IRANIAN PRES. AHMADINEJAD COMES TO NYC FOR NUCLEAR CONFERENCE; SOME COUNTRIES WALK OUT

Instead of France, Germany and England walking out on a speech by Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, how about listening to what he has to say, and then debate him on the issues. I know the Iranian government has illegitimately cracked down on citizens protesting the unfair recent election. I also know that Iran supports fellow Shiites in Hezbollah and that it imposes the death penalty even on juveniles. But is that any legitimate reason to walk out on the topic of nuclear weapons? What do my Iranian friends think?

WHY SOME ISRAELIS WANT TO BOMB IRAN

What is the mindset of the Israeli leaders currently warning that the Israeli government may order an attack on Iran?

Greg Jaffe writes in today's website of The Washington Post:

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday stressed engagement and economic sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, prompting his Israeli counterpart to insist that "no options" should be ruled out if diplomacy fails.

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in a short news conference with Gates, who was visiting here, twice raised the possibility that military action might be needed to stop Iran's nuclear program.

""We clearly believe that no options should be removed from the table," Barak said. "This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend others to take the same position, but we do not dictate to anyone.""

Israel seems intent on bombing Iranian nuclear sites and thus starting a war with Iran. Why not attack Saudi Arabia or Iraq? The majority of Arabs in those countries have nothing but hatred for Israel's policies.

Is it because of Iranian president Ahmadinejad and his foolish comments about the non-existence of the Holocaust? But how can Israel start a war that would kill tens of thousands of people over mere words?

It must be because Iran supports financially Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. The connection between the Iranian government and Hezbollah is easy to explain: Hezbollah's members are Shiites as are a majority of Iranians. Iran's donations to Hezbollah are prompted by sharing a common view of Islam. As far as Hamas, every time Israel attacks Hamas as it did egregiously in the three-week bombardment this past January, Israel prompts its detractors including Iran to pony up more contributions for the suffering Palestinians.

The Israeli government has termed Iran the major support for "terrorists organizations," meaning Iran contributes to Hamas and Hezbollah. But suppose those groups are not "terrorists," but merely insurgents fighting Israel's harsh policies and its refusal to stop building settlements on Palestinian land captured in the 1967 War. What then? Israel would then have to confront its miserable and counterproductive strategy towards repressing Palestinian rights.

U.S. OFFICIALS, AFTER INTERFERING IN LEBANESE ELECTIONS, SEE HEZBOLLAH LOSE

Juan Cole in his blog Informed Comment has an incisive analysis of the results of the Lebanese election in which the March 14 Movement won 69 out of 70 seats in the Lebanese parliament. Cole says this shows good luck for Obama. I agree. A victory for Hezbollah, in my opinion, would have handed the hawks in Israel, such as Avigdor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu, a reason to start another war in Lebanon.

Cole, however, points out that there were many U.S. officials visiting Lebanon in advance of the elections and warning that the U.S. would cut off all aid if Hezbollah won. How must this appear to the ordinary man in the street in Lebanon? The U.S. grossly interfering in the elections of another country, something that would be illegal if a foreign national tried to influence elections in the U.S.

GEORGE BUSH - DEMAND IMMEDIATE END TO ISRAELI ATTACKS IN GAZA

Remember the U.S. government reaction to the Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Condoleeza Rice and George Bush did nothing to stop the Israelis when they bombed the Beirut airport, fired missiles at apartment buildings, and dropped cluster bombs in a 30-mile swathe in southern Lebanon.

Now today with Israel invading Gaza, all the Bush government can do is to counsel Israel not to kill civilians. This is outrageous. The U.S. should be loudly protesting the Israeli action and calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal.

When Israel sends war planes into Gaza to fire missiles and drop bombs, the casualties are sure to be civilians, I mean, men, women and children who have done nothing wrong other than to be Palestinian.

Just as I condemn those few Palestinians firing missiles into southern Israeli towns and villages, so do I condemn the Israelis for leveling apartment buildings with their bombs.

After WWII, we all thought collective punishment was done away with, given the universal scorn and condemnation it merited. But it seems to have returned with even more ferocity. Witness the Israeli attack on Palestinian civilians as retribution for the actions of a few deranged Palestinians firing missiles at defenseless Israeli civilians.

Bush and Rice, don't just sit there when Israeli war planes are killing civilians, demand an immediate end to this Israeli aggression directed at innocents.

PREPOSTEROUS: BUSH CLAIMS HE MADE PROGRESS IN MIDDLE EAST

George Bush today tried to defend his "legacy" in the Middle East. He claims there has been progress.

The BBC reports:

"President George W Bush has defended his Middle East policies, but said his successor Barack Obama would inherit problems in the region.

He said his administration had been "ambitious in vision, bold in action and firm in purpose"."

Will this Bush spinning never stop? I prefer to say Bush has been blind in vision, reckless in action and stubborn in policy.

One of the most egregious of Bush's statements today has been on the Palestinians. Reports the BBC:

""On the most vexing problem in the region - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - there is now greater international consensus than at any point in recent memory," he said.

"While the Israelis and Palestinians have not yet produced an agreement, they have made important progress," he said. "They have laid a new foundation of trust for the future.""

Please someone tell me evidence for "greater international consensus than at any point in recent memory." There has been no consensus. Surely Saudi Arabia disagrees with Bush's favoring of the Israelis and his ostracization of Hamas and all the Palestinians living in Gaza. And Russia and China cannot possibly go along with Bush's treatment of Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations." If it were not for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, there would be mass starvation and humanitarian catastrophes in those areas.

Furthermore, how and when did the Israelis and Palestinians make "important progress"? Oh, Bush must mean with Abu Mazen in the West Bank and his Fatah party, certainly not with Hamas and the million plus desperate Palestinians in Gaza.

But about the worst and most baseless claims are Bush's words trying to justify his immoral and reckless invasion of Iraq:

"Mr Bush admitted that the Iraq war had been "longer and more costly than expected," but said that his decision to invade had been justified.

""America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction," he said."

Saddam Hussein was a "sworn enemy"? He acted "belligerently"? He supported "terror"? Surely Bush must give some evidence to back up these far out claims. But there is no evidence, just Bush trying to gild his legacy in his last 45 days in office.

Funny how Bush tries to make himself the righteous hero in this disastrous story about Iraq. Also isn't strange how war mongers always try to demonize the "enemy," as if to say, "but we only attacked because he started it, it was all his fault, we started firing and bombing only because he provoked us."

But has Bush ever mentioned the 600,000 Iraqis killed since 2003? How about the 4,000 lives of American soldiers? How about all the Iraqi wives made widows by the invasion and their subsequent descent into abject poverty? How about Iraqi children maimed, killed or blinded by American cluster bombs left on the ground after American shock and awe bombing runs?

Iraq, as well as Bush's destructive policy towards the rest of the Middle East, has stained Bush and this lethal fiasco will never wash off his "legacy."

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SUPPORTING "TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS" UNFORTUNATE AND UNNECESSARY

When Barack Obama gave his first news conference last Friday, he was asked about a letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulating the U.S. president-elect. Obama said he would study the letter and respond "appropriately."

But why did Obama need to add that Iran must stop "supporting terrorists?" And why did he also think it necessary to say that the U.S. would never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons?

This is the same old Bush/Cheney bellicose blustering about Iran. Instead of engaging Iran and its leaders with diplomacy and respect, Bush/Cheney and now Obama somehow think they must oppose Iran's legitimate quest for nuclear technology. Iran has said many times it has no interest in nuclear weapons. Why must Obama now contradict them when there is no credible evidence to the contrary?

And as far as Iran's support for "terrorists," I assume Obama refers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is Hezbollah a "terrorist organization?" Or is it really an indigenous Lebanese social/economic/military organization that represents an insurgency against Israel and its restrictive policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Just because the U.S. government has labeled it a terrorist organization, following the lead of Israel, this does not ipso facto mean that Hezbollah is engaged in "terrorism." What is terrorism to Israel may be liberation insurgency to the majority of Lebanese.

BUSH IN ISRAEL SAYS EPIC BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL - WHO IS GOOD AND WHO IS EVIL?

George Bush said it again, he believes the forces of good are in an epic battle with the forces of evil in the Middle East. In his view, Israel and the United States represent the forces of light, but Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran (not to mention Hugo Chavez) act as the forces of darkness.

In this Manichean scheme, Bush's foreign policy centers on killing the (Islamic ?) evil-doers and praising virtuous Americans and Israelis.

Suppose you were a Palestinian 10-year old in Gaza. How would you like to be called an evil-doer and a force for darkness? Or have your mother and father so characterized?

The Israeli-Palestinian situation cannot be so easily resolved into good versus evil. Some Palestinians shoot missiles into Israel which kill innocent Israeli civilians. But some Israelis support the Israel Defense Forces which shoot missiles into homes in Gaza or fire tank shells that explode with steel darts that kill innocent Palestinians.

To build American foreign policy on such black/white thinking between good and evil in the way that George Bush has is to risk having a simplistic U.S. foreign policy that alienates people of good will all over the world and makes them enemies of Americans.

BUSH'S LEGACY OF FOREIGN POLICY CATASTROPHES

For a compendium of the foreign policies catastrophes of George W. Bush and his adoring Secretary of State Condi Rice, take a look at the short but comprehensive posting of Nir Rosen on Steve Clemon's The Washington Note last Friday.

Whether it be Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan or Gaza, Bush has created hornet nests of anti-American turmoil and resentment.

For example, Bush refuses to deal or even talk with leaders of Hamas, even though Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians in Gaza in a free and fair election more than two years ago. Instead, Bush, the great champion of "democracy," makes enemies of Hamas by deeming it "terrorist," and instead befriends those autocratic and, by the way, Sunni, anti-democratic governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

The same with Hezbollah, comprising almost all of the Shiite population of Lebanon. Bush has declared Hezbollah a "terrorist organization" and has armed the non-Shiite Lebanese Army with sophisticated deadly war munitions in hopes of inciting an all-out civil war.

Yet Bush congratulates Israel on its 60th birthday and allies the U.S. with Ehud Olmert even though it was Olmert who ordered the carpet bombing to a depth of 30 miles of southern Lebanon with child-maiming cluster bombs at the end of the last Israel-Lebanon war.

Bush has been a disaster for foreign policy. Together with Cheney and Rice, Bush has succeeded in making the U.S. a pariah among nations. It will take at least 100 years to overcome his legacy of war and aggression.

U.S. SIGNALS THAT IT MIGHT ALLOW HAMAS TO PARTICIPATE IN TALKS

Finally, finally, someone in the U.S. State Department is coming to realize that there can be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians until Hamas is allowed in to the negotiations. Helene Cooper writes today for The New York Times:

"After ruling out talks with Hamas, the militant Islamist group, the Bush administration is using Egypt as an intermediary to open a channel between Israel and representatives of the group, in what some diplomats say could be a softening of the American stance.

"While administration officials still say they do not plan to deal directly with Hamas, the United States has given tacit support to an attempt by Egyptian officials to mediate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, which controls Gaza.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the mediation attempt with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Cairo early this month, and with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, administration officials said. Egyptian civilian intelligence officials are the go-betweens, Arab diplomats said."

Palestinians freely chose Hamas in 2006 to represent them in self-rule. Nevertheless, George W. Bush, who loudly proclaims how much freedom and democracy are gifts of God, was taken back by the voting results. He refused to accept Hamas, claiming it was a "terrorist" organization. He demanded that it first accept Israel. The result has been an increasing dangerous and volatile situation between Israel and the Palestinians, marked with frequent clashes, rocket attacks, missile assassinations and Israeli military incursions into Gaza for the purpose of killing militant Palestinians.

Hamas must be recognized and brought into any negotiations. The demand that Hamas recognize Israel de jure must be dropped in favor of the de facto recognition that Hamas would accord simply by being at the negotiation table with Israel.

Israel must stop calling Hezbollah and Hamas "terrorist organizations." That term is merely an obstacle to any discussion or negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians. We all know that a "terrorist organization" for one side is invariably a group of liberating patriots for the other. Both sides must begin working with each other on the creation of ways to coexist without shooting missiles, rockets and bombs.

BUSH APPROVES SHELLING OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEE CAMP IN TRIPOLI

Right after I wrote my post on May 21, 2007, on the failure of the Bush foreign policy around the world, I heard on the news that Bush unconditionally gave his approval to the assault by the Lebanese Army on the Palestinian refugee camp outside of Tripoli.

Bush's approbation justifies my view that Bush has no foreign policy other than the use of military force against those whom he perceives to be "enemies" or "forces of evil." Bush views all Islamists the same, makes no distinction between Hezbollah or Al Qaeda, and considers them all to be "terrorists." Therefore, for Bush, "everything is on the table," meaning air strikes, cluster bombs, civilian shelling. Bush has said the Fatah Al Islam group within the refugee camp must be "confronted," so he puts his blessing on shelling the camp. No concern for civilians, no concern for destroying houses, no concern for loss of life.

JOHN BOLTON ON THE ISRAEL-LEBANON WAR

Raw Story pointed me to an interview that John Bolton, former U.N Ambassador gave to the BBC. In the interview, Bolton said he was "damned proud of what we did" (meaning the United States government) to prevent an early ceasefire in the war between Israel and Lebanon.

Recall that during the time of the conflict, the U.S. was supplying Israel with bunker-busting bombs, as well as cluster bombs. It turns out that the U.S. was resisting calls for a cease fire because according to the BBC,

" . . .US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region."

Meanwhile the U.S. was happy having Israel attempt to destroy Hezbollah, as if a social and political organization could be destroyed by mere bombing.

"Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire."

The BBC's piece also indicates that other Arab states showed little sympathy for Hezbollah.

There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

This is understandable both from a religious and ethnic position. The Arab states for the most part are Sunni whereas Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon are Shia. Furthermore and equally important, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have populations that are primarily Arab. Iran's population is Persian, not Arab.

According to the BBC,

"More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict. Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks."