3rd fingers all around at the US from Israel's dynamic duo.

Lieberman: U.S. to accept any Israeli policy decision

I can't say it is really surprising, but it's still shocking to see the head of a completely dependant client-state publically dissing us like he's Kim Jong Il or the the assclown president of Iran.

Imagine the response from the GOP if any other ally of the U.S., much less a dependant, directed a series of deliberate insults and categorical rejections of U.S. policy like this at us. A Senate bill with forty co-sponsors and a companion House bill with 200 cutting off all aid would be in the hoppers within 24 hours.

There are several things that should be made clear in response to this Israeli statement.

First, the colonization of the West Bank is almost certainly illegal, and an affront to global norms and global opinion. In addition, it is hard to make the case that the ongoing colonization is any kind of defensive security measure for Israel. I don't think anybody believes this any longer. On the contrary, it is clear by now that Israel is willing to incur the additional security risks involved in holding and colonizing large tracts of the West Bank mainly because it covets that land in the West Bank. This acquisition of territory by force should be roundly deplored and bluntly rejected by civilized governments. So Netanyahu doesn't have a leg to stand on to the extent his comments are meant to suggest that the reason why Israel must continue to occupy and colonize the West Bank has anything at all to do with defending itself against Iran.

However, it is a fair point that progress toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs is not unrelated to the nature of the influence of outside parties in the region. That influence comes in many forms, some more radical and uncompromising than others. So, Netanyahu is right to note that any kind of peace process must address the influence of other governments and organizations in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and take steps to counter the more rejectionist elements who might work to subvert the process. (Of course, some of those subversive rejectionists exist right in Israel, and inside Netanyahu's own government - maybe even inside his own suit.)

The Obama administration should bear in mind that it has long been part of the Israeli strategic plan to isolate the Palestinians entirely by making separate peaces with neighboring countries first, and by expelling all other rivals from the assumptive Israeli sphere of influence. My view is that if Israel succeeds in doing this, it will be in a position simply to dictate terms to the weak, impoverished and ultimately friendless Palestinians. In that asymmetric scenario, it is unlikely that there will ever be a viable Palestinian state. So if the US government is indeed serious about its desire to see such a state, it should resist these Israeli efforts to isolate Palestine and clear away all of its other problems first, and push for a Palestinian state while Israel still faces some security pressure.

For now, here's the statement the adminsitration should make in response to Netanyahu:

The Obama administration views all of the issues cited by Prime Minister Netanyahu as interrelated, and has a regional strategy for Middle East security. Washington will pursue these regional aims on several fronts at once, and will not look favorably on preconditions from either Iran or Israel. The United States government expects all governments in the region to begin to make immediate, constructive steps toward improving regional security and toward building a lasting framework for a final settlement of key outstanding disputes.

There is no reason why progress on the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Iran front cannot be made concurrently. The road to a Palestinian state does not lead through Tehran; nor does the road to a grand bargain with Iran lead through the West Bank. These issues are interconnected, but neither one takes priority or has temporal precedence over the other. They should be addressed together.

In my view, the US has to begin to find a diplomatic formula for injecting the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons into the discussion. It is fair for Netanyahu to point out that Iranian involvement in Palestine and Lebanon poses security challenges for Israel. But it is equally fair for everyone else to point out that it is going to be very difficult to dissuade the Iranians from developing some sort of nuclear weapons capability given that Iran lies only a few hundred miles away from a state that already possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons, and that makes threatening statements directed toward Iran and its government on an almost daily basis. The Obama administration should re-emphasize that it has a long-term plan for global nuclear disarmament, that making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone is part of that plan, and that the plan includes Israel and its nuclear arsenal. The diplomatically distorting silence about Israeli nukes must end.

It's beoome clear Israel now sees transfer as the end game. I'm not sure they are wrong but it is extremely distasteful for most of the World. It's either that or apartheid else the end of the Jewish state.

It is politically easier to do something like that in the shadow of a war with Iran and it's ancillary effects on the region.

The idea that the two state solution is possible after Iran is dealt with militarily is remote - at best.

We care what this old failed Hawk says, Why!!?? He has No respect from World leaders> The only reason he is even there is because Peres was afraid of a strong centrist woman! Israel is in disgrace because of Gaza and their actions leading up to the encroachment on the palestinians. He is dangerous old failure..that we must watch and NEVER TRUST!

A question for you MJ...

What should the US do to impress upon the current government of our client state of Israel that it is not only bad manners, but unwise to dis the hand that feeds them? I find Netanyahu's arrogance very offensive/counterproductive and I'm sure I'm not alone on this. I think most Americans (if they're paying attention)would find it so.

Personally, I think Netanyahu is taking Cheney's advice and thinks BHO is a pussy who can be pushed around by someone who shows some backbone. I think the President should find a way, not necessarily publicly, to make it exceptionally clear to Netanyahu just who is boss and who is paying all the bills for that powerful military apparatus he has at his disposal and who will be deciding how things go down. Don't you?

RE: "Keep an eye on your local Democratic Senator"

Unfortunately, both of my U.S. Senators are Republicans. One of them, Senator Saxby Chambliss, is on the 'Board of Advisors' for the extremist, right-wing 'Israel Project'.

See "Focus Grouping War with Iran" by Laura Rozen, 11/19/07

EXCERPT: ...Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project, contacted Mother Jones and said that her group had commissioned the focus group and that it was designed by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. The Israel Project is a nonprofit group that supports Israel and conducts extensive polling on American public attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East. Its board of advisers includes 15 Democratic and Republican members of the House and the Senate, plus actor Ron Silver.

Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom's Watch share a common interest in "thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism" and in "dealing with the threat of Iran." But Freedom's Watch "in no way is directing our work, and it's not funding our work." She pointed out that the Israel Project is not "involved with Iraq," a major concern of Freedom's Watch. But the two outfits, she said, "shared information" produced by this focus group. ...[snip]

..."Of all the focus groups I've ever been to," Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, "I've never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants." (Webb is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without congressional approval; see here and here.)) The gist of the event was "anti-Iranian," says Sonnenmark.

ENTIRE ROSEN ARTICLE - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/focus-grouping-war-iran

This really sounds like little more than rhetorical posturing (from all sides). Who knows what it portends, if anything. What matters is the substance of a eventual U.S. sponsored peace plan, and a commitment to implimenting it that is not allowed to become hostage to Israeli or Palestinian terrorists. Meanwhile Natter-Yahoo has the right to diss America if that suits some domestic ass-kissing of his. What is and remains completely intolerable would be a dissing (and betrayal) of America by U.S. Congress members.

Schneider & Kessler's Washington Post article is important to read carefully for yourself and not simply take Rosenberg's simplistic interpretation.

First, if you know how to read a piece like this, it is basically a summary of what answers they received from "a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly" when they called him up and asked him to comment on Ayalon's statements. And then they called up other government "officials" from several countries and asked for more intepretation of the situation.

These two are very important parts:

"We have to be pretty careful how you approach that kind of connection," said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "We are dealing with Iran because there are behaviors out there that are deeply troubling. We would be doing that regardless of other issues. By the same token, the Palestinian issue is an issue that obviously evokes a great deal in the region."

The official argued that the Obama administration has already demonstrated it is committed to dealing with both issues at the same time by appointing high-profile officials -- former senator George J. Mitchell on the Palestinians, former peace negotiator Dennis Ross on Iran -- to craft and implement the administration's policies.

and

In an unusual confluence of interests, Netanyahu's insistence on the importance of Iran -- and wariness of the American outreach to Tehran -- is also shared in many Arab capitals, according to U.S., Israeli and Arab officials. Mitchell has told Jewish groups he was surprised at how often Arab leaders brought up Iran during his initial trip to the region after being named special envoy.

In recent days, Egypt has arrested a cell of the Iranian-funded Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah that was suspected of planning attacks on Egyptian soil and smuggling weapons and attackers into Israel. During the war between Israel and Hamas this year, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah called for the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after Egypt declined to open its border with Gaza to allow residents to flee the fighting. Egypt has recently bolstered anti-smuggling operations along that border, where networks of tunnels serve as a key conduit for the radical Islamist group Hamas, which is also supported by Iran.

Morocco has severed diplomatic ties with Iran, and Saudi Arabia has criticized Iran's efforts to influence the region -- signs of a long-standing enmity between the Arab world, which is predominantly Sunni Muslim, and the seat of the former Persian empire, which is majority-Shiite. The mistrust has been magnified by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Arab nations "see a profound Iranian threat," the U.S. official said. "They see Iranian interventionism. They see the Iranian nuclear program. They want to be certain that what we are doing will affect the Iranians and will not come at their expense."

Like I have argued before (which is simply gleaned from reading what the president and his administration says and does on foreign policy) Iran is a big priority for them, and it's not always about Israel alone, folks--get some eyeglasses for that I/P myopia. (Besides what's above, keep in mind things like, oh, the president has troops in Iraq that he wants brought home and troops in Afghanistan that need a supply line, and both countries share borders with Iran.) If the Iranian elections don't work out well for the administration, and Obama ends up spending more time on Iran than Palestinians, I hope not to have to read arguments that the "Israel lobby" and Netanyahu got to him, because you were warned if you paid attention and didn't shut your ears and eyes.

Netanyahu lands another punch on Obama.

Israel defies US and destroys Palestinian home

e alleged involvement of Jane Harman. And Netanyahu picks yesterday, while the President is standing on the White House lawn talking peace, to tell him "you are
bag suppliers

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v p2v, hyper v integration services

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of database high availability

car shipping, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.