an alleged Israel Air Force strike on Syria earlier this month.

Syria has said IAF planes violated its airspace and fired missiles at targets on the ground, but both Damascus and Pyongyang have vehemently denied the reports of nuclear cooperation.

This explains why both Israel and the US are saying so little about what took place in Syria.

Yet again, Bush has sanctioned actions that are in clear violation of international law, actions that we have been told that the US is "happy" about because of the signal that this action has sent to Syria and Iran.

Of course, the Bush administration - who share Netanyahu's extremism - have been privately briefing journalists that a nuclear facility was involved, a claim which the Syrians deny. Like Netanyahu, the Bush administration want us to know that an illegal attack has taken place.

They like to remind country's in the Middle East that international law means little to them and that they intend to do what they want whenever they want.

The stunning thing about all this is the total silence from the rest of the international community.

Where is the condemnation of this suspected violation of international law? Why is the world silent whilst rumours of this crime circulate and the Bush administration give us a knowing wink and yet say little?

Click title for full article.

Syria complains to UN over Israel

Syria has lodged an official complaint at the United Nations regarding Israel's outrageous violation of Syrian airspace, a violation which the US are amazingly said to be "happy" about.

Sources in the U.S. government and military confirmed to CNN's Barbara Starr that the airstrike did happen, and that they are happy to have Israel carry the message to both Syria and Iran that they can get in and out and strike when necessary.

This really does say a lot about the complete breakdown of respect for international law since Bush and the current gang of cowboys took charge of the White House. They are letting it be known that they are "happy" that Israel violated the air space of another sovereign nation, an act that - were it to have occurred the other way around - would be referred to as an invasion.

But, in the upside down world of the Bush administration, we don't have to overly concern ourselves with such niceties as international law as the world is split into good guys and bad guys and we, fortunately, are the good guys, so any action we take is automatically beyond reproach.

CNN are claiming that the Israelis were attacking Iranian arms being transferred through Syria and heading towards Hizbullah in Lebanon. This is an extremely generous reading of events on the part of CNN as even the Israelis are refusing to comment on what did and did not take place here. One can only imagine that if their motives were that clear cut that they would be screaming them from the rooftops. Their silence speaks volumes.

And, of course, this action took place at the very moment when the Israelis are said to be seeking peace with Syria.

Josh Landis sums up the hypocrisy of the Israeli position perfectly:

We've set up a strict double standard for ourselves and the Arabs. We believe Israel is entitled to breach Syrian airspace, or Lebanese airspace, because - well, because they're bad and we're good. But if they breach ours? If Syrian jets dared fly over Israeli territory, everybody knows what would happen - we'd shoot them down without a moment's hesitation. And afterward we'd complain to the whole world, we'd say, "You see? The Arabs are trying to kill us all, just like the Nazis." Yet if, on the other hand, Israeli jets fly over Syria - and get away with it? Wink, wink. The little country with the big heart has done it again. Damn, we're good.

When "our" side violate international law the US "is happy", when others do so they demand that they be punished with the full might of the same laws that the US and its allies ignore with impunity.

Is it any wonder that the US's standing in the world is at its lowest point for decades with a President who openly allows such hypocrisy?

The US used to lead the world by example. Under the neo-cons that premise has been long ago abandoned.

Click title for full article.

Iraqis say U.S. should stop passing blame

It would appear that the Iraqi government have had enough of being blamed by the US for all that has gone wrong with their invasion of a country that never attacked them. The Iraqis are now saying that the US should accept responsibility for the chaos and stop blaming Iraq, Syria and Iran for the mess that now exists on the ground in Iraq.

"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

"But they should stop this nonsense and admit that most of the accountability rests on their shoulders," he told Reuters.

The responsibility for restoring order after a war belongs, under international law, to the occupying force. Since the illegal invasion the US has NEVER, EVER, managed to restore order to the streets of Iraq. Indeed, in the early days after the invasion Rumsfeld appeared to applaud the anarchy which saw looting on the streets of Iraq by claiming that "Freedom is messy!"

Recently the Americans have sought to move the responsibility for the anarchy currently sweeping through Iraq's streets on to anyone other than themselves. It's the blame of the Iraqi government, or more commonly, the blame of the Iranians for supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency; despite the fact that no-one can actually confirm that the Iranian government are actually doing this. But the important thing is that it is the fault of someone else as far as the Bush administration are concerned.

This Iraqi fightback comes hard on the heels of the Bush administration's latest attack on the Iraqi government for failing to achieve progress on US imposed benchmarks, the most important to the US being the Iraqi Oil law.

The fact that such a contentious law is proving controversial can hardly be a surprise to anyone, and it seems ridiculous that Bush can seek to blame the Iraqis for having difficulty passing a law which allows foreign powers - and especially American oil companies - access to their most important resource.

But the Iraqis are right on their main point. The task of restoring order in Iraq is the responsibility of the occupying army, and the Americans are being duplicitous when they attempt to pass that responsibility on to the Iraqi government.

When the British occupied countries as large as India, the very first thing they did was to restore order. Without order the occupying power can achieve little else.

And, as the Iraqi government are now pointing out, the lack of order in Iraq has been a problem from the earliest days of this US invasion, and it's a problem for which the blame lies with the United States, not with the Iraqis, the Syrians or the Iranians.

Israeli jets 'drop ammunition' in sortie over Syria

Israeli jets have violated Syrian air space and have been accused of dropping ammunition whilst doing so. The Syrians opened fire on the jets as they entered their airspace from the direction of the Mediterranean.

The Israeli aircraft "infiltrated Syrian air space through the northern border, coming from the direction of the Mediterranean, and headed towards northeastern territory, breaking the sound barrier," said the official Syrian news agency, Sana. "The Syrian Arab Republic warns the government of the Israeli enemy and reserves the right to respond according to what it sees fit."

A Syrian official added: "They dropped bombs on an empty area while our air defences were firing heavily at them." Residents said they heard the sound of five planes or more above the Tal al-Abiad area on Syria's border with Turkey, about 100 miles north of the Syrian city of Rakka.

The Israeli army refused to comment on the incident but no casualties or damage were reported. "We cannot discuss military operations," a spokesman said.

There were rumours recently of Israel and Syria engaging in secret peace talks, talks which the more extreme neo-con elements of this US administration have always objected to, and this report certainly troubling.

Mohsen Bilal, the Syrian Information minister, said: "Israel does not want peace. It cannot survive without aggression, treachery and military messages." The recent offer to Israel of $30bn (£14.8bn) in American aid over the next 10 years had encouraged the Israeli government to "such arrogance that it delivered this morning message", he claimed. Mr Bilal added that his government was "seriously studying the nature of the response" but did not say whether it would be military or diplomatic.

In the past, Syria has approached the UN Security Council in response to Israeli violations of Syrian territorial integrity and has not retaliated directly. But the two nations have been sending mixed messages to each other about their peace prospects. Syria has stepped up calls for talks to discuss the return of the strategic Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967.

This action is certainly unlikely to help foster peaceful relations between the two country's and, coupled with Bush's new found verbal aggression towards Iran, must worry anyone who is watching what is taking place in the Middle East.

Israel is unlikely to have engaged in such an overt act of aggression without American connivance.

The real question is what was achieved by such an act of aggression. More may come out in future, but at the moment I can see the raising of tensions between the two country's as the only obvious result, perhaps softening and preparing American public opinion for some kind of joint US/Israeli intervention against Iran and Syria.

Ha'aretz report Olmert's denial:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Thursday denied all knowledge of an Israel Air Force jet entering Syrian airspace overnight, despite Syria's announcement that its military shot at an IAF warplane in the northern part of the country.

"I don't know what you are talking about," Olmert said in response to a question on the issue from Haaretz, hours after his office and the Israel Defense Forces both said they refused to respond to Damascus' claims.

The prime minister was speaking at an event for his Kadima party to mark the Jewish New Year holiday next week. He insisted that it was business as usual, asking reporters, "do I not look relaxed?"

State Department spokesman Tom Casey declined to comment on what he said were two different versions of events from both Israel and Syria.

Asked whether the United States had asked either Israel or Syria for their version of events, Casey said he was not aware of any U.S. contacts with either government on the issue.

So, whilst both Israel and the US issue denials, the US have not even gone to the bother of asking Israel whether or not the Syrian charges are true or false.

What's fascinating is how little coverage this event is generating in the west. Had this happened the other way around, and Syrian jets had entered Israeli sovereign territory, we would currently be reading pages and pages of news reports concerning the danger to Israel and her need to respond this act of Syrian aggression.

Israel does so, and we read very little condemnation of her actions, instead we read half hearted Israeli and US denials and are asked to pretend that the whole thing is very confusing and that no-one really knows what happened as both sides are telling different stories. However, the fact that the US have allowed themselves plausible deniability by refusing to even ask the Israelis whether or not the incident actually took place, should give any sentient person pause.

The incident, in all probability, took place; the real question is why it happened and what it signifies.

Click title for full article.

Fareed Zakaria

Tags: Daily Show, Jon Stewart, the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Bush, the war on terror

Olmert 'in secret offer to return Golan Heights to Syria'

Olmert has apparently sent a secret message to the Syrians via Turkey and Germany:

"I would like to hear from you whether, in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, Syria would be willing to fulfil its part: to gradually dissolve its alliances with Iran, Hizbullah and the Palestinian terror organisations, and to stop financing and encouraging terror."

Israeli offers are always marvels to behold, but this one is especially astounding. Israel are asking the Syrians to desert all it's allies - every single group of people who are in a similar position to themselves - i.e. people who have had land illegally taken by Israel - and the reward that Israel is offering Syria if she agrees to desert all of her allies? She can have back land that Israel seized in 1967 - land that international law has decreed is Syrian - as long as the land remains under lease to Israel for at least twenty five years.

I'm not making this up, that is actually the offer. Desert your every ally and we might give you back what is yours in twenty five years time.

Now, I have no doubt that the Syrians might find some fault in this "generous" Israeli offer, however what will be interesting will be to watch the way pro-Israeli supporters portray this in years to come.

It'll go along the lines of, "We offered the Golan Heights to Syria if they would abandon terrorism but they refused, which is proof that they want to drive us into the sea."

One must remember that all Israeli offers are portrayed as "generous" as Israel refuses to accept that international law applies to herself and the occupied territories. Therefore, even an offer as ludicrous as this one will be portrayed as Israel, once again, seeking a partner for peace amongst a hostile Middle East.

These "generous offers" are almost designed to be refused.

Meanwhile, in Israel, there are claims that Olmert is "selling off" the Golan Heights in a desperate attempt to cling on to power:

National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev said Friday that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is prepared to sell the Golan Heights to keep his job.

Orlev's comments came in response to a report in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on Friday, whereby Israel has recently sent secret messages to Syria, signaling its willingness to give up the Golan Heights in return for a peace deal that would require Damascus to distance itself from Iran.

"Olmert's willingness to cede the Golan is a desparate survival bid," Orlev told Israel Radio.

Orlev concluded by saying: "The Golan will not be sold like Gush Katif," referring to the settlement bloc evacuated in Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Now, it goes without saying that if Olmert is making an offer in the hope of clinging to power, then that offer is going to be unnecessarily generous, almost foolhardy in fact.

The truth is almost the opposite. It's a terrible offer that borders on an insult. But the pro-Israeli crowd will take up the cry and the Syrians will be accused of choosing terrorism over peace.

Indeed, the initial Syrian reaction appears to be the obvious one:

A Syrian official said earlier Thursday that Damascus is interested in renewing the peace process with Israel.

"Our stance remains as it was. We are ready to renew negotiations for peace, and interested in working for peace," the Syrian official told the French news agency, Agence France-Presse.

With reference to Olmert's call Wednesday for a renewal of direct negotiations with Syria, the Syrian official said: "Syria is following the Israeli announcements very closely."

Nevertheless, he emphasized: "We don't have any high hopes that things will change."

With offers as generous as Israel's one floating around the table, I wonder where this cynicism comes from?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Israel, Syria, peace talks, Olmert

Olmert's strange message to Syria.

The recent comments from Ehud Olmert are confusing to say the least:

"Israel does not want war with Syria and we need to be careful to avoid a scenario of miscalculations that could cause the security situation to worsen," Mr Olmert was quoted as saying after meeting ministers and intelligence chiefs. "I'm willing to negotiate directly with the Syrians, but without preconditions," he said, adding that his message about Israel's peaceful intentions had been conveyed to Syria.

Why is he saying this? We all know that George Bush wanted him to expand his war with Hizbullah last summer to include Iran and Syria and that he wisely resisted the neo-con calls, so why does he need at this point in time to say that he doesn't want war with Syria?

Perhaps Olmert's message is actually intended for Washington rather than Damascus, as there have been persistent rumours that a back channel has existed between the Israelis and the Syrians via Turkey, and we all know that Cheney and the hard right wing of the American administration would probably not favour any kind of peace deal between Israel and one of Bush and Co's enemies.

However, I am still puzzled by talk that Syria may be preparing to attack Israel. Where has that come from? After all, the Syrians signed up to the Arab peace plan at the recent Riyadh summit, which affirmed peace as the "strategic option" for all Arab states. So why would Israeli defence intelligence chiefs be giving reports that Syria might be planning to snatch one of the five still inhabited villages in the Golan heights to "shake the status quo".

Nothing would give the Americans a better opportunity to attack Syria than if they were to launch an aggressive war against Israel, so I fail to see why anyone would think Assad sees this as a viable option.

On Tuesday the Israeli army held a publicised exercise in the Negev desert that included the "capture" of a Syrian village, reportedly applying lessons learned during last summer's three-week war against Hizbullah in Lebanon.

But Amir Peretz, Israel's defence minister, said: "We have to relay to the Syrians that our exercises and preparations are a matter of course and in no way reflect Israeli plans to attack Syria."

I should think that if Olmert learned any lesson from his misadventure in Lebanon last summer it is that he's not very good at warfare and should avoid it wherever possible. And, again, Olmert's popularity is so low at this point that launching another war would finish him off, so why is he even bothering to make these kind of public pronouncements?

I understand that his intelligence community are sending him mixed signals over Syrian intentions vis a vis peace talks, but find it hard to believe that he is being seriously advised that the Syrians are preparing for war.

The Israeli intelligence community is reportedly divided over whether the recent Syrian peace overtures are genuine or a decoy to relieve the US-led international pressure on Damascus.

While the head of the army intelligence research department Yossi Baidatz believes Damascus's moves are sincere, the head of the Mossad secret service Meir Dagan thinks they are a scheme, media have reported.

Other Israeli experts suggest Mr Assad is interested in pursuing peace with Israel as a way of improving his fraught relations with the US. The theory is that that could help to derail the UN tribunal being set up to try suspects in the February 2005 murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, in which senior Syrian security officials have been implicated.

The Mossad intelligence service is said to doubt that Syria would be prepared to drop its support for Hamas and for Hizbullah in Lebanon - both Israel's sworn enemies - let alone end its strategic relationship with Iran. Mr Muallem repeated that Syria was committed to a "comprehensive peace" that would have to include a settlement with both Lebanon and the Palestinians, whose cause is genuinely popular among ordinary Syrians.

Here's my problem with the Israeli negotiating technique, they insist that Syria first end it's support for Hamas and Hizbullah and then end it's strategic support for Iran. Asking Syria to end it strategic support for Iran is like the Syrians insisting that Israel give up it's partnership with the US, it's simply a non starter and the Israelis surely know that this is a non starter.

As for their support for Hamas and Hizbullah, Israel appears to have got the cart before the horse here. Both Hamas and Hizbullah are by-products of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and parts of southern Lebanon. Were Israel to give up the illegal occupation there would be no further reason for these organisations to oppose Israel. However, the Israelis appear to be demanding that Syria desist from supporting organisations whose aims Syria must share. After all, Syria is in exactly the same boat as those organisations, they have all had land illegally occupied by Israel. So it's a non starter to ask that Syria cut herself off from organisations that share her aims before any discussions can take place.

Israeli commentators have been urging Mr Olmert to explore the Syrian track since he scrapped the planned unilateral withdrawal from a large part of the West Bank. Dan Meridor, a former Likud minister, told the Guardian: "Syria under Assad is a state that can make a deal. When he says he wants to talk it's a mistake not to. If it's a bluff, let's call their bluff. If we don't test it we won't know."

Meridor is of course right. Israel should talk to Syria. But if the Israelis are going to first insist that Syria give up support for Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran then the talks will go nowhere.

Israel is attempting here to pick off it's enemies one at a time rather than take on the whole deal offered through the Riyadh summit. Olmert could redeem his hellish premiership if he has the boldness to engage with the entire Arab world and finally comply with international law by adopting the demands of resolution 242.

But talk of war between Israel and Syria is, at this point, simply fanciful. Neither has the stomach for it, so perhaps Olmert is raising the subject as a bluff of his own in an attempt to get send Assad a message before any talks can take place. However, if the message also includes a demand that Syria desert her allies then Olmert is wasting his time.

Click title for full article.

The counterproductive Nancy Pelosi.

President Bush has attacked Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria by saying, "Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive."

Counterproductive to what? What has Bush been constructing during his period of non-dialogue with vast swathes of the planet? His philosophy was the same one that saw lovely North Korea acquire a nuclear bomb.

Of course, dialogue with Syria and Iran was exactly what the Baker Report suggested that Bush should be doing. But, buoyed by the success of his Iraq strategy, Bush decided to ignore this bipartisan panel and continue with his policy of ignoring everyone which has resulted in.... Well, actually, so far, it's only resulted in North Korea acquiring a nuclear bomb, but he's only being pursuing it for six years, so I suppose it has to be given time to work.

The Syrians have welcomed Pelosi's intervention, which will obviously be seen as further proof on the right that Bush is correct and Pelosi wrong. This is no doubt some kind of appeasement on the part of Pelosi in their eyes. After all what could one hope to obtain through dialogue?

I mean, it's not as if Reagan ran off to Reykjavik to meet with Gorbachev is it? No, he was a true Republican, he understood that evil couldn't be reasoned with.

Dialogue? Pfft. Next you'll be saying that a Republican hero like Nixon went to China.

What do these weak, weak Democrats hope to gain by simply talking?

Syria's Foreign Minister, Walid al-Moallem, said: "These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue I tell them one thing: Dialogue is... the only method to close the gap existing between two countries. Everyone knows there are different points of view between Syria and the US. We are happy Mrs Pelosi and her delegation had the courage and determination to bridge these differences."

No, no, it's not the only method. In fact according to some Republicans it's not even the best method. The best method by far is bombing and invasion. That produces a closeness that's second to none. Listen to Mike Pence describe the heartfelt thanks Iraqi's showed as he and Senator McCain enjoyed their leisurely stroll through Baghdad earlier this week accompanied, as one always likes to be in friendly open markets, by 100 soldiers in armoured Humvees whilst attack helicopters circled overhead.

Rep. Mike Pence was so impressed by the visit, though, he compared Shorja to a summer market in his home state of Indiaina: "One gentleman tried to refuse our money when we were purchasing rugs - he kept touching his heart - said thank you, no, no - I was deeply moved."

Don't you see? Such voluntary acts of generosity could only come from a nation that one had bombed and invaded, one could never hope for such a "Can You Feel The Love Tonight?" moment to become possible through mere dialogue.

Of course the minute Pence's back was turned the Iraqi changed his tune:

Ahmed al Krudi: "I didn't accept the money. I said to myself, they must be guests, so I must give them a good impression of Iraqis. After all, we are occupied by these Americans, and they are accompanied by a lot of U.S. security."

Al Krudi says he is angry at the insurgents who bombed the market in February, killing dozens, but he doesn't like the American presence here either:

We are not against the resistance. We are with them. However, the resistance must fight the occupiers, not the Iraqi people. A huge number of U.S. forces came yesterday. Why didn't they shoot at them, instead of harming us?

Of course, that's probably just another example of how Liberal the American media is, twisting the poor man's language. There are probably lots of different ways to translate, "We are not against the resistance. We are with them."

The long, tall and short of it is President Bush has stated that Nancy Pelosi is being "counterproductive", trying to talk to people that we should be bombing if we really want to start being productive instead of counterproductive.

I mean, Gaddafi didn't give up his weapons programmes just because we offered him dialogue, did he?

Did he?

Tags: Pelosi, Bush, Syria, dialogue