Obama Embroiled in Financing Controversy
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/396025.aspx
CBNNews.com - Senator Barack Obama is facing criticism for bypassing public funds.
His decision is a reversal from several months ago, when he wrote "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Obama re-iterated that stance several times.
"I have promised I will sit down with John McCain and talk about 'can we preserve a public system,' Obama said.
Now Obama claims the entire public financing system is broken.
By opting out, he'll not be limited to what he can spend in the upcoming campaign.
That gives him at a significant advantage, because Obama has broken fundraising records.
Senator John McCain has long championed campaign-finance reform. He's not pleased with Obama's about-face.
"This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's also whether you can take people's word," McCain said.
McCain says he will take public funds and he says he's not worried about being outspent during the campaign.
McCain Criticizes Obama's Opposition to NAFTA
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_obama_nafta/2008/06/20/106298.html
OTTAWA - In a cross-border political attack, John McCain said Friday that Barack Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement is "nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls."
The Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting added that if he wins the White House, "have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments — and we will expect the same of others."
McCain did not mention Obama by name as he spoke before the Economic Club of Canada, a business organization whose membership cheered his remarks.
His trip to Canada was unusual if not unprecedented for a presidential candidate, one that his campaign paid for yet aides insisted was not political.
Democrats criticized plans for a scheduled $100-per-person "finance event," and raised questions about U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins' involvement in the trip. McCain's aides said Wilkins had done nothing wrong. They also countered that the money was to pay the cost of the Economic Club luncheon — then canceled the event without explanation.
The free trade agreement is intensely controversial in the United States — supported by most businesses, opposed by many unions — and has already emerged as a flashpoint in the presidential race.
McCain supports it, while Obama and former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton vied for support among blue-collar workers in the Democratic primaries by stressing their desire to force changes.
"Since NAFTA was concluded, it has contributed to strong job growth and flourishing trade. Since the agreement was signed, the United States has added 25 million jobs and Canada more than 4 million," McCain said.
In an unmistakable reference to Obama, he added, "Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls."
Aides said that was a reference in part to comments the Illinois senator had made in a Feb. 26 debate during the primaries.
"I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about," he said at the time. "... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."
In his speech, McCain expressed his appreciation for Canada's deployment of 2,500 troops to Afghanistan, and skipped lightly over Iraq, where the government declined to send forces.
"... This nation has done all that those differences would allow to help the Iraqi people. In characteristic form, Canada has given generous humanitarian aid and development assistance," he said.
Later, at a news conference, he said he hoped officials from the two countries could resolve the issue of Omar Khadr, a young Canadian citizen who is imprisoned at Guantanamo as a detainee in the war on terror.
"I have always opposed torture and any interrogation technique that would be constructed in any way as torture," McCain added, unprompted.
McCain has made several trips outside the United States since he became a presidential contender, including European and Middle Eastern countries.
He arrived in the Canadian capital aboard his chartered campaign jet and was greeted on the tarmac by Wilkins. The senator said it was not a political journey, yet told reporters he did not feel it was appropriate to have U.S. taxpayers pick up the cost.
McCain was still on Canadian soil when the Democratic National Committee filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department seeking information about possible violations of federal law in connection with the trip. Under the law, federal officials are limited in their ability to undertake political activity.
Aides said in advance McCain would come to Canada to highlight trade, and there has been widespread speculation that he will soon travel to Mexico and perhaps elsewhere to make the same point as he made before his lunchtime audience.
"Last year alone, we exchanged some $560 billion in goods, and Canada is the leading export market for 36 of the 50 United States," the Arizona senator said.
"This country stands as America's leading overall export market, and America is Canada's leading agricultural market. With 60 percent of all direct foreign investment in Canada originating in the United States — some $289 billion in 2007 — our economies draw strength from one another."
He also said improvements are needed.
"Complying with NAFTA's rules of origin can be cumbersome and costly. Border delays can pose a serious impediment to trade, the equivalent of a tariff," he said.
Iraq: Rethinking 'What Happened'
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/393578.aspx
CBNNews.com - With reports of the situation on the ground improving in Iraq, the reasons America went to war is back in the news two behind-the-scenes books by former top Bush advisors.
As the Presidents White House Press Secretary for three years, Scott McClellan publicly defended the war, telling White House press corps on record,
"It was the right decision to confront what was a grave and growing threat in Saddam Hussein," he once said. Since leaving the White House, McClellan has changed his mind and now calls it a strategic blunder.
In his memoir "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," McClellan joins critics who say that Bush was bent on war.
"The President is someone who just got caught up in the way the game is played in Washington," McClellan said. Stopping short of calling the President a liar, McClellan says Bush signed off on a "less-than-honest strategy" to manipulate public opinion and politicize pre-war intelligence in a reckless rush to war.
"Instead of looking at the hard truths and explaining it to the American people about what to expect with war, we got caught up in this whole mentality in selling the war to the American people," McClellan told ABC News. "And, yes, in itself it becomes a game played on spin, a game played on obfuscation and secrecy."
A Different, Inside Story
But one of the Pentagon's architects of the Iraq war calls McClellan's charges "fluff. based on unsubstantiated opinion."
"A lot of what the public thinks it knows, based on all of the books and major articles that have come out on the Iraq war, are mainly wrong," Former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith says.
From 2001-2005, Feith served under Defense Secrectary Donald Rumsfeld, advising him on policy and war strategy. Feith disputes conventional wisdom about the rationale for going to war, which as many believe, was to establish democracy or just find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"The reason to go to war was to remove the threat," Feith argues. "And I think it would have been much better had the President remained clear on that point, so that critics of the war could not say you've accomplished nothing if you failed to reach extremely high standards of a stable democracy, which I don't believe will be achieved for some time yet."
In his book 'War and Decision," Feith uses previously unpublished documents and notes of meetings he attended with the Bush national security the to lay out his insider account of the Administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein.
From before 9/11 and throughout the war, Feith attended strategy meetings with all the key players -- President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, General Richard Myers, and CIA Director George Tenet.
In his book, McClellan writes that those players -- with the exception of Secretary of State Powell -- failed to advise Bush on the the costs of war. He says that had the President known, he would not have invaded Iraq.
Deciding the Greater Risk
Feith believes the President made the right decision on Iraq. And from his former view as the Pentagon's Number 3, he insists Bush did weigh the risks. He says it was Rumsfeld, not Powell, who warned Bush of possible worst case scenarios of war in an October 2002 memo called the "Parade of Horribles."
The memo warned "that the war could be costlier and bloodier and more protracted than anybody had hoped. That if we get bogged down there, it could hurt our efforts in other areas. That our enemies would take advantage of our pre-occupation."
Feith says Rumsfeld even warned "we might not find WMD and our credibility would be destroyed."
Once Rumsfeld put the memo together with his team, Feith says Rumsfeld "carried it over the to the White House, sat down with the President and the National Security Council, and walked them thru every item."
Feith says Bush decided the risk of inaction and of leaving Saddam in power posed a greater threat to the country.
He says the rationale for the war was WMD in addition to a number of other factors - it was not WMD alone.
"The nature of the threat was weapons of mass destruction. It was the record of Saddam in supporting terrorism," Feith says. "It was the record of Sadaam in launching aggressions like the Iran-Iraq war. The invasion of Kuwait. And it was the general way that he operated in hostility to us, in defiance of the 16 UN Security Council resolutions that had been developed since the Gulf War."
"He was a very dangerous aggressive and hostile guy," he said. "If we had left him in power, and the things we were worried about had materialized, how would the government be able to explain to the American people why it had sat back and allowed those threats to materialize?"
Feith says the President faced difficult tradeoffs in making the decision for war.
"I do believe the President made the right decision. Based on everything we knew then, and everything we know now, it would have been extremely hard for the President to leave Saddam Hussein in power, given what we knew about Sadaam's background, his hostility to us, his record of aggression, his record of support for various terrorist groups, and his pursuit and even use of WMD," Feith says.
"So the president faced a very difficult decision, and I think he made the right decision. Now the war in Iraq has not gone as well and anyone had hoped, but the President has to look at this from the point of view of which set of risks did he want to subject the country to -- the risks of leaving Saddam in power, and then having to confront him later down the road under what he believed would be even less advantageous circumstances."
In Good Faith
"I had concerns, like a lot of people," McClellan told ABC News, "that we're rushing into this. But, uh, that wasn't my focus area, and I gave it the benefit of the doubt because I have great affection for the President, I trusted in his judgment. And in that instance, I think that my trust was misplaced."
As do many who cite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Feith takes issue with a prevailing perception that "Bush lied,and people died." He says the White House acted in good faith while relying on bad intelligence about WMD, and says another mistake was not doing more to convince Americans that the war in Iraq was worthwhile.
"We did not find the WMD stockpiles the CIA said we would. We did find that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons programs, that he had the facilities, that he had the intention to have WMD, that he maintained the personnel. He maintained materiel, and he maintained the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in three to five weeks," Feith said.
Feith has also been the focus of critics who blame the Administration for bungling post-war planning in Iraq, resulting in a protracted U.S. occupation, many say, damaged U.S. credibility worldwide.
Feith blames internal Administration disputes for that, saying it was the State Department that blocked the Pentagon's push for a rapid transition of power.
"A plan that was actually well-conceived," Feith says, "that was based on the idea that we'd put Iraqis in charge of their own country quickly after the removal of Saddam, wound up getting undone through a series of miscommunications, and misunderstandings, and interagency debates."
Feith says there were debates among departments about the proper way to proceed.
"I think that people in the State Department and CIA had one view," he said. "People in the Defense Department and the leadership tended to have a different view. I think that our view was better."
Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control
http://www.newsmax.com/us/out_of_control/2008/06/21/106474.html
WASHINGTON -- Is everything spinning out of control?
Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year's presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order _ and hope. Republican John McCain promises an experienced hand in a frightening time. Democrat Barack Obama promises bright and shiny change, and his large crowds believe his exhortation, "Yes, we can."
Even so, a battered public seems discouraged by the onslaught of dispiriting things. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll says a barrel-scraping 17 percent of people surveyed believe the country is moving in the right direction. That is the lowest reading since the survey began in 2003.
An ABC News-Washington Post survey put that figure at 14 percent, tying the low in more than three decades of taking soundings on the national mood.
"It is pretty scary," said Charles Truxal, 64, a retired corporate manager in Rochester, Minn. "People are thinking things are going to get better, and they haven't been. And then you go hide in your basement because tornadoes are coming through. If you think about things, you have very little power to make it change."
Recent natural disasters around the world dwarf anything afflicting the U.S. Consider that more than 69,000 people died in the China earthquake, and that 78,000 were killed and 56,000 missing from the Myanmar cyclone.
Americans need do no more than check the weather, look in their wallets or turn on the news for their daily reality check on a world gone haywire.
Floods engulf Midwestern river towns. Is it global warming, the gradual degradation of a planet's weather that man seems powerless to stop or just a freakish late-spring deluge?
It hardly matters to those in the path. Just ask the people of New Orleans who survived Hurricane Katrina. They are living in a city where, 1,000 days after the storm, entire neighborhoods remain abandoned, a national embarrassment that evokes disbelief from visitors.
Food is becoming scarcer and more expensive on a worldwide scale, due to increased consumption in growing countries such as China and India and rising fuel costs. That can-do solution to energy needs _ turning corn into fuel _ is sapping fields of plenty once devoted to crops that people need to eat. Shortages have sparked riots. In the U.S., rice prices tripled and some stores rationed the staple.
Residents of the nation's capital and its suburbs repeatedly lose power for extended periods as mere thunderstorms rumble through. In California, leaders warn people to use less water in the unrelenting drought.
Want to get away from it all? The weak U.S. dollar makes travel abroad forbiddingly expensive. To add insult to injury, some airlines now charge to check luggage.
Want to escape on the couch? A writers' strike halted favorite TV shows for half a season. The newspaper on the table may soon be a relic of the Internet age. Just as video stores are falling by the wayside as people get their movies online or in the mail.
But there's always sports, right?
The moorings seem to be coming loose here, too.
Baseball stars Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens stand accused of enhancing their heroics with drugs. Basketball referees are suspected of cheating.
Stay tuned for less than pristine tales from the drug-addled Tour de France and who knows what from the Summer Olympics.
It's not the first time Americans have felt a loss of control.
Alger, the dime-novel author whose heroes overcame adversity to gain riches and fame, played to similar anxieties when the U.S. was becoming an industrial society in the late 1800s.
American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s.
"All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."
Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.
This period has seen intense interest in the presidential primaries, especially the Democrats' five-month duel between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Records were shattered by voters showing up at polling places, yearning for a voice in who will next guide the country as it confronts the uncontrollable.
Never mind that their views of their current leaders are near rock bottom, reflecting a frustration with Washington's inability to solve anything. President Bush barely gets the approval of three in 10 people, and it's even worse for the Democratic-led Congress.
Why the vulnerability? After all, this is the 21st century, not a more primitive past when little in life was assured. Surely people know how to fix problems now.
Maybe. And maybe this is what the 21st century will be about _ a great unraveling of some things long taken for granted.
Czechs pose new threat to troubled EU treaty
http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200806216870/international/czechs-pose-new-threat-to-troubled-eu-treaty.html
BRUSSELS, Fri Jun 20, (bdnews24.com/Reuters) - The Czech Republic posed a new danger on Friday to the European Union's troubled reform treaty, threatening to block a joint call at an EU summit for continued ratification despite Ireland's "No" vote, diplomats said.
EU leaders were set to agree on a review in October of the impasse caused by Ireland's referendum rejection of the EU reform treaty, a draft final summit statement obtained by Reuters showed.
But owing to Czech opposition, the draft stopped short of explicitly urging other countries to continue ratifying the Lisbon treaty, saying only: "The European Council noted that 19 member states have ratified the treaty and that the ratification process continues in other countries."
The Irish vote eight days ago threw the 27-member EU into disarray, since ratification requires unanimity, and raised questions about plans for further enlargement of the bloc.
"The European Council agreed that more time was needed to analyze the situation" and accepted Dublin's suggestion to return to the issue at its next regular summit in October, the draft statement added.
However, a European Commission official said: "It looks bad if we can't even agree to call for ratification to continue. It looks like contagion."
Different shades of opinion emerged within the Czech government's own position as Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, an independent backed by pro-EU forces, said he still thought his country would endorse the text by year-end.
But the Czech Senate has stalled its ratification to await a constitutional court ruling and Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek -- seen as less keen on the treaty -- said on Thursday: "If the vote was today, I would not bet 100 crowns on the outcome."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who is chairing the summit, had breakfast with Topolanek to seek a solution.
Many countries were keen to add a firmer commitment to ratification to counter any impression the treaty is dead.
Delays in the Czech Republic and Poland have cast further doubt on its fate, but Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his country was no longer a trouble-maker in Europe.
CITIZENS' CONCERNS
French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a midnight news conference after the first day of the summit: "There is particular difficulty with our Czech friends. I hope we will be able to lift it by tomorrow morning."
He said all sides wanted to confine the problem to Ireland.
The treaty would give EU leaders a long-term president, a stronger foreign policy chief with a real diplomatic service, a more democratic decision-making system and more say for the European and national parliaments.
Sarkozy insisted that without the Lisbon treaty, meant to overhaul the EU's creaking institutions, there could be no further enlargement of the Union -- a view contradicted by Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who chaired the summit.
Options mooted to resolve the crisis have included offering assurances to the Irish that the Lisbon Treaty will not undermine their cherished neutrality, deprive them of a commissioner in Brussels, make abortions easier or raise taxes -- and then asking them to vote again, as happened once before over an earlier EU treaty.
Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin sought to dampen expectations of an early solution to reverse his country's vote.
"That Council in October is an opportunity to make a progress report, but we would not anticipate that there would be solutions on the table in October," he told reporters.
Sarkozy, who takes on the bloc's rotating presidency from July 1, said he would visit Ireland next month to try to come up with a way forward.
Determined to show voters the EU is not paralyzed and is addressing citizens' key concerns, the bloc's leaders will ask the European Commission to study the feasibility of tax measures to ease the pain of soaring oil prices and report back in October, the draft summit statement showed.
"The European Council invites the Commission to examine the feasibility of taxation measures to smooth the impact of sudden oil price increases and report before the October European Council (summit)," the draft said.
It underlined that distortionary fiscal and policy interventions should be avoided as they prevent necessary adjustment to higher energy prices by businesses and consumers.
EU officials stressed that agreement to study proposals such as Sarkozy's idea of capping value-added tax on fuel or an Austrian call for a tax on commodity speculation did not mean they would recommend the measures widely criticized by others.
Sarkozy as Mideast peace broker?
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/sarkozy_as_mideast_peace_broker_20080620/
PARIS (JTA)—French President Nicolas Sarkozy is slated to be the first French president since Francois Mitterrand to speak at the Knesset in a much-anticipated visit to the Jewish state next week.
Just weeks ahead of the June 22-24 visit, Sarkozy met with Hezbollah and other Lebanese political leaders in Beirut following the election of a new president in Lebanon. He then extended an enthusiastic invitation to Syrian President Bashar Assad to join the Bastille Day parade July 14 following a Mediterranean Union summit in Paris.
The French Jewish umbrella group CRIF “deplored” the president’s eagerness to reach out to Syrian and Lebanese supporters of terrorism, French politicians questioned his judgment and the Lebanese Druze leader, Walid Joumblatt, called the Bastille Day invite a “shame for the French people.”
Yet amid Sarkozy’s seemingly contradictory gestures and diplomatic surprises, one clear trend is emerging: The French president is seeking to position himself as a broker in the ever-elusive quest for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
His position was bolstered this week when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in an interview in the French daily le Figaro, raised speculation about a direct meeting with Assad on the sidelines of the upcoming Paris summit. Assad immediately rejected the suggestion, saying such a meeting was premature.
Olmert also suggested that Israel should open direct talks with Lebanon, a position that Sarkozy presumably would be in a good position to help advance.
While they may disagree over specific policy moves, both Israeli and French Jewish officials—at least publicly—are applauding Sarkozy’s efforts at peacemaking.
“Sarkozy never claimed that being friends with Israel meant turning his back on the Arabs,” said Daniel Shek, Israel’s ambassador to France. “On the contrary, for Israel to have trustworthy friends in the Arab world is an asset because it is people like that who can serve as bridges between Israel and the Arab world.”
Olmert, in his le Figaro interview on the eve of Sarkozy’s visit to Israel, said the relationship with France “is better than it has been over the past years” and there is “a strong potential for even better relations based on my friendship with M. Sarkozy and our shared views.”
He also cited previous remarks by Sarkozy that “Israel was the miracle of the 20th century. That is something that we’ll never forget, and his words will remain in the hearts of Jews and Israelis.”
Indeed, Shek said Sarkozy’s visit would highlight the intimate friendship between Israel and France since Sarkozy’s presidential term began one year ago.
“The first semester of 2008 will certainly go into history as one of the most spectacular for Israel’s image in France,” the ambassador said. “There might be question marks in the minds of some people, but from an Israeli point of view, when we have questions, we ask them and we usually get a satisfactory answer.”
One outcome of Sarkozy’s recent initiatives is that Israel and Syria “may find themselves in the same space, which is in itself a significant thing,” Shek said, referring to the Mediterranean Union summit July 13.
The meeting is expected to launch discussions on how to strengthen cultural, economic and environmental bonds among countries that rim the Mediterranean Sea.
Israel and Syria concluded a second round of Turkish-mediated indirect peace talks this week and reportedly agreed to continue the negotiations in July to determine the fate of the Golan Heights.
Israeli officials have said that any peace deal with Syria would require Damascus to distance itself from Iran and sever ties with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Both Syria and Iran support both groups.
Speaking of Syria and the Mediterranean Union project, Olmert said in the le Figaro interview, “Any mechanisms that can bring countries together that normally do not cooperate are a step in the right direction.
“When we have reached an understanding with Syria on the specific agenda and on the points that we will discuss, it will be time to start direct contacts,” he said. “We’re not far from them. If both parties are serious, we should sit around one table to talk soon.”
Assad, however, appeared to reject any imminent meeting.
“This is not like drinking tea,” he was quoted as saying during a visit to India. “The meeting between me and the Israeli prime minister will be meaningless without the technocrats laying the foundation, without reaching the final stage.”
For Sarkozy, the opportunity to play host and broker in the region is appealing.
France, which once boasted strong ties to Syria and Lebanon, distanced itself from Syria in 2005 following the regime’s suspected role in assassinating the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.
A French presidential spokesman said that while Syria was invited to participate in the Mediterranean summit to focus on issues such as the environment, water and energy, Mideast peace is on the French mind as well.
The invitation “is also accompanied by the role that France can play as a possible facilitator in the region,” said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified.
The Mediterranean Union summit will take place before France’s independence day, and Assad’s presence at the summit alone would have caused less of a stir than his presence at the country’s birthday celebration. Yet analysts say the president shocked the nation by extending the invitation to the following day, a gesture typical of Sarkozy’s political nature.
“The July 14th invitation is scandalous,” said Bernard Hourcade, Middle East analyst for the National Center for Scientific Research. “But Sarkozy hopes that scandal will have a positive outcome.”
France’s traditional cultural and economic ties with the Middle East, and its willingness to dialogue with nations cut off from the United States, bolsters its ability to negotiate peace deals in the region, Hourcade said.
“France tries to hold talks with countries like Syria, which the U.S. can’t do, because it doesn’t have the cultural links that France has,” he said. “So France would like to be an intermediary between a firm U.S. style and a European one that is less pragmatic.”
Prime Minister Francois Fillon, speaking on France 2 TV network, said that no one should be shocked by Sarkozy’s outreach to Syria.
“Syria kept its promises in the Lebanese conflict,” he said. “What should be shocking is that we don’t try anything to try to create conditions for peace in the Middle East and in the Mediterranean.”
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner went further, saying Tuesday at the National Assembly, “We rejoice that the Syrians are speaking to the Israelis.”
If Assad and Olmert want to talk directly at the upcoming Mediterranean summit in July, Kouchner said, “It will be possible to do so if they wish.”
Emmanuel Weintraub, a CRIF board member, played down his group’s denunciation of the invitation to Assad, saying it “was not a tragedy.”
Speaking more generally of Sarkozy, Weintraub said, “I don’t think there is any confusion, except that he does things very quickly. He’s like our fast trains—he moves very quickly, and sometimes things happen and you’re unaware.”
While the Paris outreach to Syria is out of step with America’s, both Sarkozy and President Bush during the U.S. leader’s visit to Paris last week reiterated their shared commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
“It is an unacceptable threat to world stability, especially due to the current Iranian president’s repeated statements,” Sarkozy said at the presidential palace.
“Iran is one of the issues where Israel and France really see eye to eye,” said Shek, the Israeli ambassador. He added that the topic would be on the agenda during Sarkozy’s visit to Israel.
Sarkozy currently has no plans to visit any other countries during his visit to the region, his office said, but he is expected to visit Bethlehem in the West Bank.
Analysts suggested the biggest gap between Israel and France centered around Hezbollah. France, like the European Union, does not recognize the Syrian-backed group as a terrorist organization, while the United States and Israel do.
Indeed, the presidential spokesman said that France shares the E.U. view that Hezbollah is a “component of Lebanese political leadership.”
Shek also cited Hezbollah as a main area of disagreement.
“We don’t believe Hezbollah should be recognized at any official level,” he said. “Sure, Hezbollah is an important component in Lebanese towns, but it’s also a component that shoots rockets at Israel.”
Messianic Jews Say They Are Persecuted in Israel
http://www.newsmax.com/international/israel_missionaries/2008/06/21/106491.html
TEL AVIV, Israel -- Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. The explosion severed two toes, damaged his hearing and harmed a promising basketball career.
Police say they are still searching for the assailants. But to the Ortiz family the motive of the attackers is clear: The Ortizes are Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
Israel's tiny community of Messianic Jews, a mixed group of 10,000 people who include the California-based Jews for Jesus, complains of threats, harassment and police indifference.
The March 20 bombing was the worst incident so far. In October, a mysterious fire damaged a Jerusalem church used by Messianic Jews, and last month ultra-Orthodox Jews torched a stack of Christian holy books distributed by missionaries.
Israel's Foreign Ministry and two chief rabbis were quick to condemn the burning, but the Ortiz family says vigorous police action is needed.
"I believe that it will happen again, if not to us, then to other Messianic believers," said Ami's mother, Leah Ortiz, a 54-year-old native of South Orange, N.J.
Proselytizing is strongly discouraged in Israel, a state that was established for a people that suffered centuries of persecution for not accepting Jesus and has little tolerance for missionary work.
At the same time, Israel has warm relations with U.S. evangelical groups, which strongly support its cause, but these generally refrain from proselytizing inside Israel. Even the Mormon church, which has mission work at its core worldwide, agreed when it opened a campus in Jerusalem to refrain from missionary activity.
"Historically the core of Christianity ... was 'convert or die,' so it was seen and is still seen as an assault on Jewish existence itself," said Rabbi David Rosen, who oversees interfaith affairs for the American Jewish Committee. "When you are called to join another religion, you are being called on to betray your people."
Messianic Jews consider themselves Jewish, observing the holy days and reciting many of the same prayers. The Ortiz family lights candles on the Jewish Sabbath, shuns pork and eats matzoth on Passover.
Ami Ortiz, interviewed at the Tel Aviv hospital where he is being treated, comes across as no different from any Jewish Israeli his age. He's a sabra, or native-born Israeli, who speaks English with a Hebrew accent, has an older brother in an elite Israeli army unit and was hoping to join the youth squad of Maccabi Tel Aviv, a league-topping basketball team.
But his religion also holds that one can embrace Jesus _ Ami calls him by his Hebrew name, Yeshua _ as the Messiah and remain Jewish. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, believe that the Messiah has yet to come, that he will do so only when he chooses, and that any attempt to pre-empt his coming is a grievous sin.
Rabbi Sholom Dov Lifschitz, head of the ultra-Orthodox Yad Leahim organization that campaigns against missionary activity in Israel, says Messianic Jews give him "great pain."
"They are provoking ... it's a miracle that worse things don't happen," he said.
Messianic activists appear to have had some success among couples with one non-Jewish spouse, as well as immigrants from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union who have loose ties to Judaism.
Or Yehuda, a town in central Israel with many immigrants as well as ultra-Orthodox Jews including a deputy mayor, Uri Aharon, was the scene of the May 15 book-burning.
Ami Dahan, a local police official, says hundreds of Christian religious books were burned on May 15 in an empty lot in town. He said Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon, has been questioned on suspicion that he instructed youths to collect the books from homes where they had been distributed and told them to burn them.
Aharon denies ordering the burning. He says the books were collected from a neighborhood of mostly Ethiopian immigrants who are easily persuaded by missionaries.
"There are three missionaries who live and work in the town, and every Saturday they take people to worship and try to brainwash them," Aharon said.
Many Messianic Jews say they recognize the sensitivities involved and do not distribute religious material or conduct high-profile campaigns. But Aharon noted a recent "Jews for Jesus" campaign with signs on buses that equated two similar Hebrew words _ "Jesus" and "salvation." Public outrage quickly forced the bus company to remove the signs.
Lawyer Dan Yakir of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel says the law allows missionaries to preach provided they don't offer gifts or money or go after minors.
"It is their right according to freedom of religion to maintain their religious lifestyle and disseminate their beliefs, including through literature," he said.
But the obstacles are evident, raised not just from religious activists but by the state.
Calev Myers, a lawyer who represents Messianic Jews, said he has fought 200 legal cases in the past two years. Most involve authorities' attempts to close down houses of worship, revoke the citizenship of believers or refuse to register their children as Israelis. In one case, Israel has accused a German religion student of missionary activity and has tried _ so far unsuccessfully _ to deport her.
In incidents of violence, police are reluctant to press charges, Myers said.
The book-burning caused shock among U.S. evangelicals.
Dave Parsons, spokesman of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, which represents evangelical Christian communities, said the test would be how vigorously authorities pursued the case.
"We believe there is a link to a series of incidents here in the land that involve harassment, intimidation and physical violence," he said.
The Ortiz family moved from the United States to Israel in 1985, qualifying as immigrants under Israel's Law of Return because Leah, the mother, is Jewish. In 1989 they moved into Ariel, a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, and established a small Messianic group which now numbers 60, most of them immigrants from the former Soviet Union, according to David Ortiz, the pastor and Ami's father.
He said that he built the community through conversations with friends and neighbors, but did not actually go door-to-door distributing religious material to strangers in the traditional sense of missionary work. David Ortiz says he has also proselytized in the Palestinian areas _ prompting Islamic leaders there to warn against contact with him. Ortiz said he had "no problem" if Messianic Jews discuss their religious views with others and persuade them to believe in Jesus.
When the family began holding study sessions, a rabbi warned Ortiz not to speak about Jesus outside the home.
In 2005, fliers were distributed in Ariel warning that there were believers of Jesus in the community. One day, two men wearing the black skullcaps of Orthodox Jews knocked on the door and photographed Ortiz when he answered. Recently the photo turned up on a flier with the family's address.
When the basket was left at the door Ami wasn't surprised, since it was Purim, a holiday when Jews exchange gifts.
"I opened it up and I heard it and then I was on the floor and I didn't hear anything, I didn't see anything," the lanky boy recalls.
Ami was in critical condition, with severe gashes in his legs and feet and one that just missed his jugular vein. His tryout for the Maccabi team was canceled.
His family initially suspected Palestinians; Ariel is in the heart of the West Bank and surrounded by Palestinian towns and villages and, like most Jewish settlements, has been the target of Palestinian attacks. But police immediately told him the bomb was more sophisticated than those made by Palestinians since it contained plastic explosives.
"Nobody ever suspected that a Jewish group would do such a thing, that they would put a bomb in somebody else's house," David Ortiz said.
Police have since told the family that Palestinians were not behind the bombing. The family has footage from a security camera of a man delivering the package, according to a person close to the family who spoke on condition of anonymity because police say disclosing details could harm the investigation.
Police spokesman Danny Poleg would not discuss the case, saying only that no arrests have been made.
Meanwhile, the Messianic Jewish believers are taking no chances. These days they worship under the protection of an armed guard.
Captured Israeli soldier’s family petitions High Court against government
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5366
The petition labeled Cpl Gilead Shalit versus the state calls on the government to explain why the lifting of the blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip should not be contingent on the soldier’s release. The High Court is asked to demand that the government account for failing to stipulate his release be a condition for confirming the the Gaza truce which went into effect Thursday, June 19.
The petitioners’ attorneys argue that the government’s truce decision is invalid because it was not endorsed by the ministerial national security cabinet. They demand that the reopening of the first Gaza crossings Sunday, June 22, for 30 percent of goods, be delayed until the exchange of prisoners for Shalit is carried out.
His last letter from prison was attached to the petition.
Under the truce deal, the crossings will be opened in stages in accordance with Hamas’ compliance with the ceasefire. Noam Shalit, the soldier’s father, claims that once the crossings are open, Israel will have lost a major bargaining chip for his release and Hamas will be able to spirit him out of Gaza to an unknown destination.
Hamas demands 450 jailed Palestinians in return for the Israeli soldier. The list is disputed by some Israeli ministers, who object to letting loose Palestinian terrorists jailed for murderous attacks.
Israel's peace efforts widen
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-peacepush21-2008jun21,0,3835760.story
JERUSALEM -- The tentative truce between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip is just part of a larger effort by the Jewish state to reach out to longtime adversaries. In the process, it confronts a number of difficult, domestically unpopular negotiating options.
One key issue faced by Israeli diplomats is both straightforward and highly sensitive. Syria wants the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, returned in exchange for peace.
Analysts believe that giving up the Golan Heights, regarded by Israelis as a beloved vacation spot and a crucial strategic asset, could fundamentally alter the regional equation.
The change, they say, could result in less Iranian influence over Syria; less animosity between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which receives support from Syria and Iran; and a stronger peace agreement with Hamas, whose senior leadership mostly lives in Damascus, the Syrian capital.
"It's a move to break the Damascus-Tehran-Hezbollah front, and Syria is the weakest part of that chain," said Anat Kurz, director of research at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.
Israeli diplomats also continue to conduct direct talks with the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, though little progress has been seen in recent months toward an independent Palestinian state. Indirect peace talks with Syria exist under Turkish mediation, and talks with Hezbollah over a prisoner exchange appear to be making headway. On Wednesday, Israel publicly offered direct negotiations with the new Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah is a crucial player.
The flurry of Israeli diplomatic activity comes amid domestic turmoil for beleaguered Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and as U.S. influence in the region is waning in the final months of the Bush administration.
Some of the recent initiatives, particularly the Hamas truce, which took effect Thursday, and the Syrian talks, are departures from the once-unified Israeli-U.S. strategy of confronting regional adversaries with diplomatic isolation and the threat of force. The shift toward negotiations may indicate an Israeli conclusion that the hard-line approach had not produced results.
A senior official said the various tracks of diplomatic talks weren't part of an overall umbrella strategy of multilateral engagement. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the talks were based on case-by-case developments that favored diplomacy.
U.S. officials have been openly supportive of the Gaza truce and more circumspect regarding the Israeli-Syrian talks. But both represent an Israeli break from Bush administration doctrine.
On Wednesday, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the U.S. was "supportive of the efforts that Israel is making to reach out and engage in discussions."
In Gaza, more than a year of virtual siege failed to dislodge Hamas, which won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and later routed the rival Fatah faction to take full control of the impoverished coastal sliver.
Olmert faced growing public clamor to end the near-daily rocket attacks by Gazan militant groups on southern Israeli communities, but a large-scale reoccupation of the densely packed strip could have proved complicated and bloody.
Observers said Olmert also needed some good news to deflect from his list of domestic woes: a corruption investigation and mounting signs of rebellion in his ruling coalition.
If it holds, the cease-fire will open the door to more intensive negotiations involving the possible release of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and the opening of Gaza's border with Egypt. The pace of future steps probably will be on the agenda next week when Olmert travels to Cairo to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
With Syria, Israeli officials concluded that diplomatic isolation failed to reduce Damascus' support for Hezbollah, blunt its alleged nuclear ambitions or influence its close relationship with Iran, analysts and observers said.
"There is a growing realization that waiting until Syria has a change of heart and gives up everything is fruitless," Kurz said.
Turkey, which has close relations with Israel and Syria, has played mediator so far. But the process could soon proceed with face-to-face talks. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said this week that he hoped to bring Olmert together with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Paris during a summit in July.
Israeli officials have indicated that the Golan is on the table for discussion, but such negotiations could be highly unpopular for the Olmert government.
This week's offer to directly negotiate with Lebanon over the disputed territory known as Shabaa Farms was quickly dismissed by Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and criticized by some Israeli analysts as a domestically motivated smoke screen.
"It was a kind of Olmert gimmick," said Alon Liel, a former Israeli diplomat and founder of the Israeli-Syrian Peace Society. "Israelis believe some of it is Olmert spin to shift attention away" from his domestic troubles.
Despite Syria's removal of its troops from Lebanon in 2005, the country maintains a strong hold on Lebanese politics and any negotiation Israel might entertain with Beirut would have to start with Damascus, Liel said.
The talks with Hezbollah center on the return of two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006 in exchange for a still-undetermined number of Lebanese prisoners held by the Israelis. According to Israeli radio reports, the families of the two soldiers were briefed by Israeli officials about the state of the talks this week and believe that a deal is imminent.
Somewhat overshadowed in the recent diplomatic activity are Olmert's long-term talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose shaky and unpopular government has little to show for its negotiations with Israel.
Casey, the State Department spokesman, expressed concern that Israel was seeking to obscure failure of the Palestinian negotiations with success elsewhere.
"We don't think that any other track or any other negotiating path ought to be a substitute or a distraction from the primary set of discussions and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," he said.
Olmert hails peace talks progress
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7464620.stm
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has insisted that his government's peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are making progress.
In an interview with the BBC Arabic service, he said serious progress had been made on issues such as the borders of a future Palestinian state.
He said Israel was ready to compromise dramatically on territorial issues but that the process had to be "two-way".
He said that his agenda was "to make peace with the Arab people".
"I want to make peace with Palestinians, I want to make peace with the Syrians, I want to make peace with Lebanon," he said.
Peace talks
Mr Olmert was speaking on the day a truce came into effect between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip.
The truce aims to stop Israeli incursions and air attacks on Gaza, and halt cross-border rocket fire by Palestinian militants.
But Mr Olmert expressed his scepticism about the prospects of long-term peace.
He told the BBC: "Quite frankly I don't think that in the essence of what Hamas is all about, that they are likely to change their attitude. They are set to destroy Israel. That is what they say."
In other comments, the Israeli prime minister dismissed recent corruption allegations as an attempt by political opponents to undermine him.
Mr Olmert denies he accepted up to $500,000 (£250,000) in bribes or illegal campaign donations.
During the BBC interview, he vowed to continue in his job, and said early elections were unnecessary.
Hamas spokesman voices rare optimism regarding Gaza truce
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994774.html
"Nothing is impossible," said Palestinian parliament member and Hamas' spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Salah al-Bardawil, about the possibility of a peace agreement between Israel and his organization in wake of the cease-fire, or tahadiyeh, that took effect Thursday. While many in Israel are pessimistic about its chances of success, things look a little different on the Palestinian side, and in Hamas in particular.
Unlike some of his Hamas colleagues, Bardawil does not act horrified when hearing the words "peace" and "Israel" put together. "The Arab world has already outstretched its hand for peace with the Israelis in the past," he says. "The ideas of Ahmed Yassin [Hamas' founder and former leader], who supported a cease-fire for some 15-20 years, focused on peace, not war. Hamas people who insist that there will never be peace with Israel do so because they are skeptical about the intentions of Israel's leadership. Everyone on your side is saying that the hudna [truce] is an opportunity for Hamas to narrow the military gap, but it's actually a historic opportunity for Israel and for all the sides involved to live in peace, and to build a future for the next generations."
Still, Bardawil, 49, a literature professor from Khan Yunis who has been a member of Hamas for the past 20 years, is careful not to sound overly optimistic. In a telephone conversation, he says: "After years of fighting, each side has doubts about the other side's seriousness in upholding the cease-fire. Your side says that the small factions are liable to blow it to pieces, but they have all pledged to abide by it. Experience shows that when Hamas commits to something, it makes sure to keep its promises."
And if rockets are fired at Israel? What will you do with the people responsible?
Bardawil: "I'm not going to say that we'll start deploying forces at the border and turn into the Palestinian Authority, which works to safeguard Israel's security interest. But we made a decision that anyone who fires rockets at Israel will be doing so without our approval. We'll let the organization with which he is affiliated deal with him. If it's someone who doesn't belong to any organization, measures will be taken against him. Anyone who violates the factions' decision on the cease-fire is harming the Palestinian interest and we will deal with him accordingly."
Bardawil is not the only optimistic voice within Hamas when it comes to the cease-fire. Right now, the organization has a clear interest in preserving the agreement, since its conditions serve it well. The opening of the border crossings and the lifting of the blockade on the Gaza Strip, without any further restrictions on Hamas gaining strength, might help to explain the positive forecasts about the future of relations between Israel and "Hamastan."
"Today, the relations between Israel and Hamas are those of enemies," Bardawil explains. "But during past negotiations between Hamas and Fatah we agreed on 'the national reconciliation agreement,' which declares that the Palestinian state will be established within the 1967 borders. Israel mustn't pass up such an agreement with Hamas - otherwise an ideology more extreme than Hamas will be the result. Israel has to understand that nowadays, Hamas is a factor that balances the radical and out-of-control voices in both the Arab and the Muslim world."
However, it's hard to ignore the more hawkish voices in Hamas, which see the cease-fire as little more than a timeout, allowing the organization to build up its military forces in anticipation of the future - when they envision wiping Israel off the map. But according to Bardawil, the Hamas members who speak in such terms are merely voicing religious ideas. "It's impossible to change religious beliefs," he says. "But the conflict between us and Israel is political and not religious."
So why don't you recognize Israel?
"We won't repeat Fatah's mistakes and get into the whole adventure of recognizing Israel. To this day, the borders of this state remain uncertain. It's too early to talk about negotiations with Israel. The cease-fire is a kind of de facto recognition of this entity, just as Israel recognizes the existence of Hamas. We cannot deny the reality of its existence."
Who's the winner and who's the loser when it comes to the cease-fire?
"The agreement meets the interests of both sides. No one won, but the truce benefits both Israel and Hamas. It's only natural for each side to try to portray the move as a victory for itself and to boast of its achievements. In the end, everyone gains. Otherwise, they wouldn't have agreed to the cease-fire."
Consternation in Fatah
Not surprisingly, the cease-fire agreement is causing Fatah and the Palestinian Authority more than a little consternation. "Israel surrendered to Hamas' 'freedom fighters.' This constitutes a big victory for the Islamic organizations, one that follows on the heels of Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon," said a former Fatah official in the Gaza Strip, who preferred to remain anonymous.
The criticism Fatah officials reserve for the cease-fire has yet to be voiced openly (perhaps because, officially, the PA supports the move), though it can still be widely heard. In the view of many in the PA and Fatah, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government has done Hamas' public relations a great service by agreeing to the cease-fire. They expect Hamas to portray the truce as a victory for the policy of the "resistance" - Israel will once again appear as a weak entity, a "spider web," and PA President Mahmoud Abbas will sink into oblivion. They further expect that, in six months or so, Hamas will demand a truce in the West Bank, too, and Israel, seeking to avoid another military confrontation, will succumb to the Islamic organization's violent pressure.
But the Fatah member nonetheless remained optimistic when asked whether the cease-fire would weaken his organization. In his view, the truce is too fragile to last and to have an impact on reality. "Today, you can't really say that Hamas has total control over the Gaza Strip; it's quite likely that the small organizations will violate the cease-fire," he says. "On the other hand, I'm sure that Israel won't abide by the cease-fire either. Besides, for now at least, it looks like the Rafah border crossing will remain closed. If it doesn't open, the truce won't last very long.
King Abdullah: Failure of peace process largest regional threat
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3558455,00.html
WASHINGTON – Jordan's King Abdullah II told the Washington Post's Lally Weymouth that he was dissatisfied with US President George W. Bush's most recent visit to the region. In an exclusive interview, Abdullah said, "I'm actually very concerned since President Bush's visit to the region, to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
"I think the peace process has lost credibility in people's minds in this area. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in the region and is working very closely with the Israelis and the Palestinians to move the process forward. . . . We're all very pessimistic at this stage."
When asked if he thought Iran was currently the largest threat to Middle East stability, the Jordanian leader answered that he believed the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the current major threat.
"I don't see the ability of creating a two-state solution beyond 2008, 2009. I think this is really the last chance," he said, reiterating a warning he had divulged to President Shimon Peres during their last meeting in Petra.
"If this fails, I think this is going to be the major threat for the Middle East: Are we going to go for another 60 years of 'fortress Israel', or are we going to have a neighborhood where Israel is actually incorporated? That is our major challenge, and I am very concerned that the clock is ticking and that the door is closing on all of us."
'We've reached a crossroads'
He said that though Iran posed a certain threat to the region, he considered the failure of the peace process a more immediate danger. "If the peace process doesn't move forward, then I think that extremism will continue to advance over the moderate stands that a lot of countries take. We've reached a crossroads, and I'm not too sure what direction we're heading in," Abdullah warned.
"If we don't win on the peace process, if we don't have a two-state solution, then definitely there'll be more turmoil and more instability. And I think that it may send the wrong message to extremists – that the only way to perpetuate their philosophy is through conflict."
When asked about his thoughts on the status of the Palestinian Authority, Abdullah said, "Everyone is quick to talk about how to isolate Hamas, but there is not enough discussion as to how to support Fatah. If the policy of the West is to isolate and pressure Hamas but we're not doing anything to alleviate the roadblocks, to try to get the kids back to school, try to create jobs, then how can you expect Fatah and Abu Mazen to be strengthened?"
Japan to host Mideast peace talks in July
http://business.maktoob.com/NewsDetails-20070423171683-Japan_to_host_Mideast_peace_talks_in_July.htm
TOKYO: Japan said Friday it will hold Middle East peace talks next month with ministers from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan in Tokyo s latest bid to expand its role in the region.
The announcement came amid intense diplomacy in the Middle East, with Egypt brokering a truce between Israel and the Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad and planning minister Samir Abdullah will take part in the July 2 talks in Tokyo along with Gideon Ezra, Israel s environmental protection minister, and Jordanian Foreign Minister Salah Bashir.
Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura will host the one-day session, a foreign ministry statement said.
Japan wanted the meeting before it hosts the July 7-9 summit of the Group of Eight rich nations, where the Middle East is expected to be among the topics of discussion.
The world s second biggest economy has sought to expand its diplomatic strength by playing a greater role in the Middle East peace process.
Tokyo is already spearheading a project to build an agro-industrial complex in the West Bank to help create jobs for Palestinians.
Japan hosted its first Middle East peace meeting in March 2007 which included Israel s then deputy prime minister Shimon Peres, who is now the Jewish state s president.
Komura said earlier this week that he had invited Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni but that she told him she could not attend because of political strife at home.
Barack Obama defends Israel’s concern about Iran's "extraordinary threat"
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5364
The US Democratic presidential contender made this comment about the reported Israeli air rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran: “Without access to the actual detailed intelligence, I want to be careful about characterizing what was done and whether it was appropriate or not." But, said Senator Barack Obama, the Jewish state was right to be concerned about the anti-Israel comments of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and about Tehran’s support for Hizballah and Hamas. “And so there is no doubt that Iran poses an extraordinary threat to Israel and Israel is always justified in making decisions that will provide for its security.”
Exclusive: Israel’s air maneuver did not simulate possible Iran strike strategy
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5367
DEBKAfile’s Western military sources do not believe that if Israel does attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will resort to the old-fashioned aerial blitz tactic employed in 1981 for bombing Iraq’s Osirak reactor. They therefore challenge the US officials’ conclusion that Israel’s aerial exercise in conjunction with the Greek Air Force over Crete in early June was in fact a rehearsal for Iran.
What was demonstrated with the Israeli Air Force’s capability for deploying a large aerial force of more than 100 warplanes and helicopters for long-distance operations. The distance from Israel to Crete was indeed roughly equal to the distance to Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.
Israel has already displayed its ability to strike a nuclear site in the attack on the Syrian-North Korean plutonium reactor in northern Syria on September 6, 2007.
But these military sources argue it would be sheer recklessness for Israel to send so large a part of its air fleet for a repeat of the Israeli attack on Iran without first demolishing Iran’s air defenses.
In the attack on Syria, Israel was able to disarm by electronic means the Russian-made air defense batteries guarding its reactor. The same systems protect Iran’s nuclear sites. It must be assumed, however, that Iran and the Russian manufacturers learned a lesson or two from the way Israel silenced the batteries in Syria, although Israel too will have added new gadgetry too.
Those Western military sources also deduced from the Israeli aerial exercise eastern Mediterranean that its war planners must have taken stock of the punishing fallout a war operation against Iran would trigger.
Therefore, rather than consigning a large air fleet to Iranians skies, Israel’s war planners are likely to first use large numbers of missiles to demolish Iran’s nuclear facilities and air defense batteries. Some may be delivered by air from a distance outside the range of Iranian fighter craft (most of which are outdated and in bad shape), others from Dolphin submarines.
The Air Force will go into action at a later stage.
They calculate that the moment Iran is attacked, not only will it retaliate, but all hell will break loose on Israeli borders. Iran’s terrorist stooges, HIzballah will let loose from Lebanon, Hamas from the Gaza Strip and the Syrian air and missile forces go into action from the north. The Israeli Air Force will be vitally needed to protect the population and sufficient aircraft must therefore be kept back for the home front.
Given Tehran’s multiple reprisal capability and the limits to which the Israeli Air Force can be stretched operationally at one time, the IDF may well decide to deal with the Hizballah and Hamas short-range rocket infrastructure as well as the Syrian Air Force before going into action against Iran..
In this sense, DEBKAfile’s military experts note, the decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites is tightly bound up with preventive action against the menaces closer to home, Hamas at the very least.
MK Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset foreign affairs and security committee said in an interview Saturday, June 21, on Day Three of the Gaza truce, that a major operation to demolish Hamas’ war machine will be unavoidable at some point.
UN: Mideast Could Burn if Iran Attacked
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/396494.aspx
CBNNews.com - DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast into a "ball of fire" and lead the country to a more aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program.
The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came in an interview with an Arab television station aired a day after U.S. officials said they believed recent large Israeli military exercises may have been meant to show Israel's ability to hit Iran's nuclear sites.
"In my opinion, a military strike will be the worst. it will turn the Middle East to a ball of fire," ElBaradei said on Al-Arabiya television. It also could prompt Iran to press even harder to seek a nuclear program, and force him to resign, he said.
Iran: Israel Threat to Peace and Security
Iran on Saturday also criticized the Israeli exercises. The official IRNA news agency quoted a government spokesman as saying that the exercises demonstrate Israel "jeopardizes global peace and security."
Israel sent warplanes and other aircraft on a major exercise in the eastern Mediterranean earlier this month, U.S. military officials said Friday. Israel's military refused to confirm or deny that the maneuvers were practice for a strike in Iran, saying only that it regularly trains for various missions to counter threats to the country.
But the exercise the first week of June may have been meant as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record on the matter.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said he prefers that Iran's nuclear ambitions be halted by diplomatic means, but has pointedly declined to rule out military action.
U.S on Iran: All Options on the Table
The U.S. says it is seeking a diplomatic resolution to the threat the West sees from Iran's nuclear program, although U.S. officials also have refused to take the threat of military action off the table.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to comment on the Israeli maneuvers in an interview with National Public Radio aired Saturday but said: "We are committed to a diplomatic course."
One Israeli lawmaker on Saturday urged caution, saying that the world should first do more to toughen and broaden the sanctions against Iran to persuade its leaders to halt the nuclear program.
Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in Israel's parliament, suggested steps including banning Iranian planes, ships and sports delegations from entering Western countries.
"There's a long way to go before diplomatic efforts are exhausted," Hanegbi said. "The sanctions aren't very strong, they are very shallow, there's a lot of room for enhancing them."
Dubai: A Nuclear Iran is in Noone's Interest
Meanwhile, reaction to the Israeli exercises rippled across other parts of the Gulf.
In Dubai, the government-owned Khaleej Times newspaper warned in an editorial Saturday that an attack on Iran by Israel or the United States would have "disastrous consequences for the region."
"A nuclear Iran is in nobody's interest, but military action and armed rehearsals will also not be tolerated," the paper said.
The U.S. and many Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear bomb. Iran has rejected the charges saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity not a weapon.
A U.S. intelligence report released late last year concluded that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program, but Israeli intelligence believes that is incorrect and that work is continuing.
Iran Says Israel a 'Dangerous Regime'
http://www.newsmax.com/international/iran_israel/2008/06/21/106478.html
TEHRAN -- Iran called Israel a "dangerous regime" on Saturday after a U.S. report that the Jewish state had carried out a large military exercise, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The comments by Iran's government spokesman came a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said a military strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a fireball and prompt Tehran to launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office declined to comment on the exercise, first reported in the New York Times. But a senior lawmaker in his centrist Kadima Party said on Saturday that diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear programme have failed and that the next 1-2 years would be critical.
Tzachi Hanegbi, who heads parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, told Israel Radio that the world had to decide how to proceed. Israel Radio did not broadcast direct quotes from its interview with Hanegbi.
An Israeli military spokesman said of the Times report: "The Israeli Air Force regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel."
Citing unidentified American officials, the Times said more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in the manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June.
It said the exercise appeared to be an effort to focus on long-range strikes and illustrates the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.
Israel has long trained for missions using fighter-bomber squadrons for what officials call "possible strategic scenarios" -- code for a confrontation with arch-foe Iran.
When asked about the reported exercises, Iranian government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said: "It demonstrates the Islamic Republic of Iran's view that this (Israel) is a dangerous regime and an impediment to peace and calm in the region and world."
Western powers suspect Iran of seeking to develop nuclear bombs. Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has described Iran's nuclear programme as a threat to its existence.
Earlier this month, Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told an Israeli newspaper an attack on Iran looked "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of United Nations sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.
Tehran, which does not recognise Israel and regularly predicts its demise, says its nuclear work is peaceful.
Battle Brews Over U.S. Future in Iraq
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/396544.aspx
CBNNews.com - BAGHDAD -- The decisive battle of the Iraq war is shaping up - not in the streets of Baghdad but in the halls of government where the future of America's role across the region is on the line.
The Stakes are Enormous
American and Iraqi officials have expressed new resolve to hammer out far-reaching deals that would allow U.S. forces to remain on bases across Iraq once the U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
The stakes in the talks are enormous.
The outcome will shape not just Iraq for years to come - but, more important, America's strategic position all across the oil-rich Persian Gulf at a time when Iran's influence is growing. The U.S. maintains substantial air and naval forces elsewhere in the Gulf but few ground troops except in Iraq.
A pact also would assure Arab allies that Iraq would not fall under domination by Iran, which is pressuring the Iraqis to refuse any deal that keeps U.S. soldiers here.
But critics in the United States fear it will tie the hands of the next President when millions of Americans are anxious to bring troops home. Many Iraqis, in turn, worry the deal will allow American domination of their country for decades.
With so much in the balance, the Iraqi government said Wednesday that both Washington and Baghdad recognize the need to finish the talks by July's end "to avoid any legal vacuum that may arise."
That came only days after it seemed the deal was dead. But Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the prospects for an accord had brightened because of new U.S. flexibility after meetings in Washington.
The White House said President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki discussed the talks Thursday via secured video teleconference and affirmed their commitment to completing the deal.
Core Points of Contention Remain
Nevertheless, the two sides remain far apart on core issues, including the number of bases where the United States will have a presence, and U.S. demands for immunity from Iraqi law for American soldiers and contractors.
Other obstacles include U.S. authority to detain suspects, fight battles without Iraqi permission and control of the country's airspace.
Iraq's parliament must sign off on the deal by year's end - and approval is by no means certain.
Opposition to the initial U.S. demands brought together rival Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders who all complain the deal would leave real power in American hands.
The oil minister, who is close to the country's powerful Shiite clerical leadership, told the British newspaper The Guardian this week that Iraq will demand the right to veto any U.S. military operation.
But American commanders believe they need such sweeping powers to protect U.S. soldiers in a combat zone.
Publicly, U.S. officials have expressed confidence they can find language that will satisfy the Iraqis on all major issues. But the negotiations are taking place against the backdrop of war and intense power struggles among rival ethnic groups in Iraq - each with its own agenda.
The U.S. operates scores of bases throughout the country, including the sprawling Camp Victory headquarters in Baghdad, Asad air base in western Iraq and the giant air facility at Balad, a 16-square-mile installation about 60 miles north of the capital that houses tens of thousands of American troops, contractors and U.S. government civilians.
It's still unclear how many of the facilities Washington would want to keep.
If all else fails, the two sides could go back to the U.N. Security Council and seek an extension of the mandate allowing troops in Iraq.
But that could prove politically embarrassing - and difficult - in the waning days of the Bush administration or the early days of the new U.S. presidency.
Meanwhile, recent Iraqi military successes against al-Qaeda in Mosul and Shiite extremists in the south have convinced some Shiite politicians they don't really need America.
"Iraq has another option that it may use," al-Maliki said recently. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
Pakistan Ambassador Urges U.S. Patience
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/396489.aspx
CBNNews.com - WASHINGTON -- Pakistan's new ambassador to the United States is urging patience for those in Washington frustrated with his government's pursuit of peace deals with tribes along the lawless Pakistani-Afghan border.
Ambassador Husain Haqqani said in an interview with Associated Press reporters and editors Friday that the United States should judge the outcome of talks being conducted by Pakistan's "fledgling democracy," not the often contentious process of negotiating.
That may be difficult advice for U.S. critics who say peace talks have removed military pressure from the region and allowed terrorists to regroup and stage attacks on U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan.
Haqqani said Pakistan's government, which won elections in February against the party of President Pervez Musharraf, a staunch U.S. ally, is working to strike agreements that would require the tribes to give up their weapons, withdraw support for foreign fighters in their midst and "end attacks inside Pakistan, across the border and around the world."
"These are our own people," added the ambassador, once an adviser to former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. "We cannot, just because somebody in the United States wants us to, just go and start bombing them, without at least going through the process of showing our desire to negotiate in good faith."
Tensions High Between U.S. and Pakistan
A poll released Friday showed strong public support in Pakistan for the government's policy of seeking peace with the militants. Meanwhile, tensions between the United States and Pakistan have been high since a U.S. airstrike last week killed 11 Pakistani border troops.
U.S. and Afghan officials say remnants of Afghanistan's Taliban militia are sheltering in Pakistan, which Pakistan denies. Militants based in Pakistani tribal areas, where Osama bin Laden and his top aide are believed to be hiding, say they are sending fighters to Afghanistan.
Robert Hathaway, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Asia program, said ties between Pakistan and the United States are "very troubled."
"Suspicions between the American military and the Pakistani military are the highest they've been in many years, and there's a great deal of uneasiness in the United States because the new government in Pakistan seems to be bogged down and incapable of dealing with many of the serious issues confronting the country," Hathaway said in an interview.
Obama Angers Pakistan
Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, triggered anger in Pakistan last year when he said that he might authorize U.S. troops to strike unilaterally in Pakistan if they located bin Laden.
Addressing Obama's comments, Haqqani said Pakistan understood that it was "a rhetorical answer to a hypothetical question and not a statement of policy."
He added, however, that "anyone thinking unilateral strikes inside Pakistan are a good idea needs to re-examine that position." Such an attack would "only infuriate the Pakistani public" and turn more people to extremism and against the United States.
The ambassador, in the interview Friday, also touched on the case of Abdul Qadeer Khan, a hero in the eyes of many Pakistanis for his key role in developing the Islamic nation's nuclear bomb. Khan acknowledged in 2004 that he had operated a network that spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
The United States has not requested that the new Pakistani government grant access to Khan, Haqqani said. But, he added, Islamabad would not provide access even if it was asked because all information that Pakistan has obtained on Khan's network has been shared.
Pakistan would not hand over Khan, he said, because of the scientist's knowledge of "Pakistan's own strategic deterrent, and, therefore, it would be a security risk for Pakistan. No other country would do it either."
Accusations of illegal worship and expulsions in Kyrgyzstan
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/accusations.of.illegal.worship.and.expulsions.in.kyrgyzstan/19713.htm
Two foreign Protestants - Edward Sands from New Zealand and Alastair Morrice from Scotland - have been expelled from Kyrgyzstan in the past month at the insistence of the National Security Service (NSS) secret police.
Sands, the Rector of the Protestant interdenominational United Theological Seminary in the capital Bishkek, was accused of violating the Religion Law by having allowed the Protestant International Church of Bishkek (ICB) to hold services in its building without the church being officially registered at their building.
Morrice, the Pastor of the English-language ICB, was also accused of violating the Religion Law for not registering the church's use of the seminary building for worship.
"We were always very open with the State Agency for Religious Affairs," Sands told Forum 18 from Germany on 12 June. "The NSS occasionally came to the seminary, and we always gave them information." He said the probable catalyst for the eventual expulsion came in October 2007, when the NSS asked to see the recommendations churches gave for individual students. "I have always regarded these as confidential and told them that," he told Forum 18. "But they were very angry."
Kairbek Manybaev, a Kyrgyz national who now leads the team of three in charge of the seminary, says they were shocked by the forced exit of their rector. "All of us in the Christian community and particularly those at the seminary loved and respected him for his great work," he told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 19 June. "We would love him to return, and continue his work."
Manybaev said it was very difficult for them to fill the void of Sands' absence. "For me and the other local people who have been asked to step up for the work, it is not easy to manage the immense task," he told Forum 18.
"Our school is interdenominational, and it demands a lot of sensitivity to the needs and traditions of various churches."
He said it was planned that by 2010 Sands would hand over the job to local Protestant leaders, but these plans were disrupted by his forced exit. "We have some experience as pastors but this work is not easy and we needed more experience to do it," Manybaev told Forum 18.
"In March 2008 we submitted our applications to renew our visas," Sands told Forum 18. "It was then we were warned about the use of the seminary buildings by two churches, the English-language International Church and the Korean Church. The State Agency told us the seminary was not registered as a place for religious worship but for religious teaching." They then applied for permission for the churches to use the premises, he told Forum 18. The State Agency allowed the churches to continue to use the premises while the application was being considered, but the NSS said they were breaking the law.
"This was a power play between the State Agency for Religious Affairs and the NSS," said Sands. "The State Agency was helpful, and it is interesting that the NSS moved when the State Agency chairman was abroad."
Morrice's term as ICB pastor had already come to an end and he and his wife were due to leave in May anyway, but Sands had intended to remain as rector of the seminary. He told Forum 18 he does not yet know if he will be allowed to return.
Sands - who had lived and worked for ten years in Kyrgyzstan, for the last six as rector of the seminary - was told by the Foreign Ministry consular service on 27 May that he had ten days to leave the country. "My visa had 11 days left to run, so they said they would not stamp my passport 'deported'," Sands told Forum 18.
"The NSS summoned me and asked me to bring the certificate from the State Agency for Religious Affairs allowing me to conduct religious activity and the certificate allowing religious worship to take place on seminary property," Sands reported. The NSS claimed he had broken the law by allowing the international church to meet at the seminary. The NSS accompanied him to the consular department, where the official said his visa was being cut to just ten days. His visa had been valid until 7 June, but this meant he had to leave by 6 June, Sands reported.
Bakit Osmanov, the NSS officer who handles religious affairs, refused to talk to Forum 18 about the expulsions. "I am not going to give you an interview," he declared on 18 June from Bishkek. Asked by Forum 18 why the NSS secret police asked Sands for confidential information on students, Osmanov said he did not want to answer the question and put down the phone.
Kanatbek Murzakhalilov, the Deputy Head of the State Agency for Religious Affairs, told Forum 18 that the Agency would consider renewing the religious work certificates for Sands and Morrice if they applied for it.
"We were told that they violated the visa regime," he said. Asked how they could have violated the visa regime as they left the country before their visas expired, Murzakhalilov said he was not sure what exactly they had violated. "Let them apply for certificates, though we cannot guarantee that they will be able to get visas," he said.
The academic year at the seminary had already finished and does not resume until 1 September, Sands told Forum 18. "Aware of the trouble, we brought forward the graduation ceremony to 3 June to ensure we would still be there for it."
Sands said the seminary had 40 full-time students in the year just finished, although in recent years the number of students had been up to 60. Some students live in the seminary-owned accommodation on site, others come in daily. Some four or five foreigners work fulltime at the seminary, he added.
Forum 18 notes that it seems to be a regular pattern for the police and secret police to demand that heads of religious schools and seminaries inform them about their students. One Protestant pastor, who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from the authorities, told Forum 18 on 19 June that they also have Bible classes but do not want to register them formally as a school. Asked for the reason, he responded: "The authorities will first of all put many barriers so our school could not function and also ask us to inform them about our students, which we do not want to do."
Bakit Niyazov from Bishkek's Islamic University insists that his university functions freely and anyone who applies could pass the tests and become a student there. "The State does not regulate our internal matters," he told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 19 June. "Only we have to inform the Muftiate, the State Agency for Religious Affairs, and the District Police who our students are."
Asked why they have to do this, he responded: "I guess for security reasons."
Murzakhalilov told Forum 18 he could not comment on whether the police or NSS had any rights to demand confidential information from religious institutions. "The NSS has its own internal system and policy and I cannot comment on their activity."
Presidential decree 319 of 14 November 1996 requires that all foreign citizens arriving in Kyrgyzstan to do religious work must obtain a certificate of authorisation from the State Agency for Religious Affairs. Otherwise their religious activity will be considered illegal, Murzakhalilov declared.
Religious communities must inform the State Agency if they are holding meetings in a place other than their legal address, Murzakhalilov told Forum 18. Also each building used for religious meetings must be registered at the State Agency as a building for public worship. "But the seminary was not registered as a building for public worship but just for education.
Therefore the question arose of why the International Church was meeting in a place not registered for public worship." He said that now the seminary has registered its building for public worship.
Both the NSS and the director of migration told Sands that he cannot return to Kyrgyzstan. "But my lawyer has been given some verbal comments that I should be able to and could appeal if I can't," Sands told Forum 18.
"The process has been stressful, having to resolve personal affairs, sell off all our property and pack up after so many years, combined with the responsibility to manage the transition in the seminary."
Sands told Forum 18 he feels the atmosphere for religious communities in Kyrgyzstan is becoming more restrictive. "Everyone is feeling greater pressure, with the State Agency for Religious Affairs and NSS visiting churches during services or immediately afterwards," he reported. "They take photos of the congregations with their cell phones and ask questions, and this creates uncertainty and fear."
Asked whether his colleagues from the State Agency took photos of individuals while visiting religious institutions, Murzakhalilov told Forum 18 that it was possible. "I do not know for a fact, but it is possible that they may have taken photos of interesting events," he said. "But I am sure they would have done it with the consent of those people. Agency officials are supposed to attend those organisations regularly, do monitoring, and hold analysis."
The new pastor of the International Church is Daniel Danis, a Romanian citizen who had lived in Bishkek for four years prior to his appointment. He told Forum 18 on 11 June that he has not been obstructed in taking up his post as pastor.
Danis noted that before Morrice was asked to leave, the NSS had summoned him twice for a talk. "The NSS told him to leave allegedly for violating the Religion Law," Danis reported. "Even though the State Agency had allowed our church to meet in the seminary building, the NSS still considered it a serious enough violation to ask him to leave."
Morrice's visa was supposed to expire in the middle of May but at Morrice's insistence the Foreign Ministry extended it for only ten more days so he could arrange the details of his travel and his departure, Danis told Forum 18. "Morrice was told to leave before the end of ten days, and he did so on 26 May."
Danis told Forum 18 that the International Church, founded in 2001, has around 150 members, mostly foreign workers in the country and some Kyrgyz nationals.
Moves have long been underway to pass a more restrictive Religion Law. The Presidential Administration rejected a repressive Decree in February that would have restricted freedom of thought, conscience and belief. However, many of Kyrgyzstan's religious communities remain highly concerned by continuing moves to introduce restrictions into the Religion Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment