france sees victory in iraq, wants to help

France offers Iraq rebuilding aid http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/7429074.stm BBC NEWS French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner is in Iraq to offer help in rebuilding the country and promoting national reconciliation. Mr Kouchner, whose visit began in the southern city of Nasiriya, is holding talks with senior officials. France was one of the fiercest critics of the 2003 US-led invasion, and this is Mr Kouchner's second visit to Iraq in less than a year. He told reporters his message was one of "peace and co-operation". He also announced four Iraqi children would undergo heart surgery in France. Mr Kouchner landed at a US base in Nasiriya, hours after it came under attack. He held talks with Shia Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who lived in exile in France when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, before being taken on a tour of the ancient city of Ur. Mr Kouchner is also due to open a French diplomatic office in Irbil, in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Mr Kouchner, who is co-founder of the international organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres, arrived in Iraq from Jordan, where he signed an agreement to help the country develop its nuclear energy programme.

us troop deaths near lowest level in five years

U.S. troop deaths in May near lowest level of war http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-05-29-iraq_N.htm By Charles Levinson, USA TODAY Newspaper BAGHDAD — This May has been one of the least violent months of the Iraq war. The relative calm follows a cease-fire agreement by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia in the face of steady pressure from U.S. and Iraqi forces. ighteen U.S. servicemembers have been identified as having died in Iraq so far in May, according to the Pentagon. To date, the least deadly month of the five-year war was February 2004, when 21 U.S. troops were killed in a 29-day period. The number of wounded also has fallen. Overall, militant attacks in Iraq have dropped to levels not seen since spring 2004, U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said this week. Attacks are down 70% since President Bush ordered a U.S. troop increase, or "surge," early last year. l-Sadr agreed to a truce earlier this month after two months of clashes with U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces. The fighting followed a decision by the Iraqi government to rein in al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militant groups. Iraqi forces have also intensified their offensive against Sunni militants, including al-Qaeda, in the northern city of Mosul. We're seeing progress because we're getting more capability out of the Iraqi security forces," said Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, the number two U.S. commander in Iraq.The deal with al-Sadr could unravel at any time. His followers have issued statements on an almost daily basis threatening to resume fighting as they accuse the government of breaking promises. l-Qaeda militants have proven difficult to drive out of Mosul, their biggest remaining urban stronghold. A suicide bomber in Sinjar, 75 miles west of Mosul, killed 16 Iraqis crowded around a police recruiting station Thursday, the Associated Press reported. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, who has been guarded in making proclamations of success, said last week that al-Qaeda in Iraq has "never been closer to defeat than they are now." Iraqi President Jalal Talabani also has sounded a surprisingly upbeat tone. Talabani criticized Iraqi Army Chief of Staff Babakir Zebari for saying his forces would not be ready to handle security on their own for four years. Instead, Talabani predicted last week that Iraqi forces would be able to maintain control of the country by year's end. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told a United Nations conference in Sweden on Thursday that "Iraq has achieved major success in the battle against terrorism."The U.S. death toll so far in May marks a dramatic decline from 126 deaths in May 2007, when U.S. forces were battling for control of Baghdad in one of the deadliest months of the war. Injuries among U.S. troops also are at their lowest level this year. Just 31 Americans were hurt in combat last week, with half returning to duty within three days, the Pentagon said. That's down from a recent peak of 130 in a single week in March, at the height of the fighting with Shiite militants. Iraqi police, soldiers and civilians are benefiting from the lull in violence. Seventy-eight people died in bombings across Iraq in April, the lowest level since November 2004, when 75 died, according to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank that tracks the data. After five grim years, however, Iraqis are cautiously optimistic. "The situation is better now, but we still have fears," Ayad Chathem Hanid, 33, a bank teller, said while shopping with his wife Thursday on Baghdad's Palestine Street. "We don't know if the situation is going to blow up again or not."

world conference on iraq praises much progress

World praises progress in Iraq as Baghdad seeks debt relief http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPmfoMR0GDFx8KkGeO3BPlY4qsGg STOCKHOLM (Agence France Press) — World leaders, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Thursday hailed Baghdad's progress in combatting violence and stabilising Iraq.A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq." It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable." In a speech earlier to the conference, Ban said Iraq was "stepping back from the abyss that we feared most," adding that with international help the war-torn country could fulfill its "vision of becoming a free, secure, stable and prosperous nation."He cautioned however that "the situation remains fragile." The one-day conference in Stockholm, hosted by Ban and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, was attended by Rice, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband among others. Rice said that while Iraq was "making good progress there remain challenges. Not everything that needs to be accomplished has been accomplished."Miliband was also optimistic and noted that at the conference, "instead of talking about the last five years every speaker has talked about the next five years, and that is a really profound change of perspective." Their comments came as two suicide bombings targeted police and security forces in northern Iraq, killing at least 20 people and wounding another 42, officials said. The attacks shattered a relative calm, after the US military said violence across the nation had hit a four-year low last week.In Stockholm, Maliki stressed that great progress had been made toward creating long-term stability in all areas, and asked world leaders "to end the international sanctions that were imposed on Iraq because of the previous regime and to write off debts." He noted that his country was not poor thanks to its rich oil resources, but said the debt was weighing down reconstruction efforts. According to the Iraqi government, Iraq's total debt, excluding interest, is some 140 billion dollars, including 10 billion dollars owed to Saudi Arabia and a little less to Kuwait. Iraq's debt has been reduced by 66.5 billion dollars, US State Department figures show. Rice urged the world community and especially Iraq's Arab neighbours to re-establish diplomatic ties with Baghdad. "I encourage everyone to increase their diplomatic, economic, social and cultural engagement with the people of Iraq," she said. "We especially urge Iraq's neighbours and friends to strengthen these ties through official visits to Iraq, the reopening of embassies and consulates and the appointment of ambassadors," she said, adding that Iraq could do its part by "appointing Iraqi ambassadors to Arab countries." The Stockholm conference was the first follow-up meeting since the International Compact with Iraq, a five-year peace and economic development plan, was adopted in Egypt in May 2007. At that meeting senior officials from more than 60 countries and organisations promised to cancel 30 billion dollars of Iraqi debt. Maliki said he wanted Iraq to host the next follow-up meeting in 2009, and in a sign of the meeting's upbeat tone, Ban said he was "quite confident that the Iraqi government will be able to hold this meeting next year."

us makes progress in sunni triangle of death

US makes progress in Iraq's `triangle of death' By PATRICK QUINN Associated Press When the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division arrived in Iraq's once infamous "Triangle of Death," violence there and in neighboring Baghdad was so intense that hundreds were dying every day and the country was virtually in a state of civil war. Now as the division heads home at the end of May, the region stretching south from Baghdad and across central Iraq has become a showcase for what the U.S. military hoped to achieve in Iraq. "When we first arrived here 15 months ago there was nothing but sectarian violence, al-Qaida, Shiite extremists," the division commander Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said as he wrapped up a tour of an industrial complex. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and U.S. officials are likely to tout successes like that here during a U.N. conference that begins Thursday in Sweden, aimed at reviewing political and security progress in Iraq. The gathering will also see pressure on Iraqi leaders to make similar movement on political goals, such as reconciliation between the country's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The U.S. military says violence across Iraq has reached its lowest level in more than four years after successes this year in breaking al-Qaida's and other Sunni insurgents' hold in western Iraq and - more recently - government crackdowns in the southern city of Basra and northern city of Mosul. But the success in the Triangle of Death, centered on the town of Iskandariyah, is perhaps the most dramatic. The area's population is mixed between Sunnis and Shiites to a far greater degree than many others, and in 2006 and 2007 militants from each community were killing each other, as well as attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces. The area has boomeranged to become a bastion of relative peace on the edge of a violent capital, while Sunni militants remain elusive in the north. One likely reason for the greater success is the logistical support from being close to Baghdad. Mosul, where a major Iraqi military campaign is under way against al-Qaida, is 225 miles northwest of the capital - compared to the 30 miles between Baghdad and Iskandariyah. Another is the division's success recruiting members of the so-called Awakening Councils, Sunni groups who turned against al-Qaida in Iraq after the terror group began imposing draconian measures to enforce religious discipline in neighborhoods they controlled throughout the Triangle of Death. There are about 36,000 Awakening Council members on the payroll. A third is a cease-fire ordered last August by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia is present in the region far more than areas north of Baghdad. Battalion commanders in the field also point to new counterinsurgency strategies, where units clear an area of fighters and stay to hold it from slipping back into insurgent hands. Sunni fighters who swarmed the area are also nearly gone. They have either been killed, or co-opted into Awakening Councils, said Lt. Col. William Zemp, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment based in nearby Mahmoudiya. "It was a place where they could consolidate, make plans and be put into action," Zemp said. "We have effectively shut that down." The result is predominantly Shiite areas along the main corridors north into Baghdad. Most recently, the farmlands south of Baghdad were flooded with U.S. soldiers, and areas once controlled by a single battalion of under 1,000 soldiers are now the responsibility of a brigade of 3,500. The cigar-smoking Lynch has become a recognizable figure in Iskandariyah. The general often walks the narrow streets of its marketplace, which shows new signs of prosperity amid the greater calm. Shortly after the 3rd ID arrived, its 20,000 soldiers launched large military operations to quash al-Qaida cells and Shiite militias. "We focused on establishing security in this area of Iskandariyah, and now that we have the security right, we had to worry about the most pressing need of the people, and that was employment," Lynch said. Violence in the area, where U.S. troops once traveled only in large numbers, has plunged by 89 percent since last year, according to the military. Mortar and rocket attacks are largely a thing of the past, though some suicide bombings continue, it said. "I just don't see sectarian violence anymore," Lynch said. "In our area, people kept talking about Sunni versus Shiite. I don't see that now. Everywhere I go, people identify themselves as Iraqi. That is their identification - I am not Shiite, I'm not Sunni, I'm Iraqi." Lynch and his officers knew they did not have the resources to jump-start the region's economy, so instead they focused on a variety of ventures - a vocational school, the industrial plant and smaller projects such as fish farming. "Do you remember what this place used to look like 15 months ago?" Sabbah al-Khaffaji, who runs the industrial plant and sits on the city council, asked Lynch. "We hope that the next time, you can come without guns." Al-Khaffaji's plant, which last year employed a couple hundred people on an intermittent basis, now has nearly 3,000 workers. It has contracts worth more than $6 million. The vocational school had fewer than 500 students just six months ago; it now has about 1,500, learning generator maintenance, metal work, sewing and other skills needed by the local economy. But Lynch warns that the fight has not been fully won. "This is a tenuous security situation," Lynch said. "The enemy could indeed come back, the people could become dissatisfied with their government and as a result could revert back to old ways of doing business."

iraqi army moves into sadr city bringing calm

10,000 Iraqi troops bring calm to Sadr City Children play alongside an Iraqi tank on the streets of Sadr City, a Shia slum and stronghold of the al-Mahdi Army, and the last no-go area in Baghdad Deborah Haynes in Sadr City UK Guardian Newspaper Read Inside Iraq, Deborah Haynes's blog from the front line Crouching in the shade under the back of a tank, four Iraqi soldiers stir sugar into small glasses of tea as they take a break from guard duty near a row of battered shops in the heart of Sadr City. Passers-by throw wary glances at the troops as they come to terms with the new order in Baghdad's Shia slum, a stronghold of al-Mahdi Army militia until only three days ago when thousands of Iraqi forces took control. The unprecedented attempt to stamp government authority on one of the last remaining no-go areas in Iraq followed seven weeks of fighting between US and Iraqi forces and militiamen that left more than 1,250 people dead and 2,500 wounded. Of the injured, about 600 people have lost at least one limb. The Army moved in under a ceasefire deal struck ten days earlier between the main Shia political bloc in the Government and supporters of Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, the charismatic Shia cleric who commands the al-Mahdi Army. The offensive, involving 10,000 Iraqi troops, came after their successful campaign to restore Basra, Iraq's second city, to government control. No US forces are involved. They instead keep watch from the southern third of Sadr City. “There are no winners and there are no losers,” said Falah Shanshel, the leading MP for Hojatoleslam al-Sadr's political wing. “The victory was to stop the bloodshed of local people and to make sure that the sort of destruction you see all around does not happen again,” he told The Times as he toured the battle-scarred district, where building after building lies in ruins, wrecked by Hellfire missiles, roadside bombs, rockets and bullets. The guns are finally silent in Sadr City, but tensions between the two sides remain, with local leaders accusing Iraqi soldiers of mistreating residents as they conduct operations in the sprawling township - a charge the military denies. Gathered in the cramped front room of a sports club, members of the district council and the mayor held a meeting yesterday with several members of parliament's human rights committee. They aired a number of grievances about alleged violations of the ceasefire deal, while also discussing reconstruction plans. Hassan Athub, the Sadr City mayor, said that soldiers were out in the street offering water to pedestrians only if they cursed Hojatoleslam al-Sadr. He also said that troops forced one man who works at the Ministry of Interior out of his car in front of his wife, and took his pistol and 400,000 Iraqi dinars. “You have to make sure that commanders keep their soldiers disciplined and prevent them from making provocative actions,” Mr Athub said. Mohamed el-Haidari, an MP on the committee, promised to relay the complaints to the Government and asked the councilors to collect accurate information on any further alleged abuses. “We should all work together to make this [ceasefire] agreement work,” he said. Colonel Qassim Abdul Raheem, an army spokesman, rejected the abuse claims, insisting that the troops were receiving a warm welcome. “Only bad people who are worried about the security forces will make such fake allegations,” he said, adding that soldiers have been delivering food, water, medical equipment and other assistance across the whole of Sadr City. Before Tuesday they had only been able to gain access to the southern third, which has been under the control of US and Iraqi forces since late March. Forays any faurther had been deemed too dangerous until now. “We have not faced any fighting.Not even one bullet has been fired,” Colonel Raheem said. The only challenge was finding and defusing roadside bombs. Eighty have been recovered so far. Residents, however, are angry at the destruction of shops, apartment blocs and offices in repeated US airstrikes against militants. Surveying the blackened rubble of his apartment in despair, Faiz Mohammed said: “There was an airstrike and artillery rounds. Everything is destroyed. Thank goodness my family and I moved out the day before the missiles dropped.” Across the road is another legacy left by the push to regain control of Sadr City. A wall made from ugly concrete blocks lined side by side stretches as far as the eye can see, cutting off the bottom third of the district. Residents say that it prevents free movement and hurts commerce. The US military, which constructed the barrier, argues that it is designed to make life difficult for the militants. Driving through Sadr City, home to about two million people, it was clear that conditions remain strained despite the ceasefire. A lot of shops and market stalls are closed, there are fewer men, women and children than normal in the street and hardly any cars on the roads. “People are still worried about the security forces,” Mr Shanshel, the Sadrist MP, said. “The Government has to rebuild this confidence.” He also urged Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, to focus on reconstruction projects to return life in this impoverished eastern pocket of Baghdad back to normal.

more al qaeda taken out in diyala province

29 Al-Qaeda Terrorists Arrested North Of Baghdad Baghdad, May 22 (AKI) - Joint US-Iraqi forces on Thursday arrested 29 al-Qaeda gunmen in a military operation south of Baquba, police said. According to the news agency Voices of Iraq, the operation was targeting members of the Islamic State of Iraq.“Police forces, backed by US troops, waged a security raid targeting al-Qaeda hideouts in al-Jabal al-Saaed mountain in Bahraz district, south of Baquba, detaining 29 al-Qaeda gunmen, including seven leaders of what is called the Islamic State of Iraq,” General Ghanem al-Qureshi told Voices of Iraq. Baquba, the capital of Diyala, is located 60 kilometres northeast of Baghdad.

The truth about the Kennedy-Kruschev summit in 61

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS New York Times IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural. They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.” But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age. Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?” But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases. Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world. Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.” A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them. If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate. Nathan Thrall is a journalist. Jesse James Wilkins is a doctoral candidate in political science at Columbia.

jihadists admit failure in iraq

Jihadists Admit Defeat in Iraq http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/05/fascinating-jihadists-admit-defeat-in.html A prolific jihadist sympathizer has posted an ‘explosive’ study on one of the main jihadist websites in which he laments the dire situation that the mujaheddin find themselves in Iraq by citing the steep drop in the number of insurgent operations conducted by the various jihadist groups, most notably Al-Qaeda’s 94 percent decline in operational ability over the last 12 months when only a year and half ago Al-Qaeda accounted for 60 percent of all jihadist activity! The author, writing under the pseudonym ‘Dir’a limen wehhed’ [‘A Shield for the Monotheist’], posted his ‘Brief Study on the Consequences of the Division [Among] the [Jihadist] Groups on the Cause of Jihad in Iraq’ on May 12 and it is being displayed by the administration of the Al-Ekhlaas website—one of Al-Qaeda’s chief media outlets—among its more prominent recent posts. He's considered one of Al-Ekhlaas's "esteemed" writers. The author tallies up and compares the numbers of operations claimed by each insurgent group under four categories: a year and half ago (November 2006), a year ago (May 2007), six months ago (November 2007) and now (May 2008). He demonstrated that while Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq could claim 334 operations in Nov. 06 and 292 in May 07, their violent output dropped to 25 in Nov. 07 and 16 so far in May 08. Keep in mind that these assessments are based on Al-Qaeda's own numbers. The author also shows that similar steep drops were exhibited by other jihadist groups, and he neatly puts it all together in these two charts: I don’t have the time to translate these charts right now, or translate the analysis he provides, but I wanted to share this with you immediately because it is a stunning and unprecedented admission of defeat! Back in March 2007, I predicted as much in a column titled Jihadist Meltdown, and I wrote the following: • The Al Qaeda-led Islamic State of Iraq orchestrates 60% of the actions, including most of the spectacular mass murders of civilians and military engagements with the American military. Most of the rank and file is Iraqi as is al-Baghdadi himself, but foreign nationals are better represented in the leadership. • Other jihadist groups such as Ansar al-Sunna, the Islamic Army of Iraq, the Mujaheddin Army, and the 1920 Revolt Brigades, most of which are Iraqi organizations with longstanding Salafist roots, conduct 30% of the operations. • Various Iraqi Baathist factions orchestrate 10%. I go on to describe why I thought that this defeat was inevitable: This sense that they were running out of time compelled Al Qaeda to take a bold initiative of declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq four months back, appointing the hitherto unknown Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as its head. This was no propaganda stunt for Al Qaeda. This was the real thing: the nucleus state for the caliphate, with al-Baghdadi as the candidate caliph. But this was a fatal strategic mistake for Al Qaeda, a mistake that threatens to pull down all the other jihadist insurgent groups along with it. Al Qaeda tried to leap over reality, but it was a leap into the abyss of uncertainty. Trying to pick a caliph is fraught with historical and judicial complications since there is no historical precedent — not even from the time of the Prophet Muhammad — that would serve for an uncontroversial transfer of power. It is one of the most delicate ideological matters among jihadists, a matter so sensitive that most of them have decided to leave it aside for the time being lest it result in splintering off dissenters. But Zarqawi's successors, who inherited the leadership after his death last June and who are, for the most part, rash young ideologues who consider themselves the avant-garde of contemporary radical Islamism, felt that the doddering old guard of Al Qaeda — aged and increasingly inconsequential has-beens such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri — would never summon the nerve to force the issue of the caliphate and get it going. So they rushed into action, and it has exploded in their faces, since no other groups seem enthused to join them in this risky venture. This mistake has huge implications for the Iraqi insurgency since Al Qaeda accounts for most of it, and its strategic and ideological failure can quickly be turned into a battlefield rout. Furthermore, I want to point out something even more critical: this defeat is not only a tactical one for the jihadists; this defeat is strategic in essence since it snuffs out their dream of resurrecting the caliphate, the raison d’être of modern jihad. In case there are naysayers out there who’d question the Islamic State of Iraq’s relevance to the caliphate, then I’d like to direct them to a 101 page edict published by the ISI under the title ‘Informing the People About the Birth of the State of Islam’ that they put out during January 2007. The ISI legitimates itself by the same premises that the classical theorists of the caliphate (Juweini, Mawardi...etc.) set down for picking a caliph in medieval times. Then a month later, the 'Global Islamic Media Front' republished a 1987 Master’s thesis that further expands on these points and adds the one about the necessity of a Qurayshi ancestry for the would-be caliph—as is claimed by the head of ISI, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, for himself. Numerous works have also been added to bolster the argument that al-Baghdadi’s ‘election’ followed the precepts mandated for a caliph: clearly the title of ‘Prince of the Faithful’ that was bestowed on him had a whole different, more profound implication than the identical one awarded to Mullah Omar, an ethnic Pashtun and non-Qurayshi, during the Taliban days. Thus, not only is America defeating Al-Qaeda militarily in Iraq but it is also squashing the grand jihadist vision for a caliphate that the Islamic State of Iraq stood for. This point is critical: in this ideological war, victory can only come about when the ideology of the opponent is negated and proven unworkable. The fight in Iraq is doing just that. I’m not saying that the jihadists won’t keep trying to find a workable formula for the caliphate elsewhere, but for now they have been dealt a severe demoralizing blow.

iraqi army takes over all of baghdad for first time

Iraqi Army enters Muqtada Sadr's Baghdad Bastion 20 May 2008 12:38:10 GMT Reuters By Aseel Kami and Adrian Croft BAGHDAD, May 20 (Reuters) - Iraq sent its army deep into Baghdad's Sadr City, power base of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on Tuesday to stamp government authority on areas previously outside its control. Soldiers moved into the sprawling slum in the early hours, securing most of the suburb in an operation that an army spokesman said had been coordinated with Sadr's movement to avoid bloodshed. The operation, on the second anniversary of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki being sworn in, marked the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003 that the Iraqi army had pushed so deeply into the area. "The security forces have taken control of security for the city completely, God willing," Major-General Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the security forces in Baghdad, told a news briefing on "Operation Peace". The operation marks the latest step by the government to extend control over areas of Iraq that were under the sway of Shi'ite militias or Sunni Arab insurgents. Iraqi soldiers, who previously controlled only the outer perimeter of Sadr City, met no opposition during their advance into the suburb, home to 2 million people. But Moussawi said soldiers had cleared more than 100 home-made roadside bombs before going in. U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover said no American troops were involved in the operation which he said was Iraqi-planned and -executed. Sadr City is the main stronghold of Sadr's Mehdi Army, a militia estimated to number tens of thousands that the U.S. military once called the greatest threat to peace in Iraq. The Mehdi Army staged two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004. It has been battling Iraqi and U.S. forces in Sadr City since late March, when a government offensive against its operations in the oil port of Basra touched off a wave of retaliatory attacks in Baghdad and other cities. "I saw more than 40 Iraqi Humvees (army vehicles) in the major street in my district," said 53-year-old Hamza Hashim. Iraqi soldiers took over a disused police station while others moved into high buildings and deployed snipers, he said. Shops and schools in the area were closed, residents said. Moussawi said the army had secured positions in Sadr City and set up checkpoints. It had not yet begun to search for wanted people, he said. Apart from setting up permanent checkpoints, the operation is also aimed at disarming insurgents and providing basic services to residents, he said. Iraq's ruling Shi'ite alliance and Sadr's opposition movement in parliament reached an agreement this month to end the fighting in Sadr City, in which hundreds have died. The agreement called on gunmen loyal to Sadr to lay down their arms. Moussawi said the army entered the city "in coordination with the brothers in the Sadr movement to save bloodshed". Maliki personally oversaw an offensive against Shi'ite militias in Basra, which is now under Iraqi army control, and earlier this month he flew to Mosul in the north when his forces launched a push against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda.

iraqi federal army moves into all parts of sadr city

Iraqi army enters Sadr's Baghdad bastion 20 May 2008 12:38:10 GMT Reuters By Aseel Kami and Adrian Croft BAGHDAD, May 20 (Reuters) - Iraq sent its army deep into Baghdad's Sadr City, power base of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on Tuesday to stamp government authority on areas previously outside its control. Soldiers moved into the sprawling slum in the early hours, securing most of the suburb in an operation that an army spokesman said had been coordinated with Sadr's movement to avoid bloodshed. The operation, on the second anniversary of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki being sworn in, marked the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003 that the Iraqi army had pushed so deeply into the area. "The security forces have taken control of security for the city completely, God willing," Major-General Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the security forces in Baghdad, told a news briefing on "Operation Peace". The operation marks the latest step by the government to extend control over areas of Iraq that were under the sway of Shi'ite militias or Sunni Arab insurgents. Iraqi soldiers, who previously controlled only the outer perimeter of Sadr City, met no opposition during their advance into the suburb, home to 2 million people. But Moussawi said soldiers had cleared more than 100 home-made roadside bombs before going in. U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover said no American troops were involved in the operation which he said was Iraqi-planned and -executed. Sadr City is the main stronghold of Sadr's Mehdi Army, a militia estimated to number tens of thousands that the U.S. military once called the greatest threat to peace in Iraq. The Mehdi Army staged two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004. It has been battling Iraqi and U.S. forces in Sadr City since late March, when a government offensive against its operations in the oil port of Basra touched off a wave of retaliatory attacks in Baghdad and other cities. "I saw more than 40 Iraqi Humvees (army vehicles) in the major street in my district," said 53-year-old Hamza Hashim. Iraqi soldiers took over a disused police station while others moved into high buildings and deployed snipers, he said. Shops and schools in the area were closed, residents said. Moussawi said the army had secured positions in Sadr City and set up checkpoints. It had not yet begun to search for wanted people, he said. Apart from setting up permanent checkpoints, the operation is also aimed at disarming insurgents and providing basic services to residents, he said. Iraq's ruling Shi'ite alliance and Sadr's opposition movement in parliament reached an agreement this month to end the fighting in Sadr City, in which hundreds have died. The agreement called on gunmen loyal to Sadr to lay down their arms. Moussawi said the army entered the city "in coordination with the brothers in the Sadr movement to save bloodshed". Maliki personally oversaw an offensive against Shi'ite militias in Basra, which is now under Iraqi army control, and earlier this month he flew to Mosul in the north when his forces launched a push against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda.

iraqi army gaining strength in mosul

Iraq detains 1,000 in anti-al-Qaida crackdown http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq By LEE KEATH, Associated Press WriterSat May 17, 3:58 PM ET Nearly 1,000 people have been detained in a sweep to break al-Qaida in Iraq's sway in Iraq's third largest city, Mosul, but many of the fighters have fled to nearby areas, where troops are hunting for them, Iraqi officials said Saturday. Iraq's leaders presented the crackdown as a success so far in depriving the terror network of what has been its most prominent urban stronghold since it lost hold of cities in Iraq's western Anbar province. But the flight of al-Qaida fighters raises the concern they can regroup elsewhere, as has often happened in the past. Yassin Majid, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said most of the leading insurgents had fled to the outskirts of Mosul or to a neighboring country amid the operations. He did not name the neighboring country. Mosul is about 60 miles from the Syrian and Turkish borders. "Operations will continue and the Iraqi army will not leave Mosul until security and stability have been accomplished," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq, whose forces are working with the Iraqi troops in the operation, said he didn't believe significant numbers of militants had escaped. He said Iraqi forces have surrounded the city with a circle of berms and checkpoints controlling entry and exits. But he said some al-Qaida leaders, who directed their Mosul followers from outside the city, may have stayed away from Mosul ahead of the sweep to avoid arrest, he told The Associated Press. "It's been very successful," he said. "I think the combination of the arrests plus the uncovering of a number of weapons caches will reduce the number of attacks in Mosul." But he warned insurgents could try to strike back in the coming days with suicide bombings in the city. The sweep was launched Thursday, after five days of preparatory operations and arrests in the city. U.S.-backed Iraqi police and soldiers have been conducting raids on homes and have fanned out with checkpoints on city streets, though no clashes have been reported in the city, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani said 1,068 people have been detained over the past week, but 94 were cleared and have since been released. Hertling said those detained included several high- and mid-level al-Qaida figures, including leaders of cells that organized suicide car bombings and facilitators for foreign fighters entering the country. The assault on the Sunni al-Qaida in Iraq group was launched in the wake of two other major crackdowns against Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra and the Baghdad district of Sadr City in the past two months. Those two sweeps continue but uneasy truces with the powerful Shiite Mahdi Army militia have eased the heavy violence they sparked. Al-Maliki said Saturday the series of crackdowns would bring a boost to reconciliation efforts, saying it has "reflected positively on the political process." Al-Bolani told a gathering of some 300 former Saddam Hussein-era officers in Mosul that the army and police would make room for them and that al-Maliki was urging them to return. Many in the crowd cheered the announcement. Mosul's Sunni Arab population was once a major source of officers for Saddam's army, many of whom were removed because of their ties to his regime in a purge that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion. Their bitterness is believed to have fueled the Sunni-led insurgency. On Friday, al-Maliki offered amnesty and cash to fighters in Mosul who surrender their weapons within the next 10 days. Al-Bolani said no one has surrendered any weapons yet and warned they had "no other choice" but to comply or face being targeted by security forces in the coming days. Al-Maliki made a similar offer to Shiite militias in Basra during the sweep there, but few surrendered weapons. The prime minister returned to Baghdad from Mosul — where he has been overseeing the crackdown — to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who made a surprise visit to Iraq on Saturday. Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote national reconciliation. She welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials. "We're assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have," said Pelosi. She also met with Iraq's parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. Pelosi, who also traveled to Iraq in January 2007 shortly after the Democrats assumed congressional control, has been a sharp critic of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and has pressed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country this year. She also has called for the Iraqi government to contribute more money to the reconstruction of the country.

Iraqis view Pelosi as an "unrealistic caricature"

Pelosi Gets Quiet Reaction in Iraq By MARK KUKIS/BAGHDAD The arrival of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who came to Baghdad on Saturday with a congressional delegation, set off a now-familiar cycle of reaction in the Iraqi capital. First there was buzz around the city about flight delays from Baghdad International Airport, which goes into lockdown when VIPs land or takeoff. Since no dust storms were grounding flights, anyone traveling could have assumed some American bigwig was heading in. But when local TV reported the visitor was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, there was a collective shrug of the kind you might expect from Republicans catching a glimpse of her somewhere in McCain country. Pelosi is something of a nonentity to average Iraqis. If they know who she is at all, she is generally seen as an antiwar caricature figure, someone whose views on U.S. troop withdrawals are widely considered unrealistic. Pelosi has said she wants to see most U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the 2008, a time frame virtually no Iraqi political leader sees as feasible. Not even Mahdi Army militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiercest advocate of a U.S. withdrawal on the scene, has called for such a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces. Rather, Sadr contends that the Americans should simply announce a reasonable timetable for the departure of U.S. forces. The lack of popularity of Pelosi's views was evident in the fact that her first day on the ground Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not make an effort to see her. Maliki is currently in the northern city of Mosul overseeing a crackdown on insurgent networks there. But the city has been largely quiet in recent days, and there was no obvious pressing reason for the prime minister to skip Pelosi's arrival. Pelosi may not get much more warmth from the American military leaders she plans to meet either. Pelosi argued against sending additional surge forces to Iraq, a plan overseen by Gen. David Petraeus that is now widely credited with reducing the levels of violence in Iraq. Moreover, Pelosi made waves on Capitol Hill in November by saying U.S. troops were torturing detainees - an accusation generally not taken well by men and women in uniform of any rank. But for all of Pelosi's unpopularity, in many ways she got a nicer arrival treatment than the last senior female American official to appear in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice slipped into Iraq in January much the same way Pelosi did today — stealthily, with a terse confirmation by the U.S. embassy offering few details of the agenda. But within hours of Rice's arrival, TV news was crackling with word of it, and soon thereafter a volley of mortars fell on the Green Zone in an obvious message from Rice's detractors. No rockets or mortars were heard heading into the Green Zone today as word of Pelosi's presence hit the Iraqi airwaves in what amounted to a daytime news blip. How long Pelosi plans to stay in Iraq remains unclear. But ishe may consider herself lucky if the rest of her time in Iraq was as uneventful as today.

next target for al qaeda: Israel

Notice how Reuters now calls Osama Bin Laden a "militant"- just like those who get really upset over abortion rights or women wearing furs.. Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow 16 May 2008 13:20:21 GMT Source: Reuters By Lin Noueihed DUBAI, May 16 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden vowed in an audio tape to mark Israel's 60th anniversary to continue to fight the Jewish state and its allies in the West. The al Qaeda leader, who has placed growing emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said it was at the heart of the Muslim battle with the West and an inspiration to the 19 bombers who carried out the attacks on U.S. cities on Sept. 11, 2001. "We will continue, God permitting, the fight against the Israelis and their allies ... and will not give up a single inch of Palestine as long as there is one true Muslim on Earth," he said in the message, posted on an Islamist website on Friday. Bin Laden said Israel's anniversary celebrations were a reminder that it did not exist 60 years ago, and had been established on land seized from Palestinians by force. "This is evidence that Palestine is our land, and the Israelis are invaders and occupiers who should be fought," he said in the tape, which was addressed to the Western public. The Saudi-born militant also said that decades of peace initiatives had failed to establish a Palestinian state, and the West had proved time and again that it sided with Israel. "The participation of Western leaders with the Jews in this celebration confirms that the West backs this Jewish occupation of our land, and that they stand in the Israeli corner against us," he said. "They proved this in practice by sending their forces to southern Lebanon." He also said Western media had over the years painted Israelis as victims, and the Palestinians who had been displaced from their land as terrorists. "CRAZY TERRORIST" The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified but the voice sounded like bin Laden's. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel dismissed the tape as the ravings of a terrorist. "We don't pay any attention to the threats of a crazy terrorist. The time has come for him to be caught and to be punished for all his crimes," Mekel said. A U.S. official in Washington said the tape was being reviewed to establish if it was genuinely from bin Laden but the content came as no surprise. "There's been a recent spate of terrorist messages in which Israel has been a central theme -- one that al Qaeda believes resonates in the Muslim world," the official said. In a message on March 20, bin Laden urged Muslims to maintain the struggle against U.S. forces in Iraq as a path toward "liberating Palestine." Al Qaeda has vowed attacks on Jews both inside and outside Israel and regularly expresses support for the Palestinians. Al Qaeda is widely blamed for a suicide attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya and a simultaneous failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter jet near Mombasa airport in Kenya in 2002. But despite calls by al Qaeda supporters for the militant network to establish a presence in Palestinian areas, U.S. intelligence officials see no evidence it has done so. Analysts say it faces competition for turf, in particular in the Gaza Strip, from the well-established Hamas. Bin Laden said the Palestinians in Gaza were being subjected to a "slow death" and blamed U.S.-allied Egypt for helping Israel to besiege the overcrowded Hamas-run area.

chavez waging war on all of his enemies

Venezuela Offered Aid to Colombian Rebels Officials Served as Middlemen With Arms Dealers, Files Show By Juan Forero Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 15, 2008; A01 CARACAS, Venezuela, May 14 -- High-ranking officials in Venezuela offered to help Colombian guerrillas obtain surface-to-air missiles meant to change the balance of power in their war with the Colombian government, according to internal rebel documents. Venezuelan officials served as middlemen with Australian arms dealers and agreed to help the rebel commanders travel to the Middle East to receive missile training, according to files on computer hard drives seized by Colombian authorities and shown to The Washington Post. In interviews, Colombian officials said they have no evidence that the guerrillas obtained the antiaircraft missiles but added that Venezuelan authorities appear to have provided light arms, thousands of rounds of ammunition and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The disclosures have already started to reverberate in the Bush administration and among Latin America policymakers on Capitol Hill, where a small group of Republicans has proposed classifying Venezuela, a major oil exporter to the United States, as a state sponsor of terrorism. The United States and Europe long ago blacklisted the rebel organization, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, as a terrorist group. At Colombia's request, Interpol, the international police agency, has completed an extensive forensic analysis on the hard drives, which were confiscated in an army raid on a rebel camp on March 1. On Thursday, Interpol is expected to announce that there is no evidence that anyone tampered with the hard drives after they were seized, though the agency cannot vouch for the veracity of the rebels' claims, according to an American official knowledgeable about the study. The documents are the latest to be released among 16,000 files and photographs being reviewed by Colombian and U.S. officials that describe meetings between FARC commanders and Venezuelan officials, including Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín; the military intelligence chief, Gen. Hugo Carvajal; other top generals such as Clíver Alcalá; and Amilkar Figueroa, who organizes Venezuela's civilian militias. President Hugo Chávez, who has publicly lauded the FARC and characterized Colombia's government as illegitimate, ridiculed the latest batch of correspondence Sunday as "imbecilic documents." He cast Colombian President Álvaro Uribe as a "manipulator" linked to drug trafficking and charged that the Bush administration is using the documents as a pretext to invade Venezuela from Colombia. Communications Minister Andrés Izarra, speaking to a group of American newspaper editors on Tuesday in Caracas, called the findings "laughable." "It's part of the lies that are spread around every day against what we are doing," he said. Colombian officials made dozens of documents available to reporters shortly after commandos recovered laptops and hard drives in a rebel camp just inside Ecuador's northern border. The documents belonged to Luis Edgar Devia, alias Raúl Reyes, a top commander killed in an airstrike on the camp. But documents released more recently to the Wall Street Journal, El Pais of Madrid and The Post reveal that ties between Venezuela's government and the FARC included plans to procure a range of arms to help the guerrillas turn back Colombian government offensives. "What they show is that the level of cooperation was much more than what we had earlier estimated," Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said in an interview this week. "We knew there was a level of cooperation, but not as intense, not as close and not as effective as we're now seeing." Former FARC guerrillas who operated in southern Colombia and along the Venezuelan border said in interviews that their units received Venezuelan munitions. Colombian intelligence officials also described the funneling of weaponry, with one official providing documents showing how Colombia's military has confiscated more than 210,000 rounds of Venezuelan-made ammunition in FARC camps since 2003. "We believe they act in Venezuela, fully protected, and that from there they prepare terrorist acts," one intelligence operative in Colombia said of the FARC. "There is fluid communication between the two." Santos, in some of his strongest comments to date, said Colombia has frequently provided the Caracas government with information about the activities of the FARC inside Venezuela. That information has included the locations of senior members of the group's leadership. "We have in various opportunities told them about guerrilla chiefs in Venezuela, about the presence of narco-trafficking in Venezuela, of camps in Venezuela, and they have never responded," he said. In Washington, officials are worried that Venezuela's aid to the FARC, if proved, could threaten the progress Colombia has made against the FARC. "I think the obvious problem is that a serious threat to both Colombia and a terrorist threat in the region has apparently had pretty direct support from Chávez and his government," John P. Walters, the White House drug policy chief, said by phone from Washington. Still, a high-ranking official in the Bush administration and senior aides in Congress said the United States must remain cautious about drawing conclusions from the documents and prudent about the adoption of policy initiatives. After a recent fact-finding trip to the region, Carl Meacham, a senior aide to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted in a report that a hard line against Venezuela could damage trade with the United States and inadvertently strengthen Chávez's position. Colombian officials have also debated the ramifications of a tough stance, since it could endanger $6.5 billion in annual trade with Venezuela. Santos, the defense minister, said, "I want to normalize relations with Venezuela because it would be convenient for all of us." He added: "But to do that, they cannot help the FARC." Colombian officials and former FARC guerrillas said the close ties between the group and Venezuela are not new, though officials in Chávez's government and rebel commanders have drawn closer since 2005. One mid-level guerrilla who recently deserted described how Venezuelan forces provided the ammunition the FARC needs for its assault rifles, as well as explosives. The guerrilla, who operated inside Venezuela's border, said Venezuelan authorities also provided sanctuary to guerrilla units escaping Colombian attacks. "It's a state policy. What we were told was that Chávez liked to see us expand in Venezuela and in Colombia," said the guerrilla, who spoke on the condition his name not be used. In FARC correspondence, the guerrillas talk about obtaining weapons either directly from the Venezuelans or with their help. On March 1, 2007, a commander named Rodrigo Londoño Echeverry says Venezuelan intelligence operatives offer "parts to build" antiaircraft missiles. Another letter, from a commander named Luciano Marin Arango on Jan. 20, 2007, talks of how two Venezuelan officials, identified in an earlier e-mail as Gens. Carvajal and Alcalá, provided "85mm antitank rockets." Colombian officials believe the "rockets" are grenade launchers, often used to attack police outposts. In another message dated Sept. 6, 2007, Marin Arango tells other FARC leaders that he met with two Australian arms dealers with the help of Figueroa. The items for sale included "Chinese missiles" that are "very easy to operate and they guarantee the instruction," he wrote, speaking of antiaircraft missiles. In exchange, FARC documents show, the Venezuelans have asked the FARC to train the Venezuelan army, in order to repel the U.S. invasion Chávez frequently warns is about to come.

president speaks to the knesset in israel

THE PRESIDENT: President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach. It is a rare privilege for the American President to speak to the Knesset. Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer -- to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon. We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael. Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world. The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state. Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust -- what Elie Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. (Applause.) When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words." The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom. My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny. I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side. This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It's also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles -- shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites. We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them. We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies. This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis. And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century. Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace. The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future. That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see: Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause. Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized. This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth. Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values. Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar -- the key to the Zion Gate -- and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people." Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless.

president bush in israel toasting democracy

Bush links optimism for Mideast reform to democratic Israel By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer JERUSALEM (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday that 60 years of Israel's existence is cause for optimism for democratic change throughout the Middle East. "What happened here is possible everywhere," Bush said, opening a trip divided between ceremonial duties and a new push for Israeli- Palestinian peace. "I suspect if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land," Bush said during a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres. "No question, people would have said, 'We'd be surrounded by hostile forces.'" Yet Bush's message of optimism was immediately offset by troubling realities in the region. Israel confirmed plans to expand settlement activity in the West Bank, a development likely to undermine peace talks with Palestinians. A weakened Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fended off corruption allegations. And another burst of violence erupted in the Gaza Strip just ahead of Bush's arrival in Israel. Bush, trying to hold together peace talks in his waning months in office, said modern Israel gives him a strong example to preach optimism to the Middle East. "The objective of the United States must be to support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East ... and, at the same time, talk about a hopeful future," he said. Bush has expressed confidence, though more tempered lately, that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be struck before his term ends. But he and his aides are holding out little hope for a major breakthrough during this five-day trip to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said ahead of the trip that reaching a deal to end one of the world's longest-running and most difficult disputes within the next eight months "might be improbable, but it's not impossible." Peres backed Bush's hope for an accord, saying Israelis want to work with Palestinians. "We would like to see the Palestinians living together," he said. "They have suffered a great deal of their life. The separation is a tragedy for them and for the rest of us." Just hours before Bush arrived, however, an Israeli official said the Housing and Construction minister was planning to approve the construction of hundreds of homes in West Bank settlements. In the talks, the Palestinians demand that Israel stop building in areas they both want for a future state, and Israel's failure to do so—despite pressure from the Bush administration—has recently increased Palestinian disappointment and frustration. Amid Palestinians' declining hopes for an agreement, they also are marking a different sort of anniversary—the "nakba," or catastrophe, the word they use to describe Israel's establishment which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel has imposed a closure on the West Bank and Gaza Strip during Bush's visit, preventing Palestinians from entering the country. Normally, tens of thousands of Palestinians are permitted into Israel each day for work, health care and family visits. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley suggested that Bush might acknowledge the Palestinian view of the milestone when marking the Jewish state's birthday. Meanwhile, the violence continued. Two Palestinian civilians and three militants were killed Wednesday in Israeli military raids on the Gaza Strip, Palestinian medical officials said. One of the civilians was a 17-year-old riding his bike, doctors added. Israel frequently raids Gaza to try to stop militants from firing rockets and mortars at Israeli border communities. But the attacks occur almost daily, and two Israelis were killed in the past week Upon Bush's arrival at the airport at Tel Aviv, he hugged Olmert, the subject of a campaign finance investigation that could push him from office. Earlier, broadcasters' microphones had picked up Olmert's assurances to Hadley: "Holding on, holding on, don't worry." Olmert has rejected charges that he illegally accepted campaign contributions, but he also pledged to step down if he is indicted. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas called the Bush visit a "bad omen." "No greetings to you, Bush, on our holy land," said Hamas strongman Mahmoud Zahar. "Your people will punish you one day." And in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Israel is dying and that its 60th anniversary celebrations are an attempt to prevent its "annihilation." Peres chastised Hezbollah for aiming to destroy Lebanon and accused Hamas of working to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The U.S. has labeled both as terrorist groups. Bush and Peres spoke after briefly strolling through the gardens behind the Israeli president's residence. They sat with their aides under an ivy-covered sandstone trellis amid a grove of trees and flowers. Stepping somewhat on the message of the anniversary festivities, Bush joked that Israel really isn't so long in the tooth. "As a person who's 61 years old, it doesn't seem that old," he said. Bush, who had visited Israel in January, was set to speak Wednesday night at a conference in Jerusalem celebrating Israel's anniversary. The conference, convened by Peres, includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, writer and Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel, and other Jewish Nobel laureates.

ny times reports on progress in basra

Drive in Basra by Iraqi Army Makes Gains http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/middleeast/12basra.html?pagewanted=print New York Times By STEPHEN FARRELL and AMMAR KARIM BASRA, Iraq — Three hundred miles south of Baghdad, the oil-saturated city of Basra has been transformed by its own surge, now seven weeks old. In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias. Just as in Baghdad, Iraqi and Western officials emphasize that the gains here are “fragile,” like the newly planted roadside saplings that fail to conceal mounds of garbage and pools of foul-smelling water in the historic port city’s slums. Among the many uncertainties are whether the government, criticized for incompetence at the start of the operation, can maintain the high level of troops here. But in interviews across Basra, residents overwhelmingly reported a substantial improvement in their everyday lives. “The circle of fear is broken,” said Shaker, owner of a floating restaurant on Basra’s famed Corniche promenade, who, although optimistic, was still afraid to give his full name, as were many of those interviewed. Hopes for a similar outcome in Baghdad’s Sadr City district were undercut when an Iraqi armored unit was struck by three roadside bombs on Sunday, one day after a cease-fire there was negotiated. The principal factor for improvement that people in Basra cite is the deployment of 33,000 members of the Iraqi security forces after the March 24 start of operations, which allowed the government to blanket the city with checkpoints on every major intersection and highway. Borrowing tactics from the troop increase in Baghdad, the Iraqi forces raided militia strongholds and arrested hundreds of suspects. They also seized weapons including mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and sophisticated roadside bombs that officials say were used by Iranian-backed groups responsible for much of the violence. Government forces have now taken over Islamic militants’ headquarters and halted the death squads and “vice ‘enforcers’ ” who attacked women, Christians, musicians, alcohol sellers and anyone suspected of collaborating with Westerners. Shaker’s floating restaurant stands as one emblem of the change since then. Just two months ago, he said, masked men in military uniforms walked into the packed dining room and abducted a businessman at gunpoint. The man was never seen again, and the restaurant closed. Now, however, customers who fled that evening are pressing the 34-year-old owner to stay open later at night, so they can enjoy their unaccustomed freedom from the gangs, which once banned the loud Arabic pop music now blaring from Shaker’s loudspeakers. “Now it is very different,” he said. “After we heard that the lawless people have been arrested or killed, we have a kind of courage.” Even alcohol, once banned by the extremists, is discreetly on sale again in some areas. Capturing a mood that flits between bad recent memories, giddy relief and brittle future expectations, she added, “It is over, but it could come back any moment, because the people who are doing the intimidation on the streets, sometimes they are your neighbor and you trust them.” Mr. Maliki’s hastily begun operation to rein in the extremists did not start with great promise. Thus, stability in a city that could be Iraq’s economic engine room is a major priority for the Shiite-led government. However, the Basra experience may not translate to other cities like Mosul or Kirkuk in the north, with a much more complicated religious and ethnic mix. The push into Basra succeeded in part because people here were exhausted with the violence and in part because Mr. Maliki received crucial help from the American and British military. British forces, who headed the coalition military forces in Basra beginning in 2003, handed security control to the Iraqis six months ago. But a British military spokesman said British and American forces were providing fighter jets, helicopters, surveillance and logistical support for the government operation. In addition to the 4,000 British troops in Basra, he said, the Americans sent 800 people, including surveillance experts and around 200 transition team “advisers” embedded with Iraqi troops. Iraqi commanders acknowledge that the American and British support helped them wrest control of Mahdi Army strongholds like Hayyaniyah — a slum that is Basra’s equivalent of Sadr City — and other poor districts that are fertile recruiting grounds for militias. But a majority of the military presence on the streets is Iraqi. From the moment motorists drive through the huge arch at the city’s northern entrance, they are confronted with a ragtag but daunting collection of armored police vehicles, Iraqi Army Humvees, cold war-era tanks, pickup trucks with turret-mounted machine guns and bullet-riddled personnel carriers. Canal bridges are guarded by head-high steel pyramids, from which soldiers observe bustling markets through a bulletproof window. Maj. Tom Holloway, a British military spokesman, conceded that the Iraqis would have “struggled” without the warplanes available to coalition forces. But he said: “I don’t think it’s a crutch. I think they would have tackled it in their own way and possibly, probably, achieved the same result.”And the result, whoever is ultimately responsible, is in many ways remarkable. At the College of Fine Arts, female students said they felt more, but not entirely, free to wear the clothes they liked. “I used to be challenged for what I wear,” said Athari, a 19-year-old student wearing heavy makeup and a bright orange headscarf pushed high back on her head in the liberal fashion disapproved of by Islamic radicals. “Makeup was forbidden; short skirts were forbidden. I will not mention their name, but they were extremists. They are still here, but quieter now.” Qais, a music student, spoke of his relief at no longer having to hide his violin in a sack of rice in his trunk. Most of the students were Shiite, but one youth named Alaa said that he was a Sunni and that 95 percent of his relatives had fled Basra after sectarian killings, including that of his uncle. “I want to thank Mr. Nuri al-Maliki, because he cleaned Basra of murderers, hijackers and thieves,” Alaa said. It was not an uncommon sentiment. In his city center office, Yahya, a wealthy businessman said he had just begun going onto the streets without his customary 10 bodyguards. Insisting that he was not a political supporter of the prime minister, he said he was nevertheless so grateful for the security improvements that he and colleagues had downloaded Mr. Maliki’s face onto their mobile telephones as screensavers. But as with the American-led surge in Baghdad, there are abiding uncertainties. These center on how long such a heavy military presence can be sustained on urban streets, and what happens when it departs. Gen. Mohan al-Freiji, the Iraqi commander in Basra, said the city was “75 percent” under control. He said the principal threat stemmed from rogue elements of the Mahdi Army and factions like the Iraqi Hezbollah (Party of God), Thairallah (Revenge of God) and Fadhila (Virtue). Emphasizing the urgent need to address decades of poverty and neglect, he said the government had to provide jobs and investment to convert short-term military gains into long-term political and economic ones. “This is a city which sits on top of oil, but its young people are unemployed,” he said. Sadrists protest that the Basra operation is a cynical exercise to weaken Mr. Maliki’s Shiite rivals ahead of provincial elections in the fall. At Friday prayers in Kufa last week, the Sadrist preacher, Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Muhamadawi, said, “There is a large-scale conspiracy to remove the Sadr movement from the government’s way by all means, because it refuses the presence of the occupier in Iraq.” Such words underscore the widespread belief here that the Mahdi army has its own reasons for lying low and is by no means eliminated. During one Iraqi Army patrol in Hayyaniyah at dusk, the soldiers, elsewhere relaxed, became jittery. Belying the local commander’s insistence that the Sadrist stronghold was “90 percent or more secure,” some pulled up face masks that they had not worn in other districts. They also fired bullets into the air at the slightest delay in traffic, an aggression unlikely to endear them in an area that, although calm, was noticeably less welcoming. Haider, a policeman at a checkpoint outside the Sadrists’ former headquarters, said his family had been threatened, even at his home in the capital. “I have spent 60 days in Basra and haven’t been home to Baghdad,” he said. “I will be killed if I go now. My family have received dozens of fliers with threats from the Mahdi Army.” Nevertheless he, like many others, said the evacuation of the factions from their once-untouchable headquarters had brought about a psychological shift. Outside the Sadr office, Iraqi soldiers now sit atop the roof, their tripod-mounted machine guns overlooking the tin-roofed Sadrist prayer hall, which lies half-demolished. “The Mahdi Army used to use this office like the Baathists when they were The Party,” Haider said. “They were ruling like the government of a state. They stopped police doing their duty, from implementing the law.” Noting that the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, once much stronger than the Mahdi Army, had been routed, he said, “The Mahdi Army will meet the same fate exactly, and worse.” Yet traces of the old order remain. One wall in central Basra still bore the unsigned scrawl: “We warn girls not to

Happy birthday israel!!

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you very much. Mr. Ambassador, Senator Lieberman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: good evening to all of you. It is indeed a pleasure to join this impressive gathering as we mark the 60th Anniversary of the modern state of Israel's founding, reaffirming the warm relationship between our two countries, and to honor the memory of a man who is a hero to both Israel and America, Colonel Mickey Marcus. It's also my privilege, on this happy occasion, to bring warm personal regards from the President of the United States, George W. Bush. (Applause.) I know the President would like to be here as well, but he's in Texas with the family –- and in two days we'll all congratulate him as the father of the bride. (Applause.) Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than the 43rd President of the United States. (Applause.) Today also happens to be the birthday of the 33rd President, Harry Truman, who was living in the White House 60 years ago. As the historical record makes clear -- (applause) -- President Truman encountered a good deal of resistance inside his own administration when he showed an inclination to recognize the new Jewish state. Up until even the hours before independence was announced, no one was really sure what kind of official response America would make. But Harry Truman was not the sort to wring his hands and to leave an important matter unresolved. So at his direction, only 11 minutes after the announcement was made in Tel Aviv, the United States of America recognized the state of Israel. (Applause.) At that moment, a special bond was formed between our two countries –- and that bond has only grown stronger and more meaningful over time. Our nations were both founded by courageous, peace-loving people –- devoted to the ideals of liberty and justice, and humble before Almighty God. The United States and Israel have persevered through many difficulties, and the tests of history have found us ready. As fellow democracies, we cherish a friendship based on shared principles, a shared commitment to the safety of our peoples, and a deep willingness to labor intensively in the cause of security and lasting peace. Across this nation –- indeed, around the world –- this anniversary of Israel's founding is an occasion for deep admiration and respect. What started as a tiny, struggling country is still tiny –- but has seen six decades of unceasing accomplishment. The desert has bloomed, and Israel has become a nation of world-class enterprises, great universities and medical centers, technological advancement, scholarly brilliance, and cultural beauty. Holocaust survivors and refugees have been welcomed from Europe, the Arab lands, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union –- and they have found hope and opportunity in the land of Jacob. In these years, Israel has also given the world many towering examples of strength and statesmanship, among them David Ben Gurion, Abba Eban, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and a man who defended Israel with every ounce of his strength -– Ariel Sharon. He is in our thoughts this evening. (Applause.) On this anniversary we think even farther back, to a man of vision and determination named Theodor Herzl. Herzl did not live to see the birth of Israel. Yet he died in the confident belief that good men and women would live on to fulfill his aspiration for the Jewish people, and be inspired by his own words of wisdom: "If you will it, it is no dream." Herzl, Ben-Gurion, and other early visionaries would marvel at all that Israel has become in these last 60 years. In this modern, vigorous, prospering society they would see much that is new. Yet so much more would still be familiar –- the holy places, the splendor of the land, the reverence of its people and the firmness of character, and, always, the tireless search for peace and the blessings of a normal life. In tribute to all that's been achieved in these 60 years, one week from today the President of the United States will be in Jerusalem, speaking to the Knesset and proudly joining the celebration. (Applause.) And a celebration is well in order –- because the founding of Israel, the survival of Israel, the success of Israel are among the greatest achievements the world has known. (Applause.) That is what brings us to this auditorium tonight in America's capital city: to mark the anniversary of a state founded within living memory, but with a history reaching back to the prophets, a friend to our own country, a light unto the nations. You've gathered in a spirit of pride and thanksgiving, and rightly so. And I'm tremendously grateful for the honor of joining you this evening.

The Middle East and Barack Obama

1) Hamas Leaders endorse Barack Obama http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change." Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President." Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office. 2) Another Obama Advisor with Anti-Israeli Views http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/another_obama_advisor_with_ant.html Ed Lasky American Spectator Earlier in the year, American Thinker published an article "Barack Obama and Israel" which wondered why Barack Obama seemingly had a proclivity to tie himself to people who have very problematic attitudes towards Israel. These included early supporter George Soros; billionaire foe of close ties between America and Israel; Zbigniew Brzezinski-who has an antipathy towards Israel that is well known and who has publicly supported the views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (as has George Soros) who feel America's Middle East policy is too influenced by what they disparagingly call the "Israel Lobby. Then there's "foreign policy expert" Robert Malley who has had a long history of anti-Israel advocacy; top foreign policy adviser, close personal friend and former employee Samantha Power whose views towards Israel include a call for halting all aid to Israel and transferring it to "Palestine:. She also has had a litany of anti-Israel policy proposals over the years. Power also was recently on a book tour where she complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often revolved around "what is good for the Jews". Power also alluded to Americans who have vast financial power and criticized the role of these ominous people in the foreign policy debate (her defenders say she was referring to the oil industry but certainly other images can be evoked by many readers). Power recently resigned from the foreign policy staff in the wake of comments she made depicting Hillary Clinton as a "monster". However, some feel this "break" might be for show -- after all, she was a volunteer on his foreign policy staff and their relationship was a very strong one (including text messsaging at all hours of the day and night). Of course, Barack Obama's close friend and sounding board for the past twenty years, Pastor Jeremiah Wright's has also been subject to much controversy over the last two weeks. Wright has long advcated anti-American, anti-White, and anti-Israel views. These include calls for divestment from Israel, tying American support for Israel to 9/11, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa, and the bestowing of an award by the Church's magazine to the most notorious anti-Semite in America , Louis ("Judaism is a gutter religion") Farrakhan. Now comes news of yet another close adviser to Barack Obama who has suspect views towards Israel and towards American Jews. Barack Obama's military adviser and national co-chairman Merrill "Tony " McPeak has recently been subject to some criticism regarding a variety of comments he has recently made. A few years ago he indicated that there was no reason an invasion of Iraq would not be a cakewalk. He earlier indicated that it might be desirable to have military bases in Iraq for many years (the campaign has distorted John McCain's own remarks speculating about that possibility). He has blamed George Bush for Iranian anti-Americanism and thereby ignored over 30 years of hostility and violence toward America through a series of American presidents, both Democrat and Republican. He insulted Bill Clinton by characterizing his remarks about the patriotism of candidates as being redolent of McCarthyism. Now comes more revelations concerning McPeak. In a breaking story in the American Spectator, Robert Goldberg writes that McPeak has a penchant for bashing Israel and making dark and ominous allusion to American Jews and Christian Zionists who support the American-Israel relationship. Merrill McPeak even charges that Americna Jews and Chriztian supporters of Israel are manipulating our Iraq policy to serve the interests of Israel. McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that." The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?" McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it. McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and far right Christians are manipulating U.S. policy in the Middle East and he railed against "neoconservatives" who he said were "radical," not conservative like him.Was Barack Obama aware of the views of McPeak? After all, he appointed him to be his co-chair of the campaign and to serve as his chief military adviser. One would presume, or hope, that McPeak had been vetted. If Senator Obama becomes President, McPeak might very well be in line for an appointment as Secretary of Defense. Given the close ties between the defense forces of America and Israel, can the millions of supporters of this close alliance rest assure that McPeak will not seek to weaken this relationship and make Israel even more vulnerable to the enemies that surround her? One would like to know how Barack Obama assembled his team of advisers-who recommended McPeak, for example?This is the company Barack Obama keeps. Will his defenders yet again trot out the charge of "guilt by assocation"? There is a more important issue at stake; how good is the judgment of Barack Obama? 3) Obama Served On Board That Funded Pro-Palestinian Group http://www.jewishpress.com/print.do/30283/Obama_Served_On_Board_That_Funded_Pro%2DPalestinian_Group.html Aaron Klein Jewish Press JERUSALEM – Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe." (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.) The co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department. Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, at which Khalidi’s wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. The $40,000 grant from the Woods Fund to AAAN constituted about a fifth of the group’s reported grants for 2001, also according to tax filings. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 made up about one-fifth of AAAN’s reported grants for that year as well. Headquartered in the heart of Chicago’s Palestinian immigrant community, AAAN describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities." Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what Palestinians call the "nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel’s founding in 1948. The theme of AAAN’s Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom." Another AAAN initiative, "Al Nakba 1948 As Experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel’s founding. Although AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi has at times denied working directly for the PLO, he reportedly served as director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, a period during which the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi, reportedly was WAFA’s English translator during that period. Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist" state. Critics have accused him of excusing Palestinian terrorism, a charge he denies. He dedicated his 1986 book, Under Siege, to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." While the Woods Fund’s contribution to Khalidi’s AAAN might be perceived as a one-time contact with Obama, there is evidence of a deeper relationship between the presidential hopeful and Khalidi. According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the senator first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003; Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004. Asked during a radio interview with this reporter on WABC’s John Batchellor program about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama, Khalidi said he "was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician." Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause." Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians." Concerning Obama’s role in funding AAAN, Khalidi claimed he "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the interview when pressed further about his links with Obama. Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer questions about AAAN’s involvement with Obama 4) McKook (Obama?) and the Jews http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/ In the wake of comments by Obama adviser Gen. Tony McPeak the other day, Robert Goldberg pulled some quotes out of the McPeak memory hole in a piece for the American Spectator: In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that." The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."McPeak also questions whether some aren't more concerned with "the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest." It's been a while since a presidential adviser flat-out questioned the loyalty of American Jews, and yet Obama seems to surround himself with people who have crackpot views of "the Israel Lobby." Obama's got a pastor who draws a straight line between Zionism and racism--and he would no more disown him than he would his own grandmother. His pastor preaches that Israel is a "dirty word" and Obama denies that he attends a "crackpot church." And now he's got a military adviser who thinks America's Middle East policies are controlled by New York City and Miami voters (read Jews) with divided loyalties.A McCainiac writes us in response to the Goldberg piece: “I guess if it weren’t for those pesky Jews in New York and Miami, those radical neo-cons and crazy Rapturist Christains, we could get on with a McPeak (Obama?) Middle East policy that promotes American interests by undermining Israel. Is this Obama’s view or is this another adviser whose views are different from those of the candidate?” It's a fair question. 5) Obama Keeps Hiring Anti-Israeli Advisors http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/obama_keeps_hiring_antiisraeli.html Ed Lasky American Thinker Commentary Magazine's Gabriel Schoenfeld has noted that another Obama adviser, Joseph Cirincione, seems to have anti-Israel views. His senior aide on nuclear non-proliferation had denounced reports that North Korea had been helping Syria build a nuclear reactor and said such reports were nonsense and were, in part, promoted so as to derail talks with Syria. Cirincione had written after Israel's strike against the suspected Syrian nuclear plant that stories about it being a North-Korean designed and built plutonium reactor were a lie -- a fiction being spread just as reports had been spread before the Iraq War that misled the press regarding Iraq's program. Shcoenfeld writes: Who was behind this nefarious manipulation? It appears, wrote Circincione, “to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted ‘intelligence’ to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda.” What exactly was that political agenda? “[I]t appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement.” There was also a dose of Zionist mischief thrown in: “Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.” Based on evidence shown to Congress yesterday, there is now incontrovertible proof that the building bombed by Israel was a plutonium-producing reactor that was geared toward the production of material for nuclear weapons -- exactly what Cirincionne had previously dismissed as lies, in part, cooked up by Israelis trying to influence America's foreign policy. This tendency to blame and castigate Israel was not the first time phenomenon for Joseph Cirincione. He seems to have a penchant for targeting Israel for opprobrium. In 2002, he wrote that Israel's possession of three diesel nuclear power submarines that can launch nuclear missiles complicates American efforts to restrain a nuclear arms race. He also claimed that the US Navy monitored the Israeli testing of a new cruise missile from a submarine in 2002 off of Sri Lanka, according to unnamed "former Pentagon officials". There is no verifiable proof that Israel launched such missiles, just a claim by Cirincione. He also blamed Israel for stoking an arms race that is creating a difficult situation not just for the United States, but also for preventing other nations that have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty from breaking away. Israel's has followed a principle of ambiguity regarding its nuclear program. Surrounded by an array of enemies that dwarf its own resources, Israel -- a nation founded after the Holocaust -- might reasonable be seen as needing such a nuclear force to protect its existence. It has been rumored that when Israel was on the brink of defeat during the Yom Kippur War , it made known that it might be forced to resort to a nuclear option. Cirincionne looks in askance at Israel's possession of such a deterrent and sees it as a problem for America and for the world. In 2006, he declared that Israel's raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor was a "failure". This was despite the stunning success of the daring raid (only one man died) in derailing Iraq's program. Years later, Dick Cheney thanked Israel for disabling Iraq's nuclear program, for if Osirak had been allowed to be completed, Iraq might well have had a nuclear arsenal during the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, Cirincione held that it sped-up the Iraqi program and led to a more devoted effort to secretly build nuclear capabilities. This, of course, paradoxically conflicts with his other belief that Iraq did not have such a nuclear program and that America should not have invaded Iraq absent such proof! He also is firmly against any type of strike against the Iranian nuclear weapons program. He is in favor of persuading Israel to give up its nuclear program which, as noted above, might be the only thing that can prevent Israel's destruction. One book reviewer noted that Cirincione's believes (as shown in his book, Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons): Quite significantly, Cirincione thinks that Iran would also be encouraged to give up nuclear weapons building if it does not face a nuclear threat from what it considers to be its biggest enemy in the Middle East -- Israel. The nuclear balance in the Middle East is always going to be contingent on the political atmosphere in that politically and historically volatile continent, and Israel is a key player in these developments. While Israel giving up its nuclear program may sound utopian, Cirincione is optimistic that Israel with its vast and superior conventional forces could be encouraged to incrementally reduce or even eliminate its nuclear capability, perhaps starting by shutting down its production reactor at Dimona. Cirincione states: "The world does well to remember that most Middle East weapons programs began as a response to Israel's nuclear weapons," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the liberal think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and co-author of its recent study, "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security. "Everyone already knows about Israel's bombs in the closet," he said. "Bringing them out into the open and putting them on the table as part of a regional deal may be the only way to prevent others from building their own bombs in their basements." If this were not enough to give one qualms about the views of this important adviser to Barack Obama, Cirincione has expanded on these themes in a short article for The Globalist. He criticizes America for not publicizing Israel's weapons programs. He calls for an end of this practice.If you do not know much about Israel's programs, it is not surprising. Israel is never mentioned in semi-annual reports the U.S. Congress requires the intelligence agencies to prepare on "the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding six months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction." The agencies provide their assessment of programs in Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others, but Israel (and Egypt) are omitted. This pattern is repeated across the board. For example, the 2003 report on the ballistic and cruise missile threat from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center lists 18 nations with missiles, including U.S. allies Bulgaria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Yemen, and Egypt — but not Israel. Yet, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and an array of medium-range missiles that could deliver them. He wants to put U.S. muscle behind a plan for seeking a nuclear-free Middle East region. This, of course, would be flexed against Israel. He wrote (in 2005) that Israel was never more secure from external threats and has less need for nuclear weapons than any time in its history. He calls for an "even-handed" approach toward nuclear weapons programs and calls for Israel's nuclear program to be "put on the table" as part of a regional deal to prevent nuclear proliferation. There are more such policy pronouncements by Joseph Cirincione. They all reveal a stunning naiveté regarding the nature of the regimes that are engaged in nuclear proliferation in the region. Pakistan and North Korea have engaged in a nuclear bazaar to sell nuclear technology; Iran has spent billions to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal; Syria is cooperating with North Korea (and probably Iran) on weapons of mass destruction . They all have monetary or geopolitical reasons to do so. Iran wants to be a hegemonic power in the region-and also may very well have theological "reasons" for developing nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac who wanted nuclear arms to expand his power. Yet somehow, Cirincione blames Israel for nuclear proliferation and seemingly wants to pressure Israel to shut down its nuclear program and strip itself of any nuclear weapons it may or may not have in its inventory. This man was chosen by Barack Obama to be one of his top advisers in the area of nuclear proliferation. He is also another in a disconcertingly long line of Obama advisers, who seemingly have an anti-Israel bias and who would be very willing to apply American pressure on our tiny ally to disarm itself in the face of its mortal enemies. Obama Advisor Blames US Jews for Lack of Mid-East Peace http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125688 by Avi Tuchmayer (IsraelNN.com) Once again, a furor surrounding US Presidential candidate Barack Obama has erupted, this time over a senior military advisor to the Obama campaign with a history of anti-Israel remarks. He has strongly criticized pro-Israel Jews in the United States for allegedly torpedoing peace efforts in the Middle East. In a 2003 interview with The Oregonian newspaper unearthed by The American Spectator magazine, General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, a former chief of staff in the United States Air Force who is a candidate for secretary of defense in a potential Obama administration, claimed that efforts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority failed because there is no US-written "playbook" to create peace. An interviewer asked General McPeak "So where's the problem? State? White House?" McPeak pulled no punches. "(The problem rests in) New York City. Miami. We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it…nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible," he said. Even prior to the Oregonian interview, McPeak was known as a long-time critic of Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights. In a 1976 article in Foreign Affairs magazine, he criticized Israel for refusing to withdraw from areas liberated in the 1967 Six Day War, even as he wrote poignantly about the vital security advantages Israel obtained by conquering those areas. "At the Suez Canal, Israel had the best 'tank ditch' in the Middle East. The Gaza Strip, long a nursery for Egyptian-supported terrorism reaching to within a few miles of Tel Aviv, had come under Israeli administration. On the Golan, Israel at last held the high ground. The bulge of the West Bank, an implicit threat that Israel would be cut in two, had been superseded by the line of the Jordan River. More important, the air threat to Israel had disappeared, at least for the moment. Tel Aviv had been 12 minutes flying time from Egyptian bases in the northern Sinai," he wrote. Yet the same article calls for an Israeli withdrawal from those areas, and seems to suggest that despite Israel's legitimate security concerns, "genuine security depends on regional accommodation, which the Arab states say cannot occur until all of the occupied territory is returned." Latest storm The storm surrounding McPeak is the latest in a series of anti-Israel revelations to tar the Obama campaign in recent months. Obama has long been a favorite son of left wing elements in the United States, but has been strongly criticized for failing to cut ties with radical preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright has called Israel a "racist country," said that "Israel" is a dirty word, and claimed US foreign policy was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Another anti-Israel activist, Arab-American Ali Abunimah, has claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago. During his tenure as a junior air force commander, McPeak spent time in Israel and participated in joint exercises with the Israeli air force. He acknowledged that he enjoyed his experiences here, "but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population," he added. Zionist Canard McPeak also charged Jews and Christian Zionists with dual-loyalties, and said that concern for Israel manipulated American foreign policy in Iraq. "Let's say that if one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq," he said. 6) Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,7297945,print.story They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel. By Peter Wallsten Los Angeles Times Staff Writer April 9, 2008 CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York. A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years. And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say. Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed. At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace." One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology." Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House. "I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions. "That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said." Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy. Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations. "Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod. Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute. And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view. Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence. Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight. Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment. Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid. The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University. Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms.Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified. "In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist." In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community.In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians."He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that." 7) Barack Obama and Israel http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html By Ed Lasky The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes. However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign façade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior. One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions. As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain. Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community. Joining Trinity United Community Church: Even though his father and stepfather were both Muslims and he attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia, suspicions based on his days as a child are overheated and unfair. Still, his full name alone conveys the biographical fact that he has some elements of a Muslim background. Saul Alinsky, whose philosophy infused community organizing in Chicago, emphasized the importance of churches as a basis for organizing. There are literally hundreds of churches on the South Side of Chicago that Obama could have chosen from. He selected one that was headed by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior. The anti-Israel rants of this minister have been well chronicled. Among the gems: " The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Pastor Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan (who called Judaism a "gutter religion" and depicted Jews as "bloodsuckers") and traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, archenemy of Israel's and a terror supporter. Most recently, as head of the UN Security CouncilGaddafi prevented condemnation of attacks against Israel. As Kyle-Anne Shriver noted, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the United Church of Christ. Wright routinely compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and considers blacks "The Chosen People". Wright sees his role not just as a religious counselor but also as an educator and political activist. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC has called Pastor Wright a total hater and wondered why the ties that bind Obama to Wright have not been given greater scrutiny. Mickey Kaus of Slate has also wondered when the ties between Obama and Wright will receive more criticism, given Wright's seeming bigotry, which is in contrast to the soothing melody of unity that Obama has trumpeted on the campaign trail. Some in the media have taken notice. The New York Times did have one front-page article on Wright by Jodi Kantor in which Wright was quoted as saying that should more information come to light about himself, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell". After the article came out Wright attacked Jodi Kantor, referring to her Jewish heritage in a way that might create discomfort. This fear is why Pastor Wright was disinvited at the last minute from appearing with Obama when Obama announced his run for the Presidency. Wright admitted in a PBS interview that he understands this distancing from the Obama campaign since "he can't afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the Israel" Wright has been disappeared by the campaign; Obama has replaced him with high profile white ministers who do not preach the racial exclusiveness and racial superiority that is a hallmark of Jeremiah Wright; however, they seem to share an anti-Israel bias. Fortunately, bloggers and others have started to note the views of Pastor Wright (which also include an unhealthy does of racial exclusiveness, in Tucker Carlson's words) and . Finally these views may be crossing over to major media outlets. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen published a recent column that criticized the award to Louis Farrakhan of the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award -- an award that supposedly was granted to a man who "truly epitomized greatness". As Cohen noted, Farrakhan is not only a race-baiter but also an anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitism. He falsely accused Jews of cooperating with Hitler and helping him create the Third Reich, has slandered Jews by his insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African-Americans (he has also called Jews "bloodsuckers"). Cohen questions why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years. Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board. He was the man who gave Obama the term, "The Audacity of Hope" after all. He was also the man who told Obama that there are more black men in prison then in colleges -- a statement that Obama parroted until he was told that it was false. What other "facts" has Wright taught Obama? Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy? Nevertheless, an Obama spokesman told the New York Times he is proud of his pastor and his church.The church also is the largest recipient of Obama's charitable donations. The pastor married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two daughters. Obama has shown continued allegiance to a man who preaches racial exclusiveness, the superiority of black values over white middle-class values, and whose teaching contains anti-Israel diatribes. All these are sharply at variance with what Obama himself preaches on the campaign trail. One should also note that the governing body of the United Church of Christ has taken a series of anti-Israel actions over the years. A broad coalition of Jewish groups have rebuked the Church for these actions Has Obama, the most famous and prestigious member of the Church and an inspiring orator who can move millions, taken steps to work with his church to moderate its anti-Israel invective? No. He has been honored repeatedly by the church and has been its keynote speaker at various national assemblies. Has he called for change in the anti-Israel approach of the church? No. For those who claim that Obama is the next JFK (an absurd claim and an insult to a revered President that was skewered recently) he is certainly not a Profile in Courage. David Axelrod is Obama's chief political adviser, he is also the man who always comes out to explain that Obama (the master orator) did not really mean some of the offensive off-the-cuff statements he has made about Israel on the campaign trail (see below). Axelrod has also come out with the typical bland statements that Obama does not agree with all the things that Wright says and does. This is a lame defense. Recall, this is a church and a pastor who Obama has relied upon to shape his views, to be his sounding board; the church is the largest recipient of his charity dollars; he proudly states that he admires the church and Jeremiah Wright, Junior. He prayed with Wright before he announced his candidacy for President. He is a beacon for Obama. If a white candidate belonged to a church where the minister promoted an anti-black, anti-Semitic theology he would be roundly subject to criticism (assuming his candidacy would even be viable in the face of this background). Why should Obama get a pass? George Soros: As Obama took steps toward the United States Senate he found a very powerful sugar daddy who would help fund his rise: George Soros. The billionaire hedge fund titan began supporting Obama very early -- as befits a legendary speculative investor or always looking for opportunities. Obama coveted support from George Soros and Soros responded -- along with many family members and probably the Soros ring of wealthy donors. Soros even found a loophole that allowed him and assorted family members to exceed regular limits on campaign contributions. Soros is also a fierce foe of Israel, for years funding groups that have worked against Israel. He is also a man who has flexed his political muscle as a major funder of Democrat candidates and a slew of so-called 527 groups that are active in pushing their agendas (a reliance on international institutions, defeat of Republicans, Bush-bashing, Israel-bashing). He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel. Soros also called for concessions to Hamas -- a terror group that has killed many innocent people and that has called for the destruction of Israel. When this came to light, some leading Democrats personally denounced Soros; Obama had a spokesman issue this rather bland statement: "Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. Sound familiar? It is similar to the response the Soros campaign has given regarding Obama's close relationship with Pastor Wright.This mild reproach did not prevent Obama from appearing a few weeks later with George Soros at a fundraiser. Soros invests when he sees a large return as likely; he proverbially "broke the Bank of England" a few years ago speculating on the pound. Does he intend to break the American-Israel alliance? "Blood on their hands" Nor did anti-Semitism of another fundraiser seem to ruffle Obama or his campaign. A fundraiser was held at the home of Allan Houston, formerly of the Knicks, and a man who had previously very publicly proclaiming that Jews had Jesus' "blood on their hands" and were "stubborn". The American Jewish Congress protested and noted that Obama would not take any money from someone who had expressed the same sort of remarks about African-Americans. The very same spokesman who addressed the Soros controversy blithely dismissed the concerns of the Jews and said the campaign would not return the money or reject any of the contributions made by Houston. Obama has been a Senator for only a couple of years. His supporters will point to a string of votes that are supportive of the American-Israel alliance (foreign aid, for example). These generally are not controversial and routinely pass by large margins, precisely because they support an ally and serve American interests. But there are grounds to doubt Obama's seriousness on the issue. He has openly advocated outreach towards Iran, a state that makes clear its genocidal intentions towards Israel, funds Hezbollah and terrorism against America, Israel, and Jewish targets around the world. Obama has seemed to excuse attacks against Americans by Iranian-supported terror groups because we have provoked Iran by trying to liberate Iraq (we are in their neighborhood) or as Barack has put it, Iraq is under occupation by America (which makes one wonder how he feels about Israeli settlements). Furthermore, there already are targeted sanctions in place now. They can be employed against Iranians and Iranian groups identified as being terrorists or terror groups. Yet when Congress voted to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terror group-thus making it susceptible to sanction-Barack Obama was not just AWOL (as has been widely noted, Obama has a history of missing votes and avoiding unpleasant decisions) but harshly attacked his political opponents for voting to so designate the Guards as a terror group. This is absurd: the Guard has been implicated in terror attacks against Americans in Iran, Argentinean Jews in bombing attacks in Buenos Aires, and has bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon. Designating this group as terrorists is crucial in weakening its power. Yet, Obama objected to characterizing them as terrorists. That does not bode well for how seriously a President Obama would deal with Iran or how supportive he would be of our ally.Obama has called for withdrawal from Iraq, which would destabilize the region and lead to a further expansion of Iranian power. He also introduced a Senate Resolution on Iran that strips President Bush of the authority to take military action against it. . Unilateral nuclear disarmament for Israel: Obama has also called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in the world and said that America, by not openly leading a campaign to end nuclear weapons is "giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse." This is naïve beyond belief and is identical to arguments made in the Arab world that justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. We all know how such a program would operate in the real world: Western, open nations such as Israel would be stripped of the capability of nuclear weapons; dictatorships, such as Iran, would continue to operate their secret programs. Israel's nuclear arsenal has helped offset the strategic peril that comes from being surrounded by much larger nations openly declaring their goal of its destruction. Obama's call would unilaterally work to disarm Israel. Pressuring Israel: Obama has also blamed that "our neglect of the Middle East Peace Process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism" implicitly blaming Israel for terrorism and a sign that a President Obama would pressure Israel. Obama seems to ignore the roles that schools play in the Middle East in the teaching of hatred; the roles of mosques and Imams in stoking terrorism; the glorification of violence and martyrdom in the media; the role of jihad in the Koran. He also was the only Democratic Presidential aspirant to sign a Senate Resolution that would ban the use of cluster bombs. These are the types of weapons used by Israel to counter massed attacks by Hezbollah, and are vitally important to her security; Hezbollah also used the same type of weapons. Does anyone think Hezbollah will refrain from using these weapons? How about suicide bombers who rely on similar types of "ordinance' to inflict mass casualties among civilians? Once again, high-minded rhetoric conceals an agenda of unilateral disarmament of the Jewish state. Advisors: Every Presidential candidate assembles a foreign policy team of advisers. A glimpse into the makeup of Obama's team has leaked to the media. Martin Peretz of The New Republic -- a supporter of Obama and of Israel -- had this to say about Obama's Foreign Policy team: "I have my qualms, as you may know, about Barack Obama, and most especially about what his foreign policy might be. If elected (and actually before he were to be elected), the first decision he would have to make would be who would represent him in the transition to power from early November to January 20. And, frankly, I get the shudders since he has indicated that, among others, they would be Zbigniew Bzrezinski (I don't know much about his son, listed as Mark, but I can guess), Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley." Lake and Brzezenski both earned their spurs in the Carter Administration. The Carter era led to the fall of the Shah of Iran (a stalwart ally of both America and Israel), which gave birth to the Iranian revolution. We all know how well that has turned out. Jimmy Carter, of course, has led a very public campaign of vilification against Israel-defaming it as an apartheid state (a view that Obama's Pastor would concur with). Anthony Lake has been all but retired for the last dozen years-living on a farm in the Berkshires. This makes one wonder what he is bringing to the table, other than his Carter-era pedigree and beliefs. He has been reactivated though-one of his roles seems to be as ambassador to the Arab-American community . The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world. After Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel in the summer of 2006, murdered Israelis and took hostages, Israel tried to get its citizens back by moving into Lebanon. Warfare resulted. Brzezinski wrote that Israel's actions amounted to the "killing of hostages" (the hostages being Lebanese caught in the battles). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbig-brzezinski-israel_b_25821.html Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also on Obama's foreign policy team. Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. Mark recently co-wrote an op-ed advocating that America forge ties with Iran.Susan Rice was John Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride "roughshod" over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice. Drilling down further we have Robert Malley. He was part of the American negotiating team that dealt with Yasser Arafat at Camp David. He has presented a revisionist history of those negotiations since then: presenting a view that blames Israel for the failures of the negotiations. His version has been radically at odds with the views of Americans and Israelis (including the views of American Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross-also an adviser to Obama- and President Clinton). He has spent years representing the Palestinian point of view, co-writing a series of anti-Israel articles with Hussein Agha-a former Arafat adviser. Palestinian advocate. These have appeared in the New York Review of Books a publication that has served as a platform for a slew of anti-Israel advocates from Tony Judt to the aforementioned George Soros to the authors of the Israeli Lobby book Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Malley has also called settlements "colonies" -- implicitly condemning Israel as a "colonial" state. His writings have been so critical of Israel that the media-monitoring group CAMERA has a "dossier" on him. (CAMERA also has a listing for Brzezinski). One well-regarded blogger, Rutgers Professor Judith Apter Klinghoffer believes this adviser was Ivo Daalder, who was quoted throughout the article and who is one of the foreign policy advisers to Barack Obama. Professor Klinghoffer is skeptical about Daalder and his feelings towards the American-Israel relationship. . A snapshot of Daalder's views: He has, like Obama, singled out Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for manipulating the levers of power to serve the interests of other countries (it bears reiterating, Perle had no official position in the Administration; Bush, Powell ,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice-those were the decision-makers). Daalder has seemingly advocated talks with Hezbollah, Syria, Iran. Daalder stated that Israel's bombing of Qana (an attack targeting Hezbollah missile placements that resulted in civilian death) in the war against Hezbollah imperiled Israel's claim to the moral high ground. These and assorted other positions lend credence to Professor Klinghoffer's view.Scott Lasensky has also been appointed a foreign policy adviser to Obama. This step should also be viewed with a gimlet eye. In a book to be published this month, he and co-author Daniel Kurtzer write glowingly of the George H.W. Bush and James Baker's approach towards dealing with Israel, but faulted Bush and Baker for inadequately derailing the pro-Israel lobby which was more skeptical of the push against Israel into Yasser Arafat's arms. He has called for Islamists and Hamas to be brought into the "peace process," before this Mideast moment slips away.He has called residents of Israeli settlements "obstructionists" He has been given the stamp of approval by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a notoriously harsh anti-Israel group . He was also used by CNN's Christiane Amanpour to castigate Israel in her widely criticized CNN's Jewish Warriors "documentary" -- a documentary that has been heavily criticized for its bias and factual errors) Lasensky has been hosted by the activist group Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and will be hosted by Americans for Peace Now , both of which groups have been highly critical of Israel over the years. He has recently called for aggressive American involvement in pushing for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians -- calling for the end of the incremental approach (which is "trust but verify" approach meant to test each side's honesty and ability to bring about peace). Abolishing it would be a foolish and potentially disastrous leap of faith into the unknown. He has called for engagement with Iran. The group for which he works, the Unites States Institute of Peace, was the key organizer of the Iraq Study Group that produced a report that has very troubling recommendations concerning Israel (James Baker, whose approach towards Israel Lasensky admires, was one of the two people who headed the Iraq Study Group). Obama supporters might counter that Obama has a wide range of foreign advisers and seeks input from people with a variety of views. Most likely, Dennis Ross-with deep ties to the American Jewish community-will be headlined in this argument. However, it is unclear what role Ross has on the team. He is clearly angling to join what may be the next Administration in the White House. How likely is it that Ross, who served the Clintons (now Obama's opponents), will hold sway against the triumvirate of key Obama heavyweights: Lake, Brzezinski, and Susan Rice? Obama and John Bolton: Conversely, Obama actively opposed the nomination of John Bolton as our Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's track record in support of Israel is impressive.As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton took started a new project, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), that has played a very important role in preventing hostile nations (including those in the Arab world) from developing weapons of mass destruction. Boats were interdicted on the high seas, for example, when suspicions arose that they carried suspect cargoes. The PSI was also responsible for helping to put an end to Libya's nuclear program, which led to the unraveling of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons black market that has imperiled our friends in the region (and ourselves). While at the United Nations, Bolton was a stalwart defender of American interests and those of our allies. He was also a firm supporter of Israel (next to Patrick Moynihan, probably one of the best) -- a thankless task given the pervasive anti-Israel bias at the UN.Bolton has continued to support the American-Israel relationship after leaving government service -- for example, writing a series of op-eds, the latest of which support Israel's decision to bomb the likely nuclear plant in Syria. Regardless of Bolton's evident talents and drive, Obama worked to derail his career. Was it his views that Obama objected to? Speeches and public remarks: There are those willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and rely on his speeches to give comfort. Most recently, the New York Sun took excerpts from a speech he gave to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago last march. I was there, just a few yards in front of Barack Obama. His speech was desultory and lacking the spirit and energy that are a trademark of the gifted oratory of Barack Obama. He clearly seemed to be going through the motions. The content of his speech gave many listeners qualms, including me. Others have their suspicions about whether Obama truly believes what he is saying in his speeches before groups supportive of the American-Israel relationship. I think a more accurate reflection of these feelings and ideas are found in unscripted, off-the cuff remarks. As Michael Kinsley wrote, a "gaffe is a mistaken utterance or action which actually reveals what a politician truly believes". Obama has a record of off the cuff remarks that are disconcerting. There is, of course, his well-known remark in Des Moines that "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" (which sounds like Pastor Wright is being channeled) that created controversy. He later tried to revise history by insisting he had said "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership". However, the well-respected Fact.Check.org and the Des Moines Register newspaper (which has an audio record) dispute Obama's "redo". He also has objected to Israel's security fence that has all but ended the suicide bombing campaigns that killed so many innocent people. In an interview in 2004 he stated: "...the creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace." There are not two nations (at least yet) and the security fence is not a wall, it is a fence (only a small percent, less than 5% can be considered a "wall" and that is only because of space constraints and the desire to prevent sniper fire from the Palestinians). His use of the term Cycle of violence" has caused ripples of concern for its intimations of moral equality between the Palestinians and Israelis; as has his elevation of "cynicism" as a core problem in the Middle East, rather than say, terrorism. At an anti-war rally he stated that he was "Opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throat" . This is disturbing. Obama ignored the role of Colin Powell, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and other movers and shakers in the Administration. But Perle (who never even served in the Administration) and Wolfowitz (who was a Deputy Secretary) have been lumped together by many anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists as Jews who led us into the Iraq War to serve the interests of Israel. Who has Obama been listening to? His moral compass, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior?There are other remarks of Obama's that have struck others as being less than supportive of Israel. . Among them are words that put the onus on Israel to change the status quo in its relations with the Palestinians. He was the only candidate at the National Jewish Democratic Council conference that burdens Israel with that role.There are grounds to be concerned that he would discard the "Road Map" that provides guidelines for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He has stated that the "Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." The Road Map places obligations on both sides to take steps simultaneously on the road to peace. Israel is explicitly not obligated to take the first steps. This confirms the views he expressed to the NJDC that he would place the onus on Israel in future peace negotiations. .Shmuel Rosner, the Washington correspondent of the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted that that the prediction that Obama would be least favorable of any of the candidates toward Israel may partly be due to the fact that his "supporters come mainly from the left-wing of the Democratic Party and from the African-American community -- from constituencies which are traditionally not that supportive of Israel".But Obama has on his own volition assembled his networks of friends, mentors, financial supporters and foreign policy advisers. In his judgment -- a judgment that he regularly trumpets as being superior to others - these people are worthy of advising him. There are among those friends and advisers key people who seem to display a great deal of antipathy towards the American-Israel relationship. These are the constituencies and associates that should warrant concern among all those who care about a strong American-Israel relationship. His electoral success will send a message to all future politicians that they can willingly ignore the views of those Americans who value a close relationship with the sole democracy and our only true ally in the Middle East. We may see the ramifications of Obama's ascent in the years yet to come. Related AT articles: Barack Obama's Middle East Expert The Audacity of Questioning Obama's Commitment to Israel Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team 9) Barack Obama blasts pro-Hamas Op-Ed http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Ron Kampeas/ JTA , THE JERUSALEM POST Sen. Barack Obama says that a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church's bulletin was "outrageously wrong." In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled "Pastor's Page," the Trinity United Church in Chicago reprinted an article by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook. The article, which originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, justifies the Palestinian terrorist group's denial of Israel's right to exist. The church's pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr., who retired this year, has stirred controversy for Obama's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination with statements likening Israel to colonialists and blaming attacks on the United States in part on its support for Israel. In slamming the Hamas piece, Obama noted that he strongly rejects some of his longtime pastor's views. "I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn't in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin," Obama said in a statement e-mailed to JTA late Thursday. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor." The reports about the church bulletin and Obama's response come just days after intensifying focus on Wright's controversial anti-American statements prompted the Democratic candidate to deliver a major speech on race relations in America. In the speech, Obama, a senator from Illinois, condemned Wright's most inflammatory comments but said he would not "disown" the man who inspired him to embrace Jesus. The WorldNetDaily report ran under the headline "Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto." One line in the op-ed directly defended strikes against Israeli targets: "Hamas," Marzook wrote, "has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede; our struggle has always been focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it - a right of occupied people that is explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention." Dov Hikind, a New York state assemblyman, issued a news release condemning Wright and calling on Obama to sever his pastor and his church. This week, the Obama campaign circulated a photograph of former president Bill Clinton shaking hands with Wright at a September 1998 event for religious clerics, which was held the same day the Starr Report on Monica Lewinsky was made public. 10) Speaking truth to Power http://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htm posted Monday, 3 March 2008 Samantha Power is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, and she has a professorship at Harvard (in something called "Global Leadership and Public Policy"). She is also a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. This isn't an honorific: she has worked for Obama in Washington, she has campaigned for him around the country, and she doesn't hesitate to speak for him. This morning, the Washington Post has a piece on Obama's foreign policy team, identifying her (and retired Maj. Gen. Scott Garion) as "closest to Obama, part of a group-within-the-group that he regularly turns to for advice." Power and Garion "retain unlimited access to Obama." This morning's New York Times announces that Power has an "irresistable profile" and "she could very well end up in [Obama's] cabinet." She also has a problem: a corpus of critical statements about Israel. These have been parsed by Noah Pollak at Commentary's blog Contentions, by Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker, and by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line. Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question: Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide? Power gave an astonishing answer: What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line. Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. “ It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our "principles." This quote has dogged Power, and she has gone to extraordinary lengths to put it behind her. Most notably, she called in the Washington correspondent of the Israeli daily Haaretz, Shmuel Rosner, to whom she disavowed the quote: Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago, circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct exactly what she meant. It must be awful, at such a young age, to lose track of why you recommended the massive deployment of military force, and not that long ago. So let me help Samantha Power: I can reconstruct exactly what she meant. Power gave the interview on April 29, 2002. This was the tail end of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Israel's offensive into the West Bank in reaction to a relentless campaign of Palestinian suicide bombings that had killed Israeli civilians in the hundreds. The military operation included the clearing of terrorists from the West Bank city of Jenin (April 3-19). At the time, Palestinian spokespersons had duped much of the international media and human rights community into believing that a massacre of innocent Palestinians had taken place in Jenin. It had not, but the name of Israel had been smeared, particularly in academe. At Harvard, pro-Palestinian activists canvassed the faculty for support of a petition calling on Harvard to divest from Israel. (It was published on May 6.) Power at the time was executive director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, which she founded in 1999. In 2001, she had recruited a celebrity director for the Carr Center: Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian intellectual and journalist who, like herself, had come to prominence writing about atrocities in the Balkans and Africa. A profile of Ignatieff in March 2002 described the division of labor in the Carr Center: "He shares administrative responsibilities with Samantha Power, the center's executive director. The division of labor works wonderfully, he says: 'She does all the work.'" Power later told a Canadian journalist that "their social relationship was based on three Bs: baseball, bottles and boys. They talked about the Boston Red Sox, of whom she is a fanatic supporter; they spent evenings together 'yelling and laughing' over bottles of wine, and she found him a kind and sympathetic confidant when it came to affairs of the heart." 12) A spry Farrakhan sings Obama's praises Associated Press, by Sophia Tareen February 25, 2008 In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better. The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator. 13) Ralph Nader Calls Out Obama's "Pro-Palestinian" Past Washington, D.C. (February 25, 2008) -- After remarks made by Ralph Nader yesterday on "Meet the Press," Matt Brooks said, "Ralph Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama's views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues." During his interview on "Meet the Press," Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate." Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice. "People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming." 14) Obama in his own words on unilater nuclear freeze: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http://www.redstate.com/ 15) 'Barack'-Lash By Jews: Dovhttp://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03032008/news/columnists/barack_lash__by_jews__dov_100265.htm By FREDRIC U. DICKER March 3, 2008 -- BROOKLYN Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday predicted that Jewish voters would make "a mass movement toward Sen. McCain" if Barack Obama knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race in tomorrow's critical Democratic primaries. Hikind, an Orthodox Jew whose Borough Park district includes the largest Hasidic bloc in the United States, blasted Obama for what he called his half-hearted support of Israel and his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has endorsed Obama. Hikind, a Democrat who has yet to endorse a candidate for president, said Obama had not satisfactorily distanced himself from Wright, his Chicago-based personal pastor, noting, "This is a man who thinks Farrakhan is a great guy and God's gift to the world." Hikind went on, "Obama has said that you can be a supporter of Israel even if you're for giving up land to the Arabs, which is true - but for a guy running for president to take a position like this in advance of getting into office, combined with everything else going on in the Middle East, that scares the hell out of me. "There are a hell of a lot of Jews who are concerned about these issues, and they go way beyond Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, people I describe as conservative Reagan/Giuliani Democrats," said Hikind, who backed Ronald Reagan's presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1984. Hikind's warning about Jewish concerns over Obama are being widely but privately voiced among top New York Democrats. "There is anxiety, there is concern, on the part of a lot of important Jewish Democrats in New York," one of the state's most influential Democratic activists told The Post. Hikind, meanwhile, said he believed last week's controversy over Obama appearing in Somali garb during a visit to his father's native Kenya would have no impact on Jewish voters. "Something like that by itself doesn't mean anything," he said. Obama, who has repeatedly condemned Farrakhan for making anti-Semitic remarks, rejected his endorsement under pressure from rival Hillary Rodham Clinton during a debate last week. But while Obama has pushed Wright into the background of his campaign, Obama remains a member of his church. 16) Obama's Church founded on radical creed http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/NATION/766118950/1001 April 1, 2008 By S.A. Miller - The church where Sen. Barack Obama has worshipped for two decades publicly declares that its ministry is founded on a 1960s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy." Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power." "What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love," Mr. Cone wrote in the book. Mr. Cone, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, added that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." Mr. Obama's campaign, which for weeks has weathered criticism about inflammatory racial language by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity, said the candidate "vehemently disagrees" with those tenets. "It's absurd to suggest that he or anyone should be held responsible for every quote in every book read by a member of their church," said Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin. "Barack Obama is not a theologian, and what he learned in church is to love Jesus Christ and work on behalf of his fellow man, regardless of race, class or circumstance. This is a faulty and disingenuous approach to a church, and a flawed way to judge a candidate," he said. For years, Mr. Wright delivered sermons and endorsed articles in the church bulletin that called the United States and Israel racist regimes. The bulletin's "pastor's page" included essays that said Israel and South Africa "worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs," compared Israel to Nazi Germany and quoted leaders of the terrorist group Hamas calling Israel a "deformed modern apartheid state." In a bulletin last year, Mr. Wright lashed out at the news media for scrutinizing the church, blaming "racist United States of America" and "white arrogance" for distracting the country from more important issues, such as the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina victims. The church declined to comment for this article, but the Rev. Otis Moss III, the church's junior pastor, who took over for Mr. Wright, wrote in the bulletin in October that media conglomerates "operate with contempt and disdain for the black community, women, and people of the African Diaspora." 17) Obama and Chicago Mores http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450564143806509.html By JOHN FUND March 3, 2008; Page A17 The London Times reports that, three weeks before the land transactions, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London, loaned $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, who was his Chicago business partner. Mr. Auchi's office says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property purchase. Mr. Auchi is a press-shy property developer (estimated worth: $4 billion) who was convicted of corruption in France in 2003 for his involvement in the Elf affair, the biggest political and corporate fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term that was suspended provided he committed no further crimes.Mr. Auchi was also a top official in the Iraqi oil ministry in the 1970s. He has for years vigorously denied charges he had dealings with Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. However, an official report to the Pentagon inspector general in 2004 obtained by the Washington Times cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal and illicit smuggling of weapons to the Hussein regime. In 2003, Mr. Auchi began investing in Chicago real estate with Mr. Rezko. In April 2007, after his indictment, Mr. Auchi loaned another $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, a loan that Mr. Rezko hid from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's office. When Mr. Fitzgerald learned that the money was being parceled out to Mr. Rezko's lawyers, family and friends, he got Mr. Rezko's bond revoked in January and had him put in jail as a potential flight risk. In court papers, the prosecutor noted that Mr. Rezko had traveled 26 times to the Middle East between 2002 and 2006, mostly to his native Syria and other countries that lack extradition treaties with the U.S. Curiously, Mr. Auchi has also lent an unknown sum of money to Chris Kelly, who, like Mr. Rezko, was a significant fund-raiser for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (himself under investigation by a federal grand jury as an alleged beneficiary of the Rezko shakedowns). Mr. Kelly is himself under indictment for obstructing an IRS probe into his activities. Mr. Obama says he has "no recollection" of meeting Mr. Auchi during a 2004 trip the billionaire made to Chicago, and no one believes he knew of his background. While his name will come up in the trial as a beneficiary of Rezko donations (since donated to charity), Mr. Obama will not be called to testify. There may be nothing more in Mr. Obama's dealings with Mr. Rezko beyond an "appearance of impropriety." Still, Mr. Obama does have an obligation to explain how he fits into Chicago politics. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's Karl Rove, is a longtime spoke in the Daley machine that's dominated Chicago for a half century. Gov. Blagojevich, also part of the machine, shared key fund raisers with Mr. Obama."We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News. He notes that, while Mr. Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he has "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians." Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 21) Is Obama committed to Israel's survival? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/is_obama_committed_to_israels.html By Bruce Walker Is Obama committed to Israel's survival as a Jewish state? The question is serious and the answer may be chilling. The senator himself has not spoken ill of Israel nor has he made anti-Semitic statements, but it is quite unlikely that a candidate as clever as he would tip his hand on something that vital. Consider, though, all the influences on the life of Barack Obama. He has felt comfortable in the company of angry blacks who form the core of anti-Semitism in modern America. Jeremiah Wright is symptomatic of the sort of aggrieved, irrational black agitator who seriously believes that Jews are a major obstacle to the advancement of blacks and other oppressed minorities around the world. But Reverend Wright is only one example. Cynthia McKinney seriously proposed that Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 because of some prior cabalistic warning. Nurtured black rage led to the 1991 murder in Crown Heights of an Australian Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum, whose sole offense was being a Jew in the wrong part of New York. Louis Farrakhan, of course, has spread lies about Jews, but even more "mainstream" black leaders like Jesse Jackson have shown clear dislike of Jews. For a black presidential candidate like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Michael Steele or J.C. Watts, the question of loyalty to our loyalist ally in the world would not be an issue. These black leaders have clearly and emphatically rejected the sort of hatred that Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan embrace. It is doubtful whether those radical blacks would endorse Rice or Steele or Watts for president, if Republicans nominated them. But Obama has chosen to associate himself with the embittered and resentful branch of black politics. Unless he believes its calumnies about America and Israel, why did he link himself to this sort of hatred? But it is not just the black rage school of politics that raises questions about Obama and Israel. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, is another piece of the Obama puzzle. Although much has been made of his middle name, Hussein, over which Obama has no control, more important is the fact that Obama's mother chose to marry two Muslim husbands both of whom were from Third World nations. Considering that she was a champion of women's rights and that Islam is notoriously misogynist, this is extraordinary. We hear of Muslim women seeking asylum in America and the West, but not of Western feminists marrying Muslim men and then living in the Muslim world. What could have motivated her except the conscious rejection of Western values, something that Obama's mother had very much in common with Jeremiah Wright? Is it worth noting that among the outrageous statements of Wright, one was that Islam and Christianity had much more in common than most people thought? (A preposterous lie, but one that conforms to a minister who could blame Israel for being a racist state.) Obama also chose to marry a woman who seems to be filled with rage and anger at America. Those who hate America irrationally almost also hate Israel irrationally, and vice versa. The same resentment at successful peoples, the same rejection of Judeo-Christian values, the same nursing of past wrongs into a sort of fetish or cult draws people into the maelstrom of hating America, hating Israel, hating Christians and hating Jews. The involuntary influences in the life of Obama, having a mother attracted to Muslim men and who initially sent her son to a Madrasah, and the choices that he made as an adult, marrying an angry black woman who feels America is bad and attending a church where the preacher excoriates Israel from the pulpit and honors odious anti-Semites - these together paint a very worrisome picture of Obama and Israel. What would President Obama do if the survival of Israel were threatened? In the past the question was not as crucial as today. Europe, cowed by its growing and militant Muslim communities and removed by more than six decades from the horrors of the Holocaust, seems truly indifferent to Israel. In 1973, when the oil boycott smacked Europe, the Dutch, whose citizens remembered what had happened to Dutch Jews twenty-eight years earlier, rode bicycles to demonstrate their independence from Arab threats. In 2008, does anyone believe the Dutch would do the same? Not only has Europe lost its nerve, but the threat to Israel is no longer an Arab threat but rather a Muslim threat. In 1973, the last time Israel faced a very serious threat, the Shah of Iran was in power, and his nation had good relations with Israel. Radical Islam, with its attendant hatred of Jews and Christians, was not ascendant in the Indian Ocean basin as it is today. Today, more than any time in the last sixty years, the two real allies against radical Islam are its principal victims - Israel and America. If America does not play its role in this alliance seriously, then the fate of Israel is in genuine peril. Today, unlike yesterday, America and Israel cannot afford a president whose support of Israel is not complete and absolute. We cannot afford a president who thinks that chatting with governments whose official media spews the most absurd and despicable lies about America and Israel is a serious exercise in diplomacy. We must, instead, have a president certain that America and Israel are the good guys and that the triumphant of these nations - with as little violence as possible - is the only sure answer to peace. Is Obama this sort of president? Nothing suggests he is and everything suggests he is not. 22) Losing (some) Jewish votes Peter Wallsten has a really well-reported piece this morning on Obama's relationship with Palestinian activists in Chicago, and his friendship in particular with Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi. The story doesn't provide any evidence that Obama ever expressed anti-Israel views, and in more recent years he's been very publicly pro-Israel, as his campaign reasserted in response to the piece. But it does place him at events at which Israel is accused of "apartheid" and details his friendly relationship with Palestinian activist, and Columbia University professor, Rashid Khalidi. At this point, I'd say the damage to Obama with a segment of the Jewish community is probably going to be very hard to reverse. This isn't a huge percentage of the vote of a community that doesn't exist in big numbers in most swing states anyway. But for pro-Israel Jews who, say, know of Khalidi and consider him a hostile figure, and for the people in their communities who listen to them, the damage that comes with Obama's Hyde Park milieu is going to be very, very hard to repair. "There is a segment of the pro-Israel community in which skepticism of Barack Obama is only rising," said the unaligned Democratic consultant Ken Baer, who follows Jewish politics closely, and whom I called this morning to talk about the story.Obama is fighting very hard, and early, for the Jewish vote, and it's not a monolithic community. It's also not present in large numbers in most swing states. The Jewish vote matters a lot in Florida (which some think is now safely Republican anyway); it matters less, but a bit, in Ohio, where several thousand votes can make a big difference.The best Republican year with Jews was 1980, when Reagan had a lot of things going for him, and Carter had inspired a lot of Jewish enmity. Carter got 45%; Reagan 39%; Anderson 14%.I'd imagine that's probably a floor beneath which it would be quite hard for Obama to fall in a much better Democratic year, and a generation later. And, while we're doing the electoral math, the perception that he's friendly to Palestine may help Obama with Arab voters in Michigan and elsewhere, if they were inclined to vote Republican. Anti-Israel Director Michael Moore endorses Obama The Associated Press reported yesterday that Moore endorsed Sen. Obama in a 1,100-word posting on his Web site. Moore wrote, "Can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote - and yours - on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?" "Michael Moore has consistently expressed views that are radically anti-American and anti-Israel. Michael Moore has placed a disproportionate blame on Israel for the Palestinian's use of terror and violence and calls Americans an 'ignorant people,' said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks. "Senator Obama must reject Moore's endorsement. We call on Barack Obama to reject his endorsement to show Michael Moore that this kind of hateful rhetoric will not be tolerated." Anti-American and Anti-Israel Statements by Michael Moore "Hey, here's a way to stop suicide bombings - give the Palestinians a bunch of missile-firing Apache helicopters and let them and the Israelis go at each other head to head. Four billion dollars a year to Israel - four billion dollars a year to the Palestinians - they can just blow each other up and leave the rest of us the hell alone." -- Michael Moore Moore dedicated his book, "Dude Where's My Country?" to Rachel Corrie, an International Solidarity Movement volunteer who was killed when she climbed in front of a Caterpillar bulldozer that was destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza. In 1990, speaking before the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Moore announced that he would refuse to attend a screening of his movie, "Roger and Me," which was being held in Jerusalem. He was quoted as saying that he would not attend until Israel ceased to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. (Arab American News, 1990) Moore tried to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from being shown in Israel. (New Yorker Magazine, February 16, 2004) In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people [as the United States] lead the world? Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way." (David Brooks in the New York Times, June 30, 2004) For additional statements by Michael Moore on Israel and America, please 23) JIMMY'S HA-MESS http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222008/news/nationalnews/jimmys_ha_mess_107529.htm THUGS RATTLE BOAST OF 'SUCCESS' By ANDY SOLTIS 'I did the best I could on that. They turned me down.' - Jimmy Carter on his failure to persuade Hamas to halt rocket attacks and free a captured Israeli soldier. April 22, 2008 -- Former President Jimmy Carter wound up his controversial Mideast jaunt by declaring partial success - but Hamas officials quickly undermined his claims. Carter said Hamas' top official, Khaled Meshaal, told him he was ready to accept Israel's right to "live as a neighbor next door in peace" to a Palestinian state comprising land Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. But Meshaal, who lives in Damascus, Syria, appeared to restate Hamas' previous position without softening its demands - or renouncing terrorism. "We agree to a state on pre-'67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements, but without recognizing Israel," he told reporters. Israel and the United States shrugged off the claim of a peace breakthrough. "I think you can take it with a grain of salt. We have to look at the public comments, and we also have to look at actions, and actions speak louder than words," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert noted that rocket attacks on Israel continue from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. "Israel sees no change in Hamas' extremist positions," the spokesman said. Carter acknowledged he wasn't negotiating on his nine-day Mideast tour "because I can't talk to Israeli officials," who have snubbed him. Instead, he said he asked for Hamas to make a gesture to show its peaceful intentions by declaring a 30-day halt to cross-border rocket attacks and freeing a captured Israeli soldier. "I did the best I could on that," he said in Jerusalem. "They turned me down." Meshaal did offer a conditional 10-year cease-fire. But a Hamas spokesman, Abu Jandal, told a Palestinian newspaper that the group would launch fiercer attacks on Israel's border with the Gaza Strip than the recent ones that have killed five Israelis. Another Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said that even if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, those lines would be "transitional." He left open the prospect of Hamas still seeking all Israeli land as part of its state. Carter said the Hamas officials he met "didn't say anything about 'transitional.' " In the past, Hamas officials have said they would establish a "peace in stages" if Israel were to withdraw to the borders it held before 1967. Obama’s Radioactive Potato 04.24.2008 - 4:11 PM Was North Korea helping Syria build a plutonium-producing reactor? The emerging consensus in the intelligence world is that it was. Indeed, the evidence, now including videotapes taken inside the facility before it was obliterated by Israeli jets last September 6, appears almost unequivocal. It is therefore fascinating — and disturbing — to recall the alacrity with which Joseph Cirincione, Barack Obama’s top expert on matters nuclear, the author of a book called the Bomb Scare, was so quick back in September to dismiss the report as “nonsense.” To Cirincione, writing on the blog of Foreign Policy Magazine, the stories surrounding surrounding the Israeli strike, namely that North Korea was building a Yongbyong-type plutonium reactor not far from the Euphrates River, was nothing more than a lie. It was a reprise, wrote Cirincione, of the way in which administration officials “misled the press” in the run-up to the second Gulf war. Who was behind this nefarious manipulation? It seems, wrote Circincione, “to be the work of a small group of officials leaking cherry-picked, unvetted ‘intelligence’ to key reporters in order to promote a preexisting political agenda.” What exactly was that political agenda? “[I]t appears aimed at derailing the U.S.-North Korean agreement that administration hardliners think is appeasement.” There was also a dose of Zionist mischief thrown in: “Some Israelis want to thwart any dialogue between the U.S. and Syria.” Along with Israel and the American hardliners, another villain in Cirincione’s take is the American press, which treats “selective leaks” from the administration “as if they were absolute truth.” Indeed, the lazy reporters pushing the story appear not “to have done even basic investigation of the miniscule Syrian nuclear program.” All told, the “misleading story” of North Korean nuclear proliferation “will now enter the lexicon of the far Right” and “attempts to negotiate an end to North Korea’s program are bound fail in the face of such duplicity, etc., etc.” In writing all these things, Cirincione sounds remarkably similar to Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations. “There was no Syria-North Korea cooperation whatsoever in Syria. We deny these rumors,” Bashar Ja’afari said yesterday. Cirincione’s instant dismissal of the Syrian-North Korean nuclear axis raises a number of interesting questions. One of them is: has Cirincione changed his mind in light of the latest intelligence? A second: is he going to be the official called by Obama at 3AM when an intelligence cable comes in reporting that North Korea has shipped nuclear materials somewhere else? A third: why are so many of Obama’s advisors so prone to blame, in whole or in part, the machinations of Israel for the problems of the world? See here and here and here. A fourth: Is Joseph Cirincione going to go the way of Samatha Power and get dropped from the campaign like a radioactive potato.