TETSTTETSTTETST

TETST
TETSTTETSTTETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST
TETSTTETSTTETST

TETSTTETSTTETST

Kristof is Right . . . But his Argument Must be Placed in the Right Hands

Nicholas Kristof wrote a very insightful column in the today's New York Times. In it, he calls for a more open debate, a conversation, amongst the current presidential candidates and within US politics in general, regarding the US role in mediating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

For those of you who did not read the column, or don't have access to it, Kristof states the following:

• "There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself."
• "Within Israel, you hear vitriolic debates in politics and the news media about the use of force and the occupation of Palestinian territories. Yet no major American candidate is willing today to be half as critical of hard-line Israeli government policies as, say, Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper."
• American politicians have learned to "muzzle themselves" in criticizing Israel, for fear of backlash from Jewish voters, donors and other pro-Israel groups.
• "American politicians just don’t get it", with the "it" being that in the Arab and Muslim world, "the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else."
• "For more than half a century, the U.S. was an honest broker in the Middle East. Presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were warmer to Israel and Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush a bit cooler, but all sought a balance. George W. Bush has abandoned that tradition of balance."
• "Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right’s aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended up harming U.S. interests."

I agree with many of his points, and actually found it quite refreshing to read this. I say this as a devoted Zionist, a long time AIPAC supporter and a staunch defender of Israel's security. I belive that there can be no crack in the US support for Israel, and there can be no sacrifice of Israeli security. Nor should Kristof's points empower the Holocaust deniers, Israel haters or other conspiracy theorists out there in there desire to destroy Israel.

Rather Kristof's points should hopefully alter the manner in which the administration gauges the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Kristof is correct in his assessment that he current administration is inept in its handling of the situation. Many Israel supporters point out President Bush's strident support for Israel, his backing in the Lebanon War, and his refusal to deal with Hamas, among many actions, as reasons why Bush could be hailed as the best president ever for Israel. I applaud Bush for these actions.

But this support for Israel would be most strategic if alongside it the administration would have made efforts to bring the parties to the table, to solve the crisis. The US is the only remaining power who may have a some chance of doing so. I know Hamas is no partner, and the Iraq War has diverted much needed resources, but the Bush administration has failed miserably in trying to find peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - its absence led in part to Hamas' election, catching Bush and Condi Rice by surprise. It has supported Israel, but it has not found a way to support the peace process. It is great that Bush backs Israel now, but what we need is a region that can support itself in the future.

It's Good for Sushi . . . and Energy Independance

As many of you likely know, the dependence of Western nations (including Israel) on the oil found under the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim nations provides a contradictory spin on the political and diplomatic situation. (The West pays Muslim states for their oil, the money from which goes to fund terrorist and anti-Israel and US activity).

Once the West, and Israel and the US in particular, can break free of this cycle, the dynamics in the region will dramatically change. Reliance on two faced nations like Saudi Arabia may no longer be as strong. Nations like Iran, currently flush with oil money, will have to think twice about thumbing their nose to the US and calling for the destruction for Israel and pay more attention to their balance sheets.

An Israeli firm may be bringing us closer to this day of energy independence, using seaweed. As reported in Haaretz today, the Israeli firm Seambiotic Ltd. apparently has created technology to produce commercial quantities of fuel from seaweed.

Seambiotic's technology allows the industrial cultivation of seaweed through the use of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Instead of allowing the polluting gas to escape into the atmosphere and perpetuate global warming, the gas passes through a filtration process and enters a pool, where it feeds microscopic seaweed. The seaweed is used to produce fuel. It is apparently possible to produce a liter of fuel for every five kilograms of seaweed.

I am not only proud of an Israeli company coming up with this groundbreaking technology, but it can also mean that the West can break free from the reigns of the Muslim nations, and also contribute to the fighting global warming.

King Abdullah, You Almost Got it Right . . .

Yesterday, King Abdullah II of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress saying that the United States must take the lead in creating conditions for a permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Abdullah said that history has shown no progress in Middle East peacemaking is possible without American leadership.

"We look to you to play a historic role," he said, adding that results are needed "not in one year or five years but this year."

I agree that the Bush administration's leadership in solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been lacking and that a sincere, lasting American effort will result in progress and ultimately peace.

But the king missed the mark when he tied essentially all of the Middle East's problems to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. As Representative Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, said in a statement, “While he appropriately asked for a resumption of the peace process in the Middle East, he was very imbalanced in identifying the obstacles to that peace process. I expected to hear a speech about Iraq; instead, I was troubled to hear the suggestion that the fact that Sunni and Shia are murdering each other is somehow the fault of the Israelis.”

Your Majesty, once again, the solution to the Middle East's (and the whole world's) problems are not contingent on Israel acquiescing to Hamas. The Arab world cannot continue to blame everything on Israel. I agree that the US needs to inject itself into the Peace Process (I'd go even further and say that Israel needs to assist the Palestinian moderates even more). But please, King, do not come to America and blame the whole region's ills on Israel.

Edwards: Israel is the World's Greatest Threat

Okay, so I parsed what presidential candidiate John Edwards really said. As reported by the National Review Online, Edwards commented that "Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities."

As Jim Geraghty commented, "Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?"

I enjoy Edwards' populist platform, and I think he's honestly a good guy. A few years back, when he was a first year senator, I saw him speak to an intimate crowd at the AIPAC convention in Washington DC, and he praised Israel for its open democracy and lamented that the Palestinians were no parter for peace.

But, unfortunately, now we have to monitor him. Did he meet lately with Jimmy Carter? Is he trying to court the ANSWER wing? C'mon, John, did you really mean that?

The Jewishness of the Jewish State

As recently reported, some Arab Israeli citizens have called for Israel to not be defined as a Jewish state but rather as a "consensual democracy for both Arabs and Jews."

The movement stems from the feelings of some Israeli Arab citizens who claim that Israel discriminates against its non Jewish citizens, from the nations symbols to disbursement of public services to overall opportunities.

I can sympathize with the Israeli Arabs. On the one hand, many live lives much better than there Palestinian brethren. Their quality of life on the whole is much better than most Arabs in the Middle East. Many more opportunities (jobs, education, exposure to the West) are afforded to Israeli Arabs than other Arabs.

That being said, Israeli Arabs often do feel as either being left out of the mainstream Israeli culture or, to a greater extreme, even as second class citizens, suffering from discrimination. Israel must rectify this.

But the basic premise of the "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel", that the Jewish nature of Israel should be replaced with a model "akin to the Belgian model for Flemish- and French-speakers, involving proportional representation and power-sharing in a central government" is not the answer.

The Jewishness of Israel must be kept in perpetuity. Jewish critics have argued that this model "negates Israel's legitimacy and raison d'être as the realization of Jewish self-determination."

The Israeli Declaration of Independence promises full equality in social and political rights to all inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex, and Israel's Arab citizens participate in the country's democratic process. It is through these existing documents that Israel must more fully integrate Israel's Arab citizens. She need not follow a new document that threatens Israel's Jewish character.

There's the Door, Chirac

On Monday, in front of reporters from The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, French President Jacques Chirac claimed that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a serious danger because the launching of such a weapon would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

This statement flew in the face of official French, Western and UN policy (and general common sense) which has passed a resolution calling for sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

Chirac immediately called the reporters back to his office in order to withdraw the comments.

What could be truly scary about this episode is the notion, running in some diplomatic circles, that with three months left in his term, Chirac is concerned about his legacy. I will waste no time in giving Chirac credit for opposing the Iraq War (even though he was largely concerned with protecting French trade interests). However, it would be sad to think that he will take unilateral actions that brazenly contradicts the international community, just so he can protect his position in history.