ISRAEL CONTINUES NEW SETTLEMENTS ON PALESTINIAN LAND

The government of Israel under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to approve new settlements on occupied Palestinian land every month. Today the BBC reports that Israel has approved 900 new homes in East Jerusalem. Remember this is land seized by Israel during the 1967 War. International law is clear that such settlements are illegal: all land seized during armed conflicts must be returned to the losing side, otherwise every nation would have carte blanche to start a war with a weaker neighbor, seize land by military force, then keep it.

The BBC reports:

"The Israeli interior ministry has approved planning applications for 900 new housing units at a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem.

"The planning and construction committee authorised the expansion of Gilo, which is built on land captured in 1967 and annexed to the Jerusalem municipality."

So in the battle between U.S. president Barack Obama and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu about Israeli settlements, it is clear who is winning: Netanyahu. Obama seems powerless to stop the ongoing settlements. And there can be no peace with the Palestinians when Israel is holding their rightful land and continues to expand its settlements on their patrimony.

Reports the BBC:

"The BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem says Tuesday's announcement represents by far the largest batch of planning approvals for building on occupied territory since Mr Netanyahu became prime minister.

"The 900 housing units, which will be built in the form of 4-5 bedroom apartments, will account for a significant expansion of Gilo. The interior ministry said construction work would be unlikely to start for another three or four years once the plans gained final authorisation.

"A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said the planning approval was "yet another step that shows and proves Israel is not ready for peace".

""This step will ruin every single attempt - European or American - to preserve the peace process," Nabil Abu Rudeineh said."

ISRAEL PLANNING NEW SETTLEMENT ON PALESTINIAN LAND

Israel is planning a new settlement of 240 homes, thus showing its disagreement with the Obama call to end any and all new settlements.

Like most of Israel's recent settlements, this one is being built on Palestinian land.

Rory McCarthy writes for The Guardian:

"Construction at the outpost, known as Water Reservoir Hill, near the Talmon settlement, north of Ramallah, would "greatly damage" the freedom of movement of Palestinian farmers in the area, according to Bimkom, an Israeli planning rights group."

The Israeli government says that these new homes were approved a while ago and have been in the works. But the development is bound to antagonize both the Palestinians and those Americans who want the settlements to stop.

Reports McCarthy:

"The Israeli government insisted the homes were part of old proposals. "These houses have been completed, and there has been no approval given for new houses," one official said.

"The plan, which follows a pattern over many years of settlement growth, appears to challenge directly Barack Obama's administration, which has issued several clear calls for an end to the practice."

It would appear that Netanyahu et al. have decided that Israel will not negotiate cessation of new settlements. Apparently, Netanyahu believes that Israel as divinely favored, has a right, nay a duty, to expropriate and develop all of the land that the Jews of old inhabited. Thus we see Israeli settlers flouting mundane law regarding ownership of property, especially that belonging to Palestinians. The fact that the Palestinians have legal title simply has no meaning when compared to the settlers' vision of a reconstituted Israel. This situation cannot bring peace to Israel.

Writes McCarthy:

"So far, Israel has resisted Washington's pressure for a halt to construction in settlements and the issue is fast becoming a test of wills between the two governments. In an interview yesterday Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said arguing about settlement activity was a waste of time. Last week, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, that Washington wanted "to see a stop to the settlements"."

CNBC THINKS EVERY INVESTOR IS A MEAN REPUBLICAN

I have complained on numerous occasions to CNBC about some of its hosts and guests and their false statements about Obama, especially about his tax proposal. I strongly object to statements made by Maria Bartiromo that Obama is going to raise taxes. Bartiromo fails to qualify that statement with Obama's desire to lower taxes for people earning less than 250K.

Additionally, I recognize undercurrents of pro-Republican bias, sometimes quite blatant, in Michelle Cabruso Cabrera and Charlie Gasparino.

Of course, Larry Kudlow is a Republican shill who takes every opportunity to bash Democrats. The same for Joe Kernen.

About the only ones who seem to be fair are Mark Haynes, Steve Liesman, Melissa Francis and Jim Cramer and maybe one or two others.

I am a stock and bond investor. Not every investor is a mean pro-Republican. But the majority of actors on CNBC seem to think the opposite.

COMMENTS OF BARACK OBAMA'S PASTOR NOT OFF BASE

White America apparently is shocked, shocked I say, by comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Barack Obama's church in Illinois. But what has Wright said that is off base? Here are some of his quotes as provided in an AP story in The Washington Post:

" In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States:

""The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.""

So what is wrong with Wright's assertion. Has America killed innocent people? Go no further than Harry Truman ordering the Enola Gay to drop a nuclear device on Hiroshima. More than 100,000 women, children and innocent civilians were incinerated that day.

Here is another quote from the AP story:

"In a sermon after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001:

""We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright does not minimize the terrible loss of life in the Trade Centers on September 11th. But what he does do is to draw attention to the militaristic policy of the United States in fighting a war almost every 10 years. Wright also points out the de facto discrimination against Palestinians by Israel and the injustice against blacks in South Africa.

Here is the last quote from the AP:

"Promoting Obama's candidacy in a sermon last December:
"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger." "

Please tell me what Wright says here that is so objectionable. Americans adopted slavery in the 17th Century or earlier and slavery has been part and parcel of life in many areas of the United States long after it was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. It is a central dominating fact for descendants of slaves. Those of us not in this category can hardly grasp the emotional, social and economic effects that still linger.

REPUBLICANS UNDER BUSH AND CHENEY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT "ENEMIES" OF U.S.

I wrote yesterday how I look forward to an intelligent and rational foreign policy under Barack Obama. In contrast to Bush and his fellow Republicans who think that the world is filled with "enemies" of the United States, I want a foreign policy where the assumption is that there are no "enemies," that other countries and other cultures are in fact different, and that it is in the best interest of the United States and all Americans to look on the world as friendly and not as hostile.

Consider specifically Cuba. There is no reason why the United States should not have good relations with Cuba and Cubans. Republicans like to talk about how bad Fidel Castro is and was, but could he be any worse than George Bush and Dick Cheney who believe in waterboarding and other forms of medieval torture? Furthermore, good relations cause governments to modify their excesses, and I believe, to grant more freedoms, to allow more dissent.

There is no reason why the foreign policy of the U.S. should continue to be that of Bush and Cheney who seem most content when they can invade, bomb, shoot missiles, and overturn democratically elected governments. Obama's point of talking with other leaders and other governments is the only sound and rational way to live in a world without going to war every ten years.

CHEERS TO OBAMA AND EVEN TO HUCKABEE FOR VICTORIES IN IOWA

Cheers for everyone in Iowa who voted for Barach Obama. And cheers also to Mike Huckabee for defeating that phony Mitt Romney. Now it's on to New Hampshire.

Now about Romney. Mitt just oozes with political opportunism. That guy changes his colors depending on what position he thinks can get him elected. Mitt is against "sanctuary cities," yet he fails himself to turn in his undocumented gardeners. Mitt would double Guantanamo's cells - after all, those guys who have been kept incommunicado and without a lawyer for the last five years can't vote, can they? Mitt also does not know whether waterboarding is torture. I guess that means that Mitt would be in favor of it but only if it secures him votes.

So congrats to Huckabee. And above all, the country has someone in Obama who can overturn Bush's regime of trampling on civil rights. How many more days till Bush is gone?

PAKISTAN STILL REELING OVER BARACK OBAMA'S RASH WORDS

At this early point in the 2008 presidential elections, I favor on balance Barack Obama. But I am still puzzled by his gratuitous statement that he would have U.S. forces go after Qaeda types in Pakistan if Pakistan itself took no action.

Assuming President Musharraf said the same about the U.S., i.e., that Pakistani forces would enter the U.S. to chase after some American terrorist threatening Pakistan, why the whole American people would rise up and react with anger and insult. So we can understand Musharraf's annoyance at Obama's gaffe.

In celebration of Pakistan's 60th anniversary of independence from British-ruled India, Musharraf again bristled at Obama's American moralistic unilateralism. Writes the BBC:

"President Musharraf marked the anniversary by staunchly defending sovereignty and calling on the nation to unite against terrorism . . .

"Both President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz launched strong defences of national sovereignty to mark the day.

"In comments released by the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan, President Musharraf fiercely rejected allegations that his anti-terrorism platform was for the benefit of the US.

""We are not confronting terrorism for America, we are doing it for ourselves," he said.
"I see everything from Pakistan's point of view. Now if Pakistan's point of view suits America, all right." "

Here we see the results of the American heavy handed diplomatic (?) approach to Pakistan and Musharraf. "If you're not with us, your against us," as Richard Armitage, then deputy Secretary of State, was reported by Musharraf to have told the Pakistan government after 9/11. In other words, do what we Americans tell you to do.

No awareness of what the Pakistanis think. No awareness of how Pakistanis view extremists jihadists. No respect for the sovereignty of Pakistan.

Add to this Barack Obama's unilateralism and we are on the verge of making a friendly nation into a hostile one.

SAD ANNIVERSARY OF U.S. DROPPING ATOMIC BOMB ON INHABITANTS OF HIROSHIMA

Yesterday was the 62nd anniversary of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This makes the United States the only country in the whole world to actually use and detonate an atomic weapon.

When we consider the casualties from this one bomb, over 140,000 lives destroyed, how is it possible that some of the Republican and Democratic candidates for president could reserve the use of atomic weapons in some future conflict? Where is their value of human life? Where is any sign of rudimentary ethical morality?

Second, how do Americans in succeeding generations blithely and without guilt look back at August 6, 1945, and reflect on what other Americans of a previous generation did to the inhabitants of Hiroshima on that morning? The Enola Gay crew just were following orders, orders coming directly from President Harry F. Truman.

The whole country needs to rise up and repudiate future nuclear irresponsibility

About the only candidate to openly dismiss the nuclear option is Barack Obama. All the other small minds belittle him for declaring that he would not use nuclear weapons, implying that they would. It makes you ashamed to be an American.

PLEASE BARACK OBAMA, SAY IT AIN'T SO

I am still reeling over Barack Obama's declaration that he would unilaterally use force to pursue terrorists in Pakistan if Pervez Musharraf and other Pakistani authorities did not cooperate. Imagine if some other foreign leader made a similar declaration that his country would use force to pursue some criminal or terrorist operating within the United States! How would Americans feel about that? Not kindly, to be sure.

So Munir Ahmad writes for the Associate Press today:

"Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

"Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

""It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News."

As I have indicated in a previous post, I have contributed to Obama's campaign. But after this gaffe, I need to take a hard look at why I felt Obama was my candidate. Making a statement like this is almost inexcusable, something akin to foolishly saying that Iran is the "enemy."

Juan Cole writes today in his Informed Comment:

"It is highly undesirable for a presidential candidate to spark this sort of reaction in a country allied with the US. In my view, the episode derives from inexperience on foreign policy and from bad advice from campaign managers and speech writers.

"The question is, can Obama repair the damage or was this the moment when the Democratic grassroots decided he is not ready for prime time?"

CHENEY FOR PRESIDENT? ARE REPUBLICANS THAT DISMISSIVE OF WORLD PEACE?

A few comments on some of the presidential candidates making news this week.


First of all, I can't believe the undercurrent floating around on the net that the Republicans may ask Dick Cheney to run. This guy would like nothing better than to bomb Iran and other countries that he does not like. Cheney is a danger to world peace and stability. He thinks everything can be resolved through the barrel of a gun. If the Republicans draft Cheney, I will come to believe that Republicans have no sense of international law and multi-national respect.


Second, I was both disheartened and cheered by remarks from Barack Obama this week. First the bad. Obama says that he would take action in Pakistan if he could not secure the permission of the Pakistani authorities. Has Obama lost all sense of the rule of law? Simply put, not even the United States may take military action in another country without either permission of that country or a resolution of the United Nations. Second, if we wanted someone to flout international rules, we might as well re-elect Bush (if that were possible) or go along with that war-mongering Cheney.

On the other hand, Obama came out with a most sensible response when asked if he would ever as president utilize nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. No, he replied, consider the civilians and what would happen to them if the U.S. utilized nuclear weapons. At last, we have a politician who shows some sense of morality and decency.

In response to Obama on nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton adopts the "safe" political response. We should never take "things" (like nuclear weapons) off the table, Hillary says, obviously appealing to those voters who don't mind dropping nuclear bombs on people who talk another language or who believe in different religions. No wonder some Democrats think Hillary Clinton is too political savvy, bordering on a schemer. Would Hillary Clinton ever use nuclear weapons? She implies that she would. Okay, I am not voting for her.

WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA SAYING ABOUT USING FORCE AGAINST PAKISTAN?

I don't understand Barack Obama. Now he wants to strike inside Pakistan. Has he ever heard of international law? Pakistan is a sovereign country. No other country, and that means the United States, has a legal right to send bombs and war planes crashing down into Pakistan without the permission of the sovereign.

I confess, I have contributed to Obama's campaign, just today, and now I am totally besides myself for contributing to someone who thinks that the problem of Islamic terrorism can be solved by mounting a "war" against the terrorists. This is Bush-think, and I still cannot understand or approve of Obama for being in favor of it.

Jeff Zeleny writes in The New York Times:

"Senator Barack Obama said today that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that if the Pakistani government fails to eradicate terror operations inside its borders, the United States should withhold aid and should strike Al Qaeda targets there itself.

"Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has made America more vulnerable to attack, and has weakened the country’s position in pressing the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to close down terrorist training camps.

"“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said today, “we will.”"

Obama has gone off on the road on this one. How about getting the United Nations involved instead of antagonizing some 100 million Pakistanis by threatening their nation with U.S. armed action? If I want someone who recklessly makes use of American military power, I might as well support Bush. Obama needs to retract this uncalled-for and thoughtless threat against another sovereign nation.

OBAMA IS RIGHT IN EMPHASIZING TALK RATHER THAN WAR

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note writes today on the disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the question of dealing with those leaders and regimes that Republicans like to call "enemies," for example, President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela.

Steve says exactly the right things. We should praise Obama for being willing to break the current Bush policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with those regimes and leaders who disagree with Bush or U.S. policies and actions. Bush believes that anyone who disagrees with him is "evil" and an "enemy." Obama believes that the U.S. should deal with such leaders and discuss differences. After all, talking and diplomacy never killed anyone.

Hillary is too politically calculating to come right out and agree with Barack. She says she would be resistant to engage in talk and diplomacy until it was clear these antagonistic world leaders were not simply using her for propaganda purposes. But then she adds she would elevate diplomacy to a new higher level.

Obama is correct in calling her "Bush-lite." Many in the U.S., especially Republicans, think that the only way to solve world disagreements is through waging war and dropping bombs. Hillary needs to admit that this is the wrong approach, just as she still needs to admit she made a horrible mistake in voting for the AUMF, the authorization for Bush to use military force in Iraq.

HILLARY CLINTON TURNS DOWN DEBATE ON UNIVISION

I watch Univision, the largest Spanish language TV network, on a regular basis, so I am disappointed that Hillary Clinton has decided not to participate in a forthcoming presidential debate to be broadcast on Univision. Pachacutec's post on Firedoglake.com brought this to my attention. I predict that Sen. Clinton is making a big mistake. For one thing, Univision reaches more viewers than any other cable channels, such as MSNBC or CNN or Fox. Exposure on Univision takes aim at the large base of Democratic Latino voters. Furthermore, Ms. Clinton's decision not to participate will be seen as an outright dissing the Latino community. I sure hope Barack Obama does not make the same mistake.


Beth Reinhard of The Miami Herald writes for Modbee.com:
"Univision is the nation's fifth-largest TV network and the most popular Spanish-language outlet. It invited the Democratic and Republican candidates to debates on back-to-back Sundays in September at the University of Miami.

"We're creating a format where candidates can talk to, not just about, Hispanics and the issues that matter most to them, hosted by the network that they rely on and the news organization they trust the most," said Alina Falcón, Univision's executive vice president.


"Univision reaches more viewers than CNN and MSNBC, which have showed debates. Latino political strategist Joe Garcia, chairman of the Miami-Dade Democratic Party, said: "You don't turn down NBC, CBS, or ABC, and you don't turn down Univision.""

IRAN: FREE MS. ESFANDIARI; U.S.: FREE THE FIVE IRANIANS

I agree with Senators Obama, Mikulski and Cardin that Iran should release the 67-year old scholar, Haleh Esfandiari, taken into custody while she was on a trip to Iran visiting her 93-year old mother. I think it is unjust for Iran to be detaining this lady, just as I think it is cruel and unjust for the United States under Bush and Cheney to be arresting and detaining the five Iranian diplomats picked up in Iraq in January. See my post on April 14, 2007 on their arrest and detention.

As to Ms. Esfandiari, Robin Wright in the Washington Post writes today:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and three senior lawmakers today called for the immediate release of Haleh Esfandiari, the American scholar imprisoned in Iran this week after being under virtual house arrest for more than four months.

""The Iranian government's detention of this 67-year-old grandmother and scholar shows its complete disregard for basic human rights," Obama said in a statement. "If the Iranian government has any desire to engage the world in dialogue, it can demonstrate that desire by releasing this champion of dialogue from detention."

"In a joint statement, Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, both Maryland Democrats, urged Iran to make a "gesture of goodwill" to the American people by immediately releasing Esfandiari, who is director of the Middle East program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and a resident of Potomac."

This is not complicated to solve. The United States detains and arrests five Iranians. Iran detains and arrests Ms. Esfandiari. Both countries believe the arrests on the part of the other are unjustified and unwarranted. I call upon Bush and Cheney to work for the release of Ms. Esfandiari by sitting down and negotiating with Iran as to the release of the five Iranians. There is no reason why the U.S. should consider Iran an "enemy" or "adversary." But the arrest of Ms. Esfandiari should not be considered to be out of the blue or unexpected, given the detention of the five Iranians since January 2007.