GW Caves ? -Iran wins, Israel and West Lose!

I have always said terrorists generally overplay their hand. Ahmadinejad keeps rubbing GW's nose in it and seems not to fear possibly regreting it. Time is running out, however and Olmert does not have the guts and Israel may not have the means even should they wish.

So more worthless sanctions is about all we should expect and then we are left with McCain and Obama and then possibly a "big war" if you read and agree with Norman Podhoretz.

GW has copped out according to report. GW kicks the ball to the next president? If so, GW has reduced, or possibly even closed the door on, the likelihood of historians treating him positively.(See 1 and 2 below.)

Why should diplomats go to Israel. There is nothing to talk about as long as Olmert hand around. (See 3 below.)

Israeli politicians are scared and why shouldn't they be. They have completely failed their citizens. (See 4 below.)

In typical Obama fashion, no sooner had he said it then he retracted what he had said. More "mispoke?" due to inexperience, wanting to appease the audience, both? You decide. (See 5 below.)

Dick

1) Ahmadinejad: West failing to halt our nuclear victory


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that U.S. President George W. Bush's era has come to an end and he has failed in his goals to attack Iran and stop its nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad, addressing thousands of people in this central Iranian city, also described the U.S. president as "wicked."

"This wicked man desires to harm the Iranian nation. [Bush] made plans, moved into Afghanistan and then Iraq, and announced that Iran was the third target," he said.
Advertisement
"I tell him... your era has come to an end. With the grace of God, you won't be able to harm even one centimeter of the sacred land of Iran," he said.

On the what he said was the failure of the West to thwart Iran's nuclear ambition, Ahmadinejad said, "In the past two-three years, they employed all their might, resorted to propaganda... and sanctions. If the enemy thinks they can break the Iranian nation with pressure, they are wrong... With God's help, today we have achieved victory and the enemies cannot do a damned thing."

His comments came a day after the United States and the European Union told the Islamic Republic they were ready to impose more sanctions over its nuclear activities, which Tehran says are solely aimed at generating electricity.

Also on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported that the Iranian president has declared that while U.S. President George W. Bush desired to attack Iran, he will not do so now.

Ahmadinejad said Bush's term has come to a close and he will now not harm the Persian state, even after invading Iran's eastern and western neighbors: Afghanistan and Iraq.

On Monday, the Islamic Republic's official news agency reported that Iran's defense minister has warned of a "painful response" if Israel attacks it and lambasted Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's threat of such a strike.

2)Analysis: Bush is reconciled to a nuclear-armed Iran


In an interview with the London Times , June 11, US president George W. Bush said his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran. Regarding the Israeli minister Shaul Mofaz’s recent assertion that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations was “unavoidable”, the US president commented that this “really should be viewed as the need to keep pressuring” Iran. On a farewell trip to Europe, Bush added: “We ought to work together, keep focused” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Informed sources report that President Bush was also clearly bidding farewell to the option of an American strike against Iran’s nuclear program. With six months left of his presidency, his message to the Iranians was: They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with us all.” No third option, of a punishing military strike, was mentioned.

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shot back by saying: “I tell him… your era has come to an end. With the grace of God, you won’t be able to harm even one centimeter of the sacred land of Iran.”

Iranian sources report that Tehran is driving hard to attain a weapons capability by September or October this year, before Bush leaves the White House.

Nonetheless, the US president has shown no sign of departing from the current course of diplomacy and international sanctions against Iran, although it has in no way inhibited Iran’s race for enriched uranium which advances unchecked. This was implied by his reference to a possible successor: Bush voiced concern that the Democratic nominee Barack Obama might “open cracks in the West’s united front towards Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” But, he hoped that after is successor assesses “what will work or what won’t work in dealing with Iran,” he would stick with the current policy.”

3) Are foreign leaders avoiding Israel?
By HERB KEINON



Voices of concern about the possibility of a wave of postponements of high-level visits because of political instability here have been raised in Jerusalem after British Foreign Secretary David Miliband cut short a Middle East visit without meeting Israeli leaders, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper postponed his trip altogether.

Miliband, who arrived Monday and held talks with Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah, cut short his trip and returned to London early Tuesday morning without meeting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as planned. He did, however, speak to Livni by phone.

A spokeswoman at the British embassy in Tel Aviv denied that the quick return to London had anything to do with Israeli political instability, saying rather that Miliband flew back because of "important parliamentary business." Miliband was summoned back to London by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for a key vote Wednesday on extending the detention of terrorists before they are charged from 28 to 42 days.

Harper, meanwhile, was supposed to arrive on his first visit to Israel next Monday, and - according to the Canadian news agency Canadian Press - postponed his trip because of political uncertainty in Israel.

One Israeli government source said that when foreign leaders detect political instability, they have a tendency to stay away because they are not sure whether anyone has the authority to make key decisions.

Harper, a staunch supporter of Israel, was to make his first visit to the region, visiting Israel, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. A few days before his visit was cancelled, he gave his approval to Tel Aviv University to print up invitations for a ceremony at the university at which he was to be awarded an honorary doctorate.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Aryeh Mekel said the postponement was due to "technical reasons" and scheduling problems for both Olmert and Harper. "Israel-Canada relations continue to be excellent," he said.

In his nearly two-and-a-half years in office, Harper has emerged as a staunch supporter of Israel. During the Second Lebanon War, he caught a lot of domestic criticism for calling Israel's response to Hizbullah "measured," and in a radio interview just prior to Israel's 60th anniversary said that in some circles, "anti-Israeli sentiment really is just a thinly disguised veil for good old fashioned anti-Semitism, which I think is completely unacceptable. We learned in the Second World War that those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people will ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as well, and the same holds true today."

No reason for the postponement of Harper's visit was available from the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv. There have been reports in the Canadian press, however, that the cancellation had to do with Harper's own domestic political problems, and his need to find a replacement for Maxime Bernier, who resigned as foreign minister last month.

4) Southern residents: Politicians are scared
By Shmulik Hada

In wake of Wednesday’s cabinet meeting, Gaza-region residents fed up with government indecision in face of ongoing rocket attacks. Southern farmer says ‘politicians chose not to decide because they are scared to make dramatic moves’



Southern residents fed up: Gaza-region residents are infuriated over Wednesday’s cabinet meeting, which ended on an indecisive note with ministers agreeing to give lull efforts a chance while preparing for a military operation in Gaza.


The residents, who have been dealing with ongoing rocket and mortar attacks, are already planning their next protest moves and charge the government with ignoring them in favor of political interests.


Decisions
Cabinet: Israel strives for truce; preparing for Gaza operation.
Senior ministers convene in Jerusalem for five-hours discussion on escalation in south; decide to give Egyptian mediation efforts a chance while preparing for possibility of wide-scale military operation in Gaza Strip,

Shaar Hanegev Regional Council Head Alon Shuster, who protested along with other southern residents outside the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem Wednesday, says he fails to understand the cabinet’s hesitant decision.


“They’re not telling us everything, and perhaps we need to see calls from here urging someone to stand up and explain the logic of that decision,” Shuster said. “It doesn’t look good to us.”


‘Waiting for government to be replaced’
Pinhas Amar, whose wife sustained moderate wounds and his house was razed following a Qassam attack, said he found it difficult to understand the additional delay in the cabinet’s decision.


“This is very grave, and the implication is that we will continue to suffer a few more years,” he said. “There is some kind of indifference among our leaders. The cabinet’s decision should not have been taken today, but rather, years ago. Each passing day only makes the situation worse. We must not wait and the only thing left for us is to pray that this government shall be replaced by a government that would perhaps take some decisions.”




Farmer Itamar Gilad from Dekel said that the cabinet decision stemmed from political considerations.


“The situation here is intolerable. The politicians chose not to decide because they are scared to make dramatic moves, because they are only thinking of their government seat and starting to count the votes ahead of the elections,” he said.


Gilad added that this coming Sunday, area farmers intend to block the roads leading to the Kerem Shalom Crossing and prevent goods from being transferred into the Gaza Strip. He said that the farmers plan to continue the protest until the government assumes responsibility for the security of residents and puts an end to rocket and mortar attacks.

5) Obama's "Undivided Jerusalem" - More Meaningless Words?
By Michael Medved

The morning after he secured the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and made a surprisingly strong statement about the future of Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said to thunderous applause. Israelis and their supporters in the United States responded warmly to a bold, unequivocal proclamation that went well beyond the positions of the Bush or Clinton administrations – positions which have always endorsed key Israeli concessions on Jerusalem. .

Within a week, the Palestinians and various foreign policy commentators denounced the new Obama approach, and the candidate hastily retreated from his prior declaration. His subsequent equivocation and undeniable confusion on an issue of profound international importance conforms to the candidate’s already well-established pattern of offering rousing words that remain utterly unconnected to substantive policy.

On reflection, even many Friends of Israel who initially applauded Obama’s speech now see two reasons to question his position:

1. He Didn’t Mean It

Within hours of his AIPAC speech, Senator (“Can’t I just eat my waffle?”) Obama began to waffle on its most controversial passage.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had already reacted with surprising forcefulness concerning his reference to “undivided Jerusalem.” “This statement is totally rejected,” he announced to the world press. “We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as its capital.” Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qeri sounded a similar note. “No Jerusalem, no agreement,” he said.

On CNN on Thursday (after his Wednesday speech), Senator Obama faced questions about the angry reaction from the Arab world and whether his comments indicated that Palestinians had no claim to Jerusalem. “Well, obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues,” he said – clearly abandoning the “must remain undivided” formulation of the day before. He told CNN that he still supported a unified Israeli Jerusalem but suddenly acknowledged that this might prove an unattainable goal. “My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute,” he said.

Why, then, make the reference in the midst of a high profile speech? Did Obama’s ringing declaration signify anything at all other than a handy-dandy applause line for the nation’s most influential pro-Israel organization?

Forty-eight hours after Obama’s triumphal AIPAC appearance, Nathan Diament, public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, told the New York Times of his struggle to comprehend the candidate’s words. “My organization and constituents were very excited when we heard him on Wednesday making what seemed to our ears to be a very clear and declarative statement, something different from what he had said before, but which he is now circling back towards in his clarifying statements yesterday and today.”

Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) sounded even more disenchanted. “With Barack Obama and his campaign watering down his statement for an undivided Jerusalem, one must question whether his initial remark was simply meant to mislead Jewish voters and Israel supporters by not stating his true beliefs on this issue.”

2. He’s Wrong to Think It’s America’s Call.

From the outset, the Obama formulation should have troubled all those who believe in Israeli self-determination –the one principle above all others on which the Jewish state’s survival most obviously depends. The candidate’s glib sound-bite – “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” –presumes that the President of the United States, not the leaders and people of Israel, gets to decide the fate of King David’s city.

The appalling aspect of this latest Barack gaffe involves his apparent ignorance that the question of an “undivided” Jerusalem remains intensely controversial within Israel itself --with virtually all the Israeli left committed to some mechanism for splitting or sharing the city with the Palestinian Authority. For instance, former Prime Minister (and current Defense Minister) Ehud Barak agreed in 2000 to give the Palestinians control of all of East Jerusalem, including the Old City (containing sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Moslems). Had Yasser Arafat agreed to the deal, the Clinton administration and the Israelis appeared not only willing – but eager – to divide the city.

Like most other right-wingers in Israel and the United States, I view such eagerness as a form of madness – but not so mad or menacing in the long run as Obama’s suggestion that the American government gets to make life or death decisions for Israel. While he currently claims that right in order to push an appropriate hard line (offending his own natural allies on the Israeli left), it’s worth noting that the United States almost always tries to influence Israel toward weaker positions, not a stronger ones -- urging endless and painful unilateral concessions, with only meaningless Palestinian promises in return.

If Obama had recognized this history in his speech he still could have drawn a warm response from his audience without the need for subsequent clarification, apology and waffling. The right formulation would have been: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the American government must never try to force its division.” This sort of statement recommends an American policy without presuming to dictate Israeli decisions. On the other hand, Obama’s clumsy intrusion into Israel’s domestic disputes (not to mention the ongoing—and probably useless – negotiations with the Palestinians) unwittingly slights the very idea of Israeli sovereignty and self-determination.

John McCain, on the other hand, understands the distinction between decisions of our own government and the sovereign responsibilities of our allies. “We should move our embassy to Jerusalem before anything else happens,” he told the press in reaction to Obama’s speech. The Republican candidate alluded to the outrageous situation in which the U.S. (like most other nations) bows to Arab pressure and maintains its embassy in the coastal metropolis of Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem, the nation’s capital since its founding. McCain then quickly added: “The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people.”

In other words, there’s an important separation between American leaders making American policy (like where we will place our embassy) and Israeli leaders making Israeli policy (like what concessions – if any – to make on Jerusalem).

We observe similar distinctions, by the way, in the Medved family. My brother Jonathan (who chose to make his life in Jerusalem nearly twenty years ago and has two sons currently performing their military service in Israel) gets to sound off all he wants regarding the right policy for his government. I live and raise my kids and pay absurd amounts of taxes to the government of my native land, the United States – so I get to speak on the radio (and elsewhere) about the political choices of my country. When it comes to Israeli domestic politics, I try to keep quiet and defer to my brother—he lives less than five miles from a potential “Palestinian Jerusalem,” so his stake in that argument counts much more than mine.

The Destructive Pattern

The most disturbing aspect of the Obama bumble regarding Jerusalem involves its exposure of the core weakness of his campaign: the huge gap between compelling style and empty substance, and the enormous distance between inspiring words and any practical policies to achieve his noble goals.

Speaking to ecstatic acolytes at monster rallies, or even addressing 7,000 pro-Israel activists in Washington, the Democratic candidate makes a great impression. But what will he do to implement his commitments? In his famous “Race Speech” in Philadelphia, he said he could never “disown” Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and then six weeks later he distinctively disowned him. He praised Trinity United Church of Christ for its warmth and community service – then delivered an expedient resignation because of the guest sermon of another old friend, Michael Pfleger. He told a CNN debate audience he would agree to face-to-face meetings with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria in his first year in office, then explained it might not be the first year, the meetings might not be face-to-face, and maybe it wouldn’t be those leaders.

Most recently, he describes Jerusalem’s “undivided status” as an imperative and then the next day acknowledges “as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute.”

The Jewish community (where Gallup shows McCain drawing an unexpectedly strong 35%) has begun to learn about the Illinois Senator’s slippery and deceptive rhetorical habits, and one can only hope that in subsequent weeks the rest of the country will receive the same lessons.