Barack Obama's Foreign Mission: Hope and Cautions

Obama Sets Off on His Foreign Tour

Senator Obama's overseas trip is scheduled to have him make visits to the Middle East, Germany, France and England. His trip began covered by a shroud of secrecy, which advisers said was due to security concerns set forth by the Secret Service. A motorcade left Sen. Obama's home in Chicago's Hyde Park/Kenwood neighborhood at 11:11 a.m (local time) on Thursday morning, heading for Chicago's Midway Airport. From Midway, a Gulfstream III executive jet took off for Washington's Reagan National Airport carrying Obama, the senior Obama spokesperson, two reporters and eight Secret Service Agents.

About 85 minutes later, the plane landed at Reagan, and Obama's motorcade traveled from there to Andrews Air Force Base. At Andrews, Obama entered an aircraft that had no markings, with the exception of an American flag on the tail. Mark Lippert, a foreign policy advisor to Obama in his Washington office, Senators Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel were on the plane when it took off from Andrews Air Force Base shortly after 3 p.m. (ET). No reporters accompanied him on the plane to Afghanistan.

Obama at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan

[wpvideo jNcprJuF w=460]

[wpvideo vmCwSWAI w=460]

Obama Sets Off on His Foreign Mission

Obama Arrives in Afghanistan

Senator Barack Obama made a secret stop in Kuwait, visiting with U.S. servicemen there, and then flew on to Kabul, Afghanistan, where he arrived early Saturday morning. He would open his first overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee by meeting with American military commanders there (and later in Iraq) to receive an on-the-ground assessment of military operations in the two major U.S. war zones.

Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul at 3:15 a.m. Eastern time, according to a pool report released by his aides. In addition to attending briefings with military leaders, he hoped to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan before flying to Iraq later in the weekend. His advisers said that Mr. Obama had chosen to begin his trip in Afghanistan because he believes that the region is among the most important foreign policy challenges facing the United States.

It is the first trip to Afghanistan for Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Obama has said he wants to send two additional U.S. combat brigades, about 7,000 troops, to Afghanistan. He has advocated reducing the U.S. force in Iraq so that troops can be redeployed to Afghanistan to quell the threat from al-Qaeda operatives and their supporters in the resurgent Taliban movement.

Obama has also accused his Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, of waffling aboout whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, criticizing the decorated Vietnam war veteran for voting to go to war in Iraq and saying the loss of focus on the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has been a "grave mistake."

Security in the Afghan capital was noticeably tighter Saturday, but Obama's visit was little known and little remarked upon in the streets of the city.

[wpvideo n3lC2Dbv w=460]

[wpvideo 1myOGilM w=460]

[wpvideo tdhloUj8 w=460]

Senator Obama's Trip to Afghanistan

Europe Pins Its Hopes on Obama

In some ways, Obama's high-profile foreign mission has all the trappings of a major rock-star tour. Public opinion polls in Europe have continued to show that Obama is by far the candidate that most Europeans would like to see succeed George W. Bush in the November elections. With his visit, the presumptive Democratic nominee is recreating the kind of public whirlwind that he enjoyed at the height of the Democratic primaries, only now it's on a grand global scale. Some European observers are describing Obama as Europe's greatest hope.

[wpvideo b5scjIqY w=460]

Obama: Europe's Greatest Hope

This Posting Will Be Updated With Photographs and Video Each Day During Obama's Foreign Tour.

Technorati: Barack Obama, Obama, Obama's Foreign Mission, Obama's Foreign Trip, Obama's Overseas Trip, Obama's World Tour, Berlin, Chicago, England, Great Britain, Britain, United Kingdom, London, France, Paris, Germany, Europe, Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq war, Israel, war, Angela Merkel, Ehud Olmert, King Abdulla, Mahmoud Abbas, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Shimon Perez, hope, multimedia, photographs, photography, video, videos, culture, cultural, politics, society, news, political news, world news, world

Please Remember Me and Bookmark This:

This is not a mistake worth making. It's a mistake we are risking the lives of our soldiers to prevent. Let us respect that and stop kidding ourselves that we can make something heroic out of something despicably wrong. Let us get rid of the men and women whose brainless approach to leadership has already cost us a price we, and no nation, can afford to pay.

*****************

Israel's Betrayal of the Jews

Peace Now: Arabs and Jews Must Go Their Separate Ways

THEY MUST GO

Kadima Wins, Israel Loses!

Shimon Peres Has No Clothes: Where's the Peace?

Ariel Sharon: From Zionist to Traitor

A Jewish Homeland

EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews

Two months after saying that he gave about $150 000 to Mr Olmert before he became prime minister in 2006, Morris Talansky, a financier, is being cross-examined. In May, Mr Talansky said that Ehud Olmert used some of the money for foreign travel, luxury hotels and fine cigars.

Although Mr Olmert has admitted receiving campaign funds from Mr Talansky in 1999 and 2003, he denies any wrongdoing.

His court appearance will not have any real significance on the case against Mr Olmert, said Morris Talansky.

"I'll tell the story; it won't be dramatic and everyone will pick up the papers and say 'Why did we waste our time with this guy Talansky'?" he said on Tuesday.

‘Tell the truth’

Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper, said that Mr Olmert's lawyers will try to show that when interviewed by the police, Mr Talansky has changed his version of the same events.

On Wednesday, Amir Dan, a spokesman for Olmert, said that he hoped Mr Talansky would give a reasonable testimony. "Our only expectation from tomorrow is that he will tell the truth", he said.

The allegations against Ehud Olmert have led to calls for him to resign, even from among the ruling coalition.

Ehud Barak, Labour party leader and defence minister and a key ally in the coalition with Mr Olmert's Kadima party, threatened to leave Olmert's government if he did not step down, after after Morris Talansky’s first court appearance.

Mr Olmert’s coalition would not have the required 61 seats for a majority in the 120-member parliament, without Labour’s support.

New investigation

But because the Likud opposition leads opinion polls, neither Kadima nor Labour want early elections.

Last month, Ehud Olmert saved the coalition, for now, by making a deal to hold a party leadership contest in mid-September.

As a new investigation has begun into reimbursement claims filed by Mr Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem and minister of trade, the Talansky affair continues.

It is alleged that Ehud Olmert billed private organisations and the state for the same airline tickets.

This week, Mr Olmert’s former secretary has also been questioned, over allegations that he received a discount on the price of a Jerusalem apartment, in exchange for using his influence to the benefit of a property developer.

The answer, according to Sitaram Yechuri, is Iran.

The CPI(M) member of Parliament, writing in the Hindustan Times makes a point Seymour Hersh made in The New Yorker, that with Israel making preparations to launch a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's alleged nuclear facilities, pressure was growing on New Delhi, especially with time running out for Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert facing corruption charges.

"If such an attack on Iran happens, then it would be virtually impossible to ‘sell’ the go-ahead on the Indo-US nuclear deal to sections of the Congress and the UPA allies. This explains the desperate hurry to move ahead."

Read the full article: Why did you turn your back on the nation, Mr PM?

Link courtesy Anand V.

Hamas'ın sözcüsü Sami Ebu Zuhri, yaptığı yazılı açıklamada, "Hamas, Hizbullah ile işgalci İsrail arasındaki esir değişimini direniş ve Hizbullah için büyük bir zafer olarak değerlendirmektedir. Bu değişim, işgalcinin elindeki esirleri kurtarmak için en etkin yolun Siyonist askerleri kaçırmak olduğunu göstermektedir" ifadesini kullandı.

Filistinliler tarafından 2006'da kaçırılan İsrailli asker Gilad Şalit'in serbest bırakılmasına karşılık yüzlerce Filistinli esirin serbest bırakılmasını talep eden Hamas'ın sözcüsü Zuhri, "Hamas, ağır cezalar çekmekte olan esirlerin bir değişim çerçevesinde kurtarılmasını sağlamak amacıyla gereken bütün çabaları sarf etmektedir" dedi.

Şalit'in hala esir tutulmasının sorumluluğunu İsrail Başbakanı Ehud Olmert'e atan Zuhri, "Olmert, Filistinlilerin taleplerini karşılamayı reddediyor" dedi.

Bu arada, Filistin Devlet Başkanı Mahmud Abbas da, değişim operasyonundan duyduğu memnuniyeti dile getirdi.

Kaynak: AA

Η ΝΕΑ ΚΑΤΑΔΪΚΗ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΑΡΙΣΜΟΥ ΚΟΜΠΙΝΑ ΜΠΟΡΕΊ ΝΑ ΕΊΝΑΙ ΚΑΡΦΊ ΣΤΟ ΦΈΡΕΤΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΩΘΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΎ

ΤΟΥ ANDY SOLTIS
Η πέτρα του σκανδάλου: Οι ισραηλινοί αξιωματούχοι επιβολής του νόμου λένε ότι ο πρωθυπουργός Ehud Olmert «μάδησε» το μνημείο του ολοκαυτώματος του έθνους του και δέχτηκε 150.000 $ σε παράνομες συνεισφορές προεκλογικής εκστρατείας από τον κάτοικο του Long Island Morris Talansky.

12 Ιουλίου, 2008

Ο πρωθυπουργός του Ισραήλ εξαπάτησε το σεβαστό μνημείο του ολοκαυτώματος της χώρας του, μια φιλανθρωπία για τα παιδιά με ειδικές ανάγκες και άλλες ομάδες πάνω από 100.000 $ σε ένα θρασύτατο σχέδιο διπλήςτιμολόγησης, είπαν οι ανακριτές χθες.

Είπαν ότι ο Ehud Olmert κίνησε προσωπικά την απάτη και χρησιμοποίησε τα χρήματα για να χρηματοδοτήσει γενναιόδωρα οικογενειακά ταξίδια στο εξωτερικό.

Ένας αξιωματούχος επιβολής του νόμου είπε ότι ο Olmert θα είχε συλληφθεί ήδη εάν δεν ήταν πρωθυπουργός.

Οι δραματικές νέες κατηγορίες επέκτειναν αισθητά τον τρίμηνο έλεγχο και αυξάνουν πολύ την πιθανότητα ότι ο Olmert θα καταδικαστεί και θα διωχτεί από το αξίωμα....

Περισσότερα εδώ

En leur hommage, eux et leurs prédécesseurs, une parodie du Loft Story, Secret Story, Stupid Story: Bad Story. Du beau travail réalisé par le comité de la claque
[dailymotion id=x63581]

After the assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Austria got from Kaiser Wilhelm a “blank cheque” to punish Serbia. Germany would follow whatever course its ally chose to take. Austria chose war on Serbia. And World War I resulted.

On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war come, Britain would fight on Poland’s side.

Poland refused to negotiate, Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the slave quarters of Joseph Stalin’s empire.

Lesson: No great power should ever give to a small ally or client state a blank check to drag it into war.

This raises the question: Has President Bush given Israel a blank check?

A year ago, Israel attacked and smashed an alleged nuclear reactor site in Syria. In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers, toward Greece in a simulated attack. The planes flew 1,450 kilometers, the distance to Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, “If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program we will attack it.”

Ehud Olmert returned from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis, “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term.”

Is Israel bluffing, or in dead earnest?

For while Israel can do damage to Iran, she cannot defeat Iran without using nuclear weapons. But any attack Israel launched against Iran would require U.S. complicity, and any Israeli war with Iran would almost certainly require the United States to do most of the fighting to win or end it.

Thus, if George Bush does not want war with Iran, with two U.S. wars already, he must inform the Israelis in unequivocal terms that the United States opposes any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and will not assist but denounce any such attack.

If Bush believes war with Iran is vital to U.S. security, he should make that case to Congress. To allow Israel to start a war we do not want would be an abdication of his duty as president.

Clearly, among the reasons Israel conducted its dress rehearsal for war was to maximize pressure on Iran to halt enriching uranium. Bush may well have welcomed the added pressure.

But as the Iranians have insisted, they are entitled, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed and Israel did not, to enrich uranium for fuel in power plants. Tehran has declared it will not be the only nation to surrender its legal rights under the NPT. And in response to the Israeli military exercises, Tehran conducted its own missile-firing exercises this week.

If neither side yields, confrontation is inevitable. Perhaps soon.

For we are only four months from the election, and Israel is pawing the ground to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Is this Bush’s back door to war with Iran?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, in Israel a week ago, returned to say a “third front” in the Middle East, with Iran, would be “extremely stressful” to U.S. forces.

He is saying that U.S. ground forces probably cannot now cope with another war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.

Asked about Israel taking unilateral action, Mullen replied, “This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to be more unstable.” But Mullen is not the president. What did Bush tell Olmert? Does Israel have a green light, a yellow light or a red light?

Should Israel attack Iran and Bush deny complicity, he would no more be believed than were Britain and France in 1956. Then, the Israelis stormed into Sinai, and Britain and France said they were intervening to separate the warring nations and secure the Suez Canal. Outraged, Ike ordered the British, French and Israelis alike to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did.

President Bush must step up to the plate.

If he believes sanctions are not succeeding and Iran’s nuclear program must be halted, he should go to Congress for authority to neutralize the facilities. If he has not so concluded, he should tell Israel it is not to start a war that U.S. airmen, sailors, soldiers and Marines will have to finish.

America needs to restore that absolute freedom of action in matters of war and peace she once had, before entering the skein of entangling alliances that now encumber the republic.

No ally, no client state, should ever be allowed to drag America into a war she has not chosen, constitutionally, to fight.

No more blank checks for any nation.

Stiff Right Jab contributor, Pat Buchanan, is America’s leading populist conservative, was a senior advisor to three American Presidents, ran twice for the Republican nomination in 1992 and 1996, and was the Reform Party’s Presidential candidate in 2000. The author of eight books, including the mega-bestsellers, The Death of the West and Where the Right Went Wrong, as well as other bestsellers. Mr. Buchanan is a syndicated columnist, a political analyst for MSNBC, and a founding member of three of America’s foremost public affairs shows. He is also Editor Emeritus of The American Conservative..

Stiff Right Jab invites you to visit Buchanan.org to get your copy of Pat’s great new book, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War.

Sans problème, en toute quiétude évidemment, mieux vaut être le Premier-ministre d'Israël, pays qui assassine en toute impunité les palestiniens, sans vergogne pour jouer pourtant les victimes et sans contrôle, que d'être le président syrien, Bachar al-Assad, qu'on accuse de tous les mots maux. 

Je me souviens des charges de Bernard Kouchner, ministre français des Affaires Etrangères alias sac de riz et/ou droit d'ingérence contre "l'escroc du Zimbabwé" avait-il dit, parlant de Robert Mugabé, le brillant ami caché de Nicolas Sarkozy, qui vient d'avoir une victoire significative sur ses adversaires aux Nations Unies. Voir, ICI. Qui est passé à côté des déclarations dans nos médias et des donneurs de leçons sur Bachar al-Assad qui ne devait pas être, selon eux, invité à Paris.

Les pleurs ont remplacé les cris d'orfraie. Sarkozy vient donc de le recevoir. Quelle catastrophe ! Il faut par tous les moyens, me semble-t-il, isoler l'Iran. Point de vue divergeant avec l'isolement d'Israël selon l'analyse d'allain jules, ICI. Je vois plutôt l'envie d'en découdre au plus vite avec l'Iran. Je n'ai pas la science infuse... 

Paris acceuille donc un corrompu et escroc. Encore ce vendredi, l'homme a été sommé de démissionner. Accusé de fraude grave et de grave escroquerie vis à vis de l'Etat israélien qui remboursait ses voyages de complaisances, ses montres de grandes marques, ses stylos millésimés bref, il vivait aux frais du contribuable et de la princesse.

Voilà un dirigeant crédible pourri selon l'axe americano-franco-sioniste qui va se pavaner dans les ors de la République et donner des leçons au monde entier, envoyer son laquais Barak au etats-Unis, comme si les américains avaient la capacité d'ouvrir un autre front.

Bachar al-Assad est plus fréquentable que Ehud Olmert.

PARALLAX.

An investigation into allegations of corruption against Mr Olmert has been widened by the police, in order to also look at whether he may have committed fraud.

While Mr Olmert denies any wrongdoing, there have been calls for him to resign.

In mid-September, a leadership election is due to be held by his governing Kadima party.

Israeli prime minister was earlier questioned, for the third times, over allegations stemming from before he became prime minister. The interrogation is part of an inquiry, attempting to establish if the prime minister dispensed favours in exchange for funds that he allegedly received illegally from Morris Talansky, a US financier.

Mr Talansky has testified he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in envelopes full of cash to Israel's prime minister, though he said that in return he did not seek or receive any favours.

Some of the money was used for expensive personal items and funds intended as loans were never repaid, he added, while Ehud Olmert has said that the funds were used legally, for election campaigns.

‘Considerable sums’

After Israel’s prime minister was interviewed, a statement was issued by the police and justice ministry, saying that he had also been "asked to give his account about suspicions of serious fraud and other offences".

"According to the suspicions, during his tenure as Jerusalem mayor and trade and industry minister, Olmert would seek duplicate funding for his trips abroad from public bodies, including from the state, with each of them requested to fund the same trip", it added.

And after the travel expenses were paid, police suspect that the “considerable sums” that remained were transferred by Mr Olmert to a special account, administered for him by his travel agency.

"These monies were used to finance private trips abroad by Olmert and his family", the police statement said.

Until 2003, Ehud Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem for 10 years. Then for two yeas he served as minister of trade and industry, before succeeding Ariel Sharon as prime minister.

Although he has not responded to the latest allegations and has previously denied all wrongdoing, he said he will resigned if he is indicted.

Original Article

Israel's prime minister has said that the strategy used in last year's war with Lebanon was drawn up months in advance, an Israeli newspaper reports.

According to Haaretz, Ehud Olmert said it was decided at least four months before that any kidnap of Israeli troops on its border would trigger war.

On 12 July 2006 Hezbollah militants seized two Israeli soldiers sparking an all-out assault by Israel's military.

Mr Olmert reportedly made the claim to an inquiry last month.

The Winograd Commission is an Israeli government-appointed commission tasked with investigating last summer's conflict with Lebanon and identifying lessons to be learned from it.

It is expected to release its interim report this month.

Knee-jerk reaction?

Mr Olmert testified before the commission on 1 February. Haaretz did not reveal how it uncovered details of that testimony.

About 1,000 Lebanese, most of them civilians, died in the 34 days of fighting along with 116 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians.

The war began within hours of reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev being captured by Hezbollah in a cross border raid into Israel.

But it ended without Israel achieving its main aim, the release of the two soldiers.

Mr Olmert has borne much of the blame for that failure, with critics accusing him of reacting too hastily with a knee-jerk military strategy which had not been properly thought through.

But if the Haaretz report is correct, Mr Olmert said that in fact the plans had been in place for a long time.

According to the newspaper, Mr Olmert said he held several high-level meetings on the situation in Lebanon - the first on 8 January 2006, just four days after he took over from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in a coma following a massive stroke.

Mr Olmert reportedly told the commission that at a meeting in March he asked whether any plans existed about how Israel should react in the event of one of its soldiers being taken across its northern border.

He is said to have claimed that he looked at the various strategies tabled and decided that a plan, which Haaretz described as "moderate", of air strikes and a limited ground operation would be best.

Polls slump

Mr Olmert is also reported to have said that he believes in the event he acted as his predecessor Mr Sharon, a man with far greater military experience, would have done.

Along with criticism over its handling of the Lebanon crisis, Mr Olmert's government has been beset by a number of political and financial scandals.

In two new opinion polls released in Israel on Thursday the prime minister fared badly.

In one by Israel's Channel 10 television, 72% said they believed Mr Olmert should not continue in office and 57% favoured holding early elections.

And in an opinion poll for the mass-circulation newspaper Yediot Aharonot, just 2% of respondents said that they trusted the current leader.

However, in an interview published on the website of Le Figaro daily on Monday, Assad said he was betting that the next U.S. leader would get more involved in the peace process.

Assad said Syria and Israel were looking for common ground to start face-to-face negotiations, adding that it was vital to find the right country to mediate such talks.

 
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad speaks during an interview with the media in New Delhi June 19, 2008. Bashar is on a five-day state visit to India.(B Mathur/Reuters)

"The most important thing in direct negotiations is who sponsors them," Assad told Le Figaro, saying that the United States had an essential role to play.

"Frankly, we do not think that the current American administration is capable of making peace. It doesn't have either the will or the vision and it only has a few months left," he said.

"When we have established a common foundation (for negotiations) at indirect talks with Israel, perhaps we could give some trump cards to the new administration to make it get more involved," he added.

"We are betting on the next president and his administration. We hope that it will be rather an advantage to have a change of president in the United States," he said.

The next U.S. president will take office next January.

Long-time foes Syria and Israel held a third round of indirect talks in Turkey last week and agreed to hold a fourth round in late July, a Turkish government source told Reuters.

OPENING

In a sign of improving international relations for Syria, Assad is due in Paris this weekend for a summit of European and Mediterranean countries, which will also be attended by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

France's own relations with Syria have been troubled by accusations Damascus has fuelled tensions in Lebanon, but Assad said his trip to Paris showed the mood was changing.

"France has an important international position. This (meeting) is opening a major door on the international stage for us," Assad said. "This is an historic visit for me, an opening towards France and towards Europe."

He said there were plans for him to meet the newly sworn-in Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman, in Paris.

Suleiman was elected in May after Syria helped reach a deal mediated by Qatar to end months of political stalemate between Lebanon's ruling coalition and an opposition alliance led by Hezbollah -- a group backed by Syria and Iran.

Tensions are still high in Lebanon, but Assad indicated he would do nothing to convince Hezbollah to disarm, saying this would only come when there was a broad Middle East peace deal.

He also backed Iran in its stand-off with major powers over its nuclear ambitions, saying he did not think Tehran wanted to build an atomic bomb.

"We are convinced Iran does not have a military nuclear project. We are against the acquisition of nuclear weapons, be it by Iran or any other country in the region, especially Israel," he added.

"It is unacceptable for Israel to have 200 nuclear warheads," Assad said. Israel has never publicly confirmed it has atomic weapons, but is widely assumed to be a nuclear power.

Israel has successfully tested a new defence system designed to intercept rockets fired from southern Lebanon and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, public radio reported on Sunday.

The "Iron Dome" system is expected to be fully operational within a year and will be able to intercept the military-grade Katyusha rockets used by Lebanon's Hezbollah militia and the cruder Qassam rockets favoured by Hamas.

Citing Israeli security officials, public radio said the system would also be effective against mortar fire which has a much smaller window of warning.

In January Prime Minister Ehud Olmert viewed a prototype of the 200-million-dollar (140-million-euro) system, which is being developed under contract by Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer.

Iron Dome is part of a multi-layered defence system aimed at protecting Israel from both short-range missiles fired by militants in Gaza or Lebanon and longer-range missiles in the arsenals of regional foes Iran and Syria.

Since the outbreak of the latest Palestinian uprising in 2000 Israeli communities near the border with the Gaza Strip have come under frequent rocket and mortar attack, leaving them in a constant state of fear.

The attacks have slowed since a truce between Israel and Hamas came into force on June 19, but the fragile Egyptian-brokered agreement has been tested by occasional rockets and mortar rounds fired by smaller armed groups.

Israel also came under sustained attack during its 2006 war with Hezbollah, when more than 4,000 Katyusha rockets were launched at northern Israel in 34 days, sending hundreds of thousands of residents fleeing south.

Before the order was given, Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz said that though it would not be illegal, the proposed demolition could create legal difficulties.

B'Tselem, an Israeli rights group, says it has written to Mr Mazuz, asking him to prevent the demolition of the attacker's home. The group said that such a move would be a collective punishment, making it illegal under international humanitarian law.

Hussam Dwayat, 30, went on the rampage at the wheel of a front-loader vehicle, or bulldozer, killing three people and wounding dozens before security personnel shot him dead.

On Thursday, Ehud Olmert, Israeli prime minister, said that Israel should destroy the homes of "every terrorist from Jerusalem".

"In light of repeated rulings over the years by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that there is a legal objection… to the demolition of houses in Jerusalem, but the move would create considerable legal difficulties", said Mr Mazuz said in his legal opinion.

He warned that, apart from legal challenges in Israeli courts, international condemnation could be drawn by a resumption of the practice of house demolitions.

No prior knowledge

As a consequence, the Attorney-General called for a detailed consideration of the circumstances surrounding each case, by the internal security service, Shin Bet, the army and the justice ministry.

The demolitions of Palestinians' homes, involved in attacks against its citizens, have been abandoned by Israel in February 2005, after its been challenged in Israel's Supreme Court by human rights groups.

Twenty people live in the home of the attacker, in the Sur Bahir area of East Jerusalem, and all insist that they had no prior knowledge of Hussam Dwayat's intentions.

He acted alone, without being connected to any Palestinian militant group, said the Israeli authorities.

"The declared objective of this policy is to harm innocent persons - relatives of suspected perpetrators, who are not accused of any criminal wrongdoing themselves" said rights group B'Tselem in a statement, about the anticipated demolition.

"The demolition of houses is a clear case of collective punishment, which violates the principle that a person is not to be punished for the acts of another. Collective punishment is therefore illegal regardless of its effectiveness."

The group also pointed to the findings of a committee appointed by Moshe Yaalon, a former chief of staff, as finding house demolitions did more harm than good to Israel's security.

Israeli prime minister (photo, from lepost.fr) wants to destroy the home of the driver who rammed a bulldozer into vehicules, killing three Israelis.

Though the state of emergency imposed on Wednesday was lifted the next day, police have reinforced patrols throughout Israel. And at checkpoints in the West Bank, additional precautions were taking by the army, after the attack in the busy Jaffa Road.

Official said that Ehud Olmert is “very worried” that both Wednesday's attack and the shooting of seminary students earlier in March this year had been perpetrated by Palestinians from Arab East Jerusalem.

Police have said they believe that Hussam Dwayat, 30, who drove the bulldozer and was shot after the attack, acted alone, without being connected to any armed Palestinian group.

The demolition issue has been discussed on Thursday, when defence and legal officials met.

‘Not to renew this policy’

But in 2005, after an Israeli committee decided that the demolishing of homes did not dissuaded Palestinian fighters, Israel pledged to the supreme court that it will not demolish the homes of Palestinians involved in attacks on Israelis.

Yet, no formal court order was issued and the committee itself had declared that the practice would be halted.

On Thursday, a letter has been issued to the Israeli government by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation. The document asked the authorities not to renew the policy of demolishing the homes of those involved in such attacks.

Avi Berg, a spokesperson for the group, told Al Jazeera: "The letter was issued in accordance with what we have heard in the media about [Israeli] intention. We stated again that this practice is illegal in accordance with international law.”

"We demanded them not to renew this policy", Avi Berg added.

According to relatives, about 20 people live in the bulldozer (photo, from skynews.com) driver’s family home.

No affiliations

David Chater, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Jerusalem, said: "The papers are headlining the fact that both the prime minister and the defence minister want to look at the possibility of demolishing the home of the attacker because they say he is involved in a terrorist incident."

However, the Israeli intelligence service has found no affiliations between Hussam Dwayat and any Palestinian resistance factions, said David Chater.

"But he did have a criminal record, he spent time in an Israeli prison for rape ... he's also been committed for theft offences.”

"Even his father is quoted as saying that his son had a drug problem. We also know that he had a very short temper."

In the same time, Israel’s vice prime minister has said that, following Wednesday’s attack, he wants Palestinian neighbourhoods excluded from Jerusalem.

On Army Radio, Haim Ramon said that the Arab neighbourhoods were artificially incorporated into Jerusalem and should be ceded to the West Bank.

"They were annexed in 1967 and we call them Jerusalem, even though there is not one Jerusalemite there."

But the wild card in all this are the Israelis, I just can’t convince those guys to back off with the war talk. I called Ehud Olmert last weekend again, but the conversation didn’t go anywhere as usual.

Well, to start off with the Israelis like their stupid little power games. You know when I called somebody, the White House operator always calls and then say: “Hold for the President” and I come on line, it’s efficient, after all, I have a lot of things to do. But the Israelis would rather make me hold on line, so they’d say something dumb like “Please hold for the Prime Minister.” But the White House operators are pros, instead of calling the regular line, they would have the Prime Minister’s cell phone, so they call directly and say something like, hey it’s your nephew Ben, I need some money, just kidding, “Hold for the President.”

Anyway, after the usual power play, I get on line and Olmert is there, and I say, hey listen Ehud. Could you like back down on the provocation and not flex all this muscle on the Iran issue. You know, the Europeans are enacting new sanctions, and both Sarkozy and Merkel are on board trying to contain the Iranians, you guys just aren’t helping with the situation. Chill out, I’ve looked into Ahmadinejad’s soul, well, on TV through his eyes, and let me tell you, he is one smart cookie. Even if he gets nukes, it will never be used against Israel, not even through Hamas or Hezbollah or those other nutjobs. Trust me, this soul thing works and I know the guy. So back off on beating the war drums.

Olmert of course immediately denies this. He has no plans to attack Iran, the exercise is just a normal thing. I cut him off right there, I got company guys in with Mossad, Shin Bet, and the Israeli general staff, cut the BS, I know they have commandos in Iran already, and even guys in the facilities, and the IAF is just waiting on the go word. I tell him again, don’t think about attacking.

Olmert is like, but Mr. President, you don’t live with the threat like we do, Hamas shoot rockets at us every day, even now. And frankly, your track record on looking into somebody’s soul isn’t very good, look at Putin, that isn’t turning out so well. Now he is getting on my nerves. I go, please, Ehud, back off the war talk, and don’t frigging attack Iran, the war shit is gonna drive up the price of oil for no good reason and hurt a lot of good folks. Trust me on this one ok? I got it. Besides, the Iranians know if Israel ever get hit with WMDs, you’re gonna send those nuke tipped Jerichos on their way.

Olmert of course denies this, but Mr. President, I don’t know what you’re talking about. We can only defend ourselves conventionally, we cannot afford to let the Iranians get nuclear weapons, just like we couldn’t let the Iraqis do it. Besides, we need to do this before Obama gets into office. I tell him, hey, do you know that Barack in Hebrew means lightning, Obama will look out for you guys, don’t worry about it.

Olmert tells me, you know, it’s just a name, during the Yom Kippur War, there was a Barak brigade on the Golan Heights, and they mostly got overrun by the Syrians. So, a name means nothing to me. Now, I’m really pissed, this bozo is trying to play me as a fool, he disses one of our leaders, and even worse, he pretends like we didn’t do anything for these guys during the 1973 war. They don’t respect Condi every time she goes over and try to work things out with the Palestinians, we give them billions in aid, and all they do is ask for more.

So, I lay down the law, I tell him to quit screwing around with the situation since it’ll fuck up everything we’re doing on the diplomatic front. Look at how Lebanon turned out, attacking Iran will be like ten times worse. So, I say, if you launch your air strikes, I know you have to either go through Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, may be even the Red Sea. But if you do this, you’re gonna either run into our Air Force or Navy. And you know, the IAF still has just those antiquated F-15s and F-16s. So, you put up your air strike, I know you’re gonna need tanker support, and what happens when oops, all the tankers mysteriously gets shot down by unknown aircraft from beyond visual range. Then your precious IAF is gonna run out of fuel on the way back, they’re all gonna crash in the sea or some frigging desert, and you’ll look like an even bigger idiot than when you attacked Hezbollah to get your soldiers back.

Now Olmert gets rattled, Mr. President, you cannot talk to us this way. We are a sovereign nation, we’ve been your best ally in the region, you cannot dictate to us on what to do, especially when it comes to our national survival, we have a history of blah blah blah, and then he rants on for another ten minutes. I didn’t pay attention since I heard it all before. When Olmert finally quiets down, I tell him, look, you’re riding on Sharon’s coat tails, this is too big for you, don’t screw things up even more than you already have. So, last time, don’t threaten Iran any more and don’t even think about attacking them… ok? BYE… Then I hang up before I had to listen to him rant any more. They never say anything meaningful anyway, but I think I got the message across.

Sometimes, the Israelis are the worst kind of allies we can have…. Why the hell don’t they just trust us, we have been bailing them out since 1946. Now they are just giving fodder for the Iranian nutjobs for no good reason, and driving up oil even more than I wanted to go up. Jeez, think I need to go biking in Crawford this weekend.

Samir Kuntar's family await his return

Families await remains from prisoner exchange with Israel

Two months ago George W. Bush gave a speech in Israel, in which he compared Obama’s call for diplomacy with Iran to Europe’s Nazi appeasement during the buildup to World War II. In other words, we should fight Ahmadinejad now, before they perpetrate a second Holocaust, or something. The mostly Israeli audience cheered for Bush’s eagerness to commit American lives to Zionist interests. One would think a nation so hell bent on other people dying for their causes would be willing to make some sacrifices of their own.

But despite it’s drum-banging when it comes to the extendability of American souls, Israel is freeing live terrorists in exchange for Jewish corpses.

Remember Israel fought a war with Lebanon in 2006, after Hezbollah militants seized two Israeli soldiers? Just hours after Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were captured in the cross-border raid, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert defiantly announced, “We will not give in to extortion, and we will not negotiate with terrorists regarding the lives of Israeli soldiers. That was true yesterday, and it is true today.”

If only Olmert had clarified that it wouldn’t be true tomorrow, many deaths and the public relations quagmire that ensued might have been spared.

With due respect to the seized hostages, I rather agreed with Jerusalem’s initial refusal to barter for human lives. Doing so merely signals to one’s enemies that terrorism is an effective bargaining chip. Today Israel set in motion a deal that implies just that.

Hezbollah returned the remains of the Goldwasser and Regev to Israel. In return, Israel will free Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese militant who was captured in 1979 after taking part in a gruesome attack that left four Israelis dead, including two young children. After slaughtering an Israeli man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, Kuntar smashed the little girl's skull on the beach shore rocks.

Huge crowds, led by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, will greet Kuntar upon his return to Lebanon. As Hezbollah celebrates, Israel will mourn.

The latest agreement with Hezbollah is part of Olmert’s broader new strategy to cut deals with Israel's adversaries, including Syria and militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. But this agreement has rejuvenated debate in Isreal about the war and Olmert’s wishy-washiness in dealing with Israel’s enemies.

This is a WTF Moment. Where are the crowds now that denounce appeasement and cheer sacrifices for some greater cause? What better way to embolden terrorists and encourage further violent acts then to send this new message to militants; not only does terrorism pay, they need not even keep their victims alive!

Israeli historian Tom Segev, author of 1967: Israel, the War and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, has criticized this transaction. “We always say that we will not negotiate with terrorists, but we always do,” Segev said, noting that, “It makes much more sense to exchange dead bodies for dead bodies. But it is an inevitable deal because of the emotional and irrational traditional values which direct many of our beliefs.” Segev adds that the deal “highlights the failures” of the 2006 war in Lebanon.

That war was intended to discipline all of Lebanon for Hezbollah’s violence. Imagine if an entire nation launched an offensive against the U.S. to vindicate the action of Lindy England or the dipshit who threw the puppy off the cliff. Many of us who don’t currently hate the Middle East might become convinced that they were irrational and dangerous. Likewise Israel’s brutal war in 2006 radicalized factions of Lebanon that previously sympathized with Israel—a generation of diplomatic healing undone in a 34-day failed war, in which, ultimately, appeasement became the order of the day anyway.

A mix of Jewish tradition and Israeli culture put tremendous pressure on Olmert to secure the release of the soldiers and hostages, dead or alive.

Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said:

You could see this as a weakness when you're dealing with Hezbollah and Hamas, who cynically exploit the pain, anguish and suffering of the families. But you can also see this as a sign of strength that says something positive about Israel, our society and the value we place upon our people: You don't leave a soldier behind enemy lines.

You could see it that way. That’s been precisely how they’ve seen it for the past three decades. Over that period, McClatchy review found that Israel has released roughly 7,000 prisoners in exchange for the freeing of 19 Israelis and to repatriate the corpses of eight others. Among the freed militants was Hamas spiritual leader Ahmded Yassin, whom Israel agreed to release in 1997 in exchange for two Mossad spies captured when Israel tried, and failed, to kill Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal in Jordan. For the next seven years, Yassin oversaw the Hamas suicide-bombing campaign during the second Palestinian uprising.

McClatchy sums up for us the significance of what has happened here:

If Israel was going to end up cutting a deal with Hezbollah, did 160 Israelis — and more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians — die in vain during the war?

Won't freeing a notorious Lebanese killer as part of the deal encourage Hezbollah and other militant groups to try to capture more Israelis?

Is Israel making hollow promises when it vows never to negotiate with terrorists?

On the last point, as Hezbollah well knew when it captured the soldiers, the answer is yes.

"I mean, aren't you the ones who invented kidnappings in the Middle East?" the diplomat asked the Israeli.

True, Israeli commandos have, in the past, kidnapped Syrian and Egyptian generals from their beds, and Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists from their bases. Mossad agents even captured and smuggled Eichmann from Argentina and Vanunu from Italy.

So what's all the fuss about? Why are we so emotionally vulnerable to kidnappings of our soldiers that the public pressure exerted on the government, via the media, corners the decision-makers and forces their hand in hostage negotiations? Why do we allow the kidnap weapon to be used to such effect against us by our enemies?

Experts on Israeli society point out that the first generations of Israelis were, generally speaking and of necessity, not so connected to their emotions and inner processes. Having to dry swampland and build a nation while simultaneously fighting several wars naturally focused the mind outwards. Killing, dying, kidnapping and being kidnapped were routine affairs. Building the state, elevating its army and institutions was everything. Showing the outside world what Israelis were made of was paramount. There was no time and no need for deep sessions with psychologists, psychotherapists, life-coaches and self-awareness workshops. This changed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, which saw a popular outpouring of grief, and anger at the establishment. That emotional roller coaster fermented and erupted toward the end of the first Lebanon War. Israelis gradually grew less enamored with their leadership, while a new generation grew up with a different psychological makeup than their parents and grandparents. They opened up to their feelings.

The senior Israeli defense official asked by the foreign diplomat why Israelis were so touchy on the latest prisoner deal is a member of the older generation, those born before the 60s and 70s. To him, the Schalit, Goldwasser and Regev kidnappings are a continuation of an old story: Israel's existential battle to survive in a hostile neighborhood, a region where the slightest sign of weakness can lead to catastrophe.

"People today forget that our entire history, we faced war; they forget that they need to bite their lips and fight," he says, agreeing to speak only off the record. He believes the modern Israeli discourse is more akin to reality TV than to reality. There is too much emotion, too much hesitation, too many opinion polls and too little gravitas. A country like Israel cannot be run by people who feel they are contestants on a reality TV show - who have to compete for the adulation of the audience to stay on the show, he says, adding that a nation so easily rocked by kidnappings is in bad shape. This latest episode will end, the senior defense official says, but the season continues.

Does the deal strengthen Hizbullah? Yes. In the eyes of the Arab world, Hizbullah pulled off a major victory: It survived a war against Israel, kept a million Israelis in bomb shelters for a month and got its POWs back, including an important symbol, Samir Kuntar. Israel sent the IDF into Lebanon to retrieve its two kidnapped soldiers and got them back two years after the army withdrew, and through negotiations, not force. In the eyes of the Hizbullah leadership and much of the Arab world, the deal is a victory. And they will make it look like one just in case anyone over there has any doubts. As far as Hizbullah is concerned, the Second Lebanon War account is closed. It is now looking to close the Imad Mughniyeh account.

That it got Israel to agree to release Palestinian prisoners further raises its stock in the Arab world. Through this it strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, further propagating the rise of extremists over moderates in the Middle East. Housing and Construction Minister Ze'ev Boim, voting against the deal, said, "Hamas is watching and taking this swap into account, and the price we will have to pay for Gilad Schalit will be higher. We come out weaker; we strengthen [Hizbullah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, whose image in the Middle East will be boosted. His way will be perceived as the right way."

Boim was only one of three ministers who voted against the deal; the other 22 voted in favor.

Was all the death and destruction wrought on Lebanon during the war worth a deal for four captured fighters, Samir Kuntar and dozens of dead bodies? Nasrallah is not complaining: Hizbullah has been strengthened since the war, it has veto power in the new Lebanese government, and much of the shattered South has been rebuilt or is in the process of reconstruction, with sizable funding from Iran. In the years since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 until the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Hizbullah amassed some 14,000 rockets of various types and ranges. In the two years since the war, they have amassed some 40,000. Some of their rockets can even reach south of Hadera. UN Resolution 1701 is in tatters, and UNIFIL is not a hindrance to Hizbullah's operations.

Does the deal strengthen or weaken Israel? Depends on who you ask. The senior defense official thinks it's a bad deal - it weakens our government system and strengthens "rule by reality TV format," where every decision is based on popularity ratings and media headlines. It shows that only public pressure, lobby groups and media campaigns can get kidnapped soldiers back, and not a steadfast, decisive government.

Will kidnappings continue? Highly likely. Kidnapping and hostage negotiations have proven a successful tool for Hamas and Hizbullah, and there is no reason to believe they will stop now. Will the committee set up by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to draft new policy for prisoner exchanges withstand the first massive public and media pressure to "bring the boys home"? Highly unlikely. Will the next Karnit Goldwasser, God forbid there is one, follow in the footsteps of her highly successful predecessor, who banged on every door, got on every plane, interviewed on every TV station worldwide, just because a committee of retired generals and judges tell her she mustn't? Of course not.

However, Dr. Ronen Hoffman, a lecturer on international relations at the IDC Herzliya and an expert on strategy and negotiations, says that although the latest deal may fall short on the security and diplomacy arenas, Israelis are strengthened by it because it underscores our moral and ethical strength.

"Paradoxically, what is perceived as our weakness is in truth a real strength. We allow ourselves to be vulnerable, and that reminds us that we are a moral and ethical people," Hoffman says.

Bargaining over prisoners is a much more emotional affair than talks over land, demilitarization, water and other national and strategic issues, because real people are involved. The other side, Hizbullah in this case, uses this effect to play with our morale. Hoffman points out that Israelis have become intimately involved with the personalities in this story; we have been following them since day one. Through the press, we have joined the new wife, Karnit Goldwasser, on her quest all over the world. We cried with her on her wedding anniversary, and we saw her first Passover meal without Udi. We have seen and read in-depth interviews with the parents. We rage with Miki Goldwasser.

"Hostage negotiations turn national issues into personal ones. We all feel like we are negotiating for someone in our unit, in our family," Hoffman says. The psychological effects of the personalization of the hostage negotiations cannot be underestimated, Hoffman asserts, adding that Israeli society is getting psychologically stronger.

Polls show that like the cabinet ministers, the majority of Israelis were in favor of the deal, even though Samir Kuntar is thought of in these parts as a despicable animal. The group of soldiers who make up the various "Friends of Schalit, Goldwasser and Regev" associations say it's a good deal. They say that increasingly, army reservists are questioning whether the state would do everything to get them back should they fall into captivity. It's a good deal, these people say, because it sends a signal to reservists that they will not be forgotten, and that encourages reservists to show up when they are called up.

Will it encourage more kidnappings? "Maybe, so what?" they say. "Kidnap the enemy in turn, or make it harder for the enemy to kidnap our soldiers, like the IDF brass should have done in the beginning; but do whatever it takes to get our boys back."

According to all the polls, Israelis believe they can only rely on themselves, and that they only have each other. The polls show Israelis believe the government cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people. If such is the makeup of our society, can we ever negotiate from a position of strength? Does the deal uphold our deep moral commitment not to leave soldiers behind enemy lines, or is that ideal dangerously outdated and out of place in this neighborhood, leaving us open to constant blackmail? The answer is, of course, both.

A foto diz tudo. O cenário é a Paris de ontem. O primeiro-ministro israelense Ehud Olmert, à esquerda da imagem, abraçando calorosamente o presidente do Egito, Hosni Mubarak. No canto direito, o presidente sírio Bashar Assad, de costas para Olmert. Tudo durante o intento da França de criar a Union pour la Méditerranée entre a Europa e países do Oriente Médio e do norte da África - o "Club Med do Sarkozy".

Apesar das anunciadas e comemoradas negociações (indiretas, mediadas pela Turquia) entre Jerusalém e Damasco, o (des)encontro entre os dois em plena Praça da Concórdia, em Paris, mostra a que ritmo anda o diálogo...

Enquanto isso, Olmert disse, no mesmo cenário, posando de mãos dadas com os presidentes Nicolas Sarkozy, da França, e Mahmud Abbas, da Autoridade Palestina, que a paz com os vizinhos sem país nunca esteve tão próxima. Só pode ser piada.

O comentário acontece no momento em que Jerusalém tenta negociar a liberdade do soldado Gilad Shalit, levado pelo Hamas em 2006, e no mesmo momento em que um cessar-fogo capenga não consegue barrar o disparo de mísseis Qassam contra as cidades em torno da Faixa de Gaza. Paz?

Abbas, que sempre parece mais pessimista e pé no chão que Olmert, mediu as palavras antes de completar com o bordão "somos sérios e queremos alcançar a paz".

O comentário de Olmert vem também no momento em que Israel e o Hizballah se preparam para trocar presos e defuntos, amanhã. A cerimônia deve deixar um sabor azedo em Israel, que ainda espera ver os reservistas chegando caminhando, ainda que debilitados, e não em caixões. Do lado libanês, festa. E o temor de que o Hizballah esteja preparando mais um ataque logo depois da troca...

Em Israel a impressão é a de que quanto mais perto de um indiciamento pela polícia, mais perto Olmert parece acreditar estar da paz com os vizinhos - com os palestinos, com os libaneses ou com os sírios, apesar de nem ter trocado olhares (nem falar de apertos de mãos, claro) com Assad.

Assad, aliás, foi categórico em uma entrevista dada à televisão francesa: "não estamos procurando símbolos". Ele e Olmert nunca estiveram tão próximos e tão distantes. Talvez não tenham se dado conta de que a foto que mostra a frieza entre eles é um símbolo mais forte do que um aperto de mãos poderia ser.

(Dica do Me tire deste ócio)

According to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert peace with the Palestinians is closer than ever.   And it was announced that the U.S. might be able to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq quicker and sooner that it was previously thought possible.

Hmmmmm.....

I'm sure it's all a coincidence as I'm not a conspiracy theory kinda guy ('cept in the case of JFK's assassination to be fair).  But, it is interesting timing!

The Israeli Prime Minister is best described these days as embattled.  A corruption scandal is seriously threatening his political viability.  What better way to ensure a positive legacy and maybe save your office than by brokering a peace accord?  I can't think of any, but give me some time!

In the good ol' USA, we now hear troops might start coming home in a drawdown beginning in September.  September, as most of you will know, is only two months before the general election.  A general election in which both candidates staked a lot on the situation in Iraq.  Of course, the party currently in power probably has a lot more to benefit from the public feeling that the situation in Iraq is getting better.  Just saying...

Am I cynical?  No more than most these days.

But then, I'll take good news where ever I can get it.

Most experts can't make a prediction one way or the other. In an article entitled, "Iran's confrontation with the West" in this week's Economist, the editors waver between war and a resolution. It is possible that the US (and other nations including, of course, Israel) will go to war with Iran. It is also highly likely that all nations involved are actively searching for a way to prevent an escalation to war.

Earlier today Iran decided to test nine-missiles which have the potential to reach targets in the Middle East including Israel and as far as Egypt. These tests were allegedly in response to tests that Israel has been conducting for future retaliation against Iran if they continue to enrich uranium. The latest "aggression" by Iran is what sparked concerns that a global war against Iran is very near.

Despite the varying viewpoints and conversations, I cannot get my mind around the fact that the US would be involved in bombing Iran. Perhaps the bombing of nuclear facilities, which is reasonable, but any mistakes or bombing of any other targets would be inappropriate and set-off a catastrophe harsher than higher gas prices (which is what most people are concerned about.) If Iran is backed into a corner and "physically violated" then I see no reason why Iran wouldn't, and shouldn't, retaliate against Israel.

The coming days and weeks will solidify the West's position towards Iran, and it will either solidify the power and importance of diplomacy, or it will prove that Western nations are just as barbaric, aggressive, and extreme as the Middle Eastern and developing nations they patronize on a daily basis.