blogging:
Has the state of Israel experienced a positive reaction in world opinion on the matter of their right to exist during the war in Gaza? Has the Israelie media team some how managed to shape global expression?
The expected immediate and violent backlash has not happened from the Arab world – yet. Israel seems to have shaped world opinion to believe that it is acting in self defense. This global RS ( Reaction Scenerio) seems familiar to how the United States was perceived immediatly after the World Trade Center attacks. This manifestation and growth of world opinion based on events has happened swiftly and will last for just a few short days. It has happened in the past. Can Israel negotiate swiftly its way out of the conflict with world opinion intact? Will they get what they came for - The complete cessation of rocket and mortar fire into Israel with International assurance that it will not occur? Will a prisoner exhange be part of the negotiation? Will we know?
Has Israel finally taken on the task of engaging with the world community as a debater of its right to exist by taking on the enormous task of speaking to the world in real time - across all platforms, media’s, and possibilities? We think so. But if Israel keeps out world media and produces a carnival of media (cool smart bomb shots posted to the web …) that results in perceived true or not distortions, which they will most certainly be spun into, then make haste or be ready to take on the global swarm.
There's no turning back.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Middle East Links - The Israel Project (TIP)
Post:
The following links are organized to help you learn more about Israel and the Middle East. Click on the headings below to jump to a specific group of links.
end.
The following links are organized to help you learn more about Israel and the Middle East. Click on the headings below to jump to a specific group of links.
end.
Why Hamas can cease fire ...
The Palestinian Israeli conflict reaches a crucial cross-road. Israel is demonstating to its enemies and the world that it will act capably on the ground and thoughtfully in the media by exposing how the untruths of Arab propaganda victimize Arabs first.
Israel has been in a state of war since May 1948. Wars are fought to be won. The scope of anti-Israel militancy has expanded to "Jews" anywhere, any time -- and with disproportionate cruelty to the victims. It was not always like this. This probably did not go unnoticed to Israel's politicians and military of the savagery taking place under the guise of resistance.
Whatever illusions came from Israel's retreat at the hands of Hizbollah, the Israelis are now showing that if Hamas remains incapable of accepting peace and two sates, Israel can destroy them.
Hamas has an opportunity to act and take charge of the bully pulpit they currently claim. They have Hezbollah as an example in Lebanon. Hamas has proven itself as fierce fighters. Standing on the dead bodies of your comrades with everything destroyed around you and rattling your Saber is no way to claim victory. Put down your arms and pick up ploughs and partnerships from whom you choose. Remember the people you are trying to save.
Notes: Jewish refugees fleeing the fighting:
Move to New Palestine and attempt tp take their plight to the heart of the matter.
Israel has been in a state of war since May 1948. Wars are fought to be won. The scope of anti-Israel militancy has expanded to "Jews" anywhere, any time -- and with disproportionate cruelty to the victims. It was not always like this. This probably did not go unnoticed to Israel's politicians and military of the savagery taking place under the guise of resistance.
Whatever illusions came from Israel's retreat at the hands of Hizbollah, the Israelis are now showing that if Hamas remains incapable of accepting peace and two sates, Israel can destroy them.
Hamas has an opportunity to act and take charge of the bully pulpit they currently claim. They have Hezbollah as an example in Lebanon. Hamas has proven itself as fierce fighters. Standing on the dead bodies of your comrades with everything destroyed around you and rattling your Saber is no way to claim victory. Put down your arms and pick up ploughs and partnerships from whom you choose. Remember the people you are trying to save.
Notes: Jewish refugees fleeing the fighting:
Move to New Palestine and attempt tp take their plight to the heart of the matter.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Why Israel had to attack ...
Opinion.
Israel has never won the propaganda war of world opinion. With recent operations in the Gaza Strip, they will continue to be looked down upon as aggressors despite actions taking place based on obvious truce violations by their sworn enemy, Hamas. We think it has never actually tried to explain itself to the global body and has walked the line of its existance alone. It has done so in the name of defending its people, culture and basic right to exist (even at 1967 borders) after coming close to planned extinction. In recent years (perhaps since Oslo accords) Israel has attempted to approach peace with its Palestinian neighbors a gun and stick. It offers compromise while standing ready to fight back attempts to exterminate it. In the slug fest of Middle East politics, it seems that both sides can see no other way. Israel has no choice. Its very existence is on the line.
Israel has never been given the green light from world opinion to defend itself. The lack of any Security Council resolutions (against Palestinians etc) alone shows this to be true. Israel feels they are alone and now, it shows again, with action in Gaza that this is true. Despite pulling out from Gaza and leaving the land entirely, it has received neither praise nor compromise. They were only met with scorn as Hamas took over from an inept PA and moved rocket installations to the new frontlines.
Hamas ended the truce by not symbolically offering the Israelis an opportunity of interaction when Israel's settlers and Army left Gaza. We realize it is more than that, but when you consider your land is not "occupied anymore" perhaps it was worth more than shouting "your enemy lost the war" and use it as a cry for recruits. It's diabolical to think that Hamas propagandists believe that the world believes this. This is to pray on the disenfranchised.
Now as they are being pounded into the ground they long for, they cry foul. Why? To claim victory? Will they stand on the bodies of their dead people and destroyed buildings like Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and claim victory? They certainly will, while their people starve.
History’s wars show victory for those that concede defeat and pick up the plough. In the eyes of Hamas, only the extermination of the Jews will do, yet they throw their women and children into the fire with no mercy in the name of Jihad. We hope they see through the violence and plague that has fallen upon them. The violence is an eye for an eye. The plague is their failed leadership. Israel has no moral obligation to restrain from defending its people despite the ferocity of their attacks.
Where are the Arab peacemakers?
Scientocracy must rise.
ref:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2808&TTL=Did_Israel_Use_%E2%80%9CDisproportionate_Force%E2%80%9D_in_Gaza?
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=41
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30morris.html?ref=opinion
Israel has never won the propaganda war of world opinion. With recent operations in the Gaza Strip, they will continue to be looked down upon as aggressors despite actions taking place based on obvious truce violations by their sworn enemy, Hamas. We think it has never actually tried to explain itself to the global body and has walked the line of its existance alone. It has done so in the name of defending its people, culture and basic right to exist (even at 1967 borders) after coming close to planned extinction. In recent years (perhaps since Oslo accords) Israel has attempted to approach peace with its Palestinian neighbors a gun and stick. It offers compromise while standing ready to fight back attempts to exterminate it. In the slug fest of Middle East politics, it seems that both sides can see no other way. Israel has no choice. Its very existence is on the line.
Israel has never been given the green light from world opinion to defend itself. The lack of any Security Council resolutions (against Palestinians etc) alone shows this to be true. Israel feels they are alone and now, it shows again, with action in Gaza that this is true. Despite pulling out from Gaza and leaving the land entirely, it has received neither praise nor compromise. They were only met with scorn as Hamas took over from an inept PA and moved rocket installations to the new frontlines.
Hamas ended the truce by not symbolically offering the Israelis an opportunity of interaction when Israel's settlers and Army left Gaza. We realize it is more than that, but when you consider your land is not "occupied anymore" perhaps it was worth more than shouting "your enemy lost the war" and use it as a cry for recruits. It's diabolical to think that Hamas propagandists believe that the world believes this. This is to pray on the disenfranchised.
Now as they are being pounded into the ground they long for, they cry foul. Why? To claim victory? Will they stand on the bodies of their dead people and destroyed buildings like Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and claim victory? They certainly will, while their people starve.
History’s wars show victory for those that concede defeat and pick up the plough. In the eyes of Hamas, only the extermination of the Jews will do, yet they throw their women and children into the fire with no mercy in the name of Jihad. We hope they see through the violence and plague that has fallen upon them. The violence is an eye for an eye. The plague is their failed leadership. Israel has no moral obligation to restrain from defending its people despite the ferocity of their attacks.
Where are the Arab peacemakers?
Scientocracy must rise.
ref:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2808&TTL=Did_Israel_Use_%E2%80%9CDisproportionate_Force%E2%80%9D_in_Gaza?
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=41
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30morris.html?ref=opinion
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Hamas and Israel at the brink...
Ongoing:
As the second day of what HAMAS has called the third Intifadah begins, what is the next step in the Arab world? The Arab league is meeting in an emergency session in Egypt, Hezbollah has stated that they will show restraint (restraint in the face of the worst aggression between the two sides in 60 years?!), and Iran has called for the "Arab street" to rise up. As of this post, nothing has happened ...
**** The U.N. Security Council ended a four-hour emergency meeting early Sunday with a call for an immediate halt of hostilities and a re-opening of border crossings to allow humanitarian supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza.
***The Palestinian envoy said if Israel does not cease attacks within 48 hours, Arab delegations will demand stronger action from the Security Council.
*** Day 2 Syria breaks off "indirect talks" with Israel. (UPDATE)
Confusing? Yes. Why such a tepid response? 48 hours? Sounds like Israel has been given an out ... Does the world believe that Israel is justified in their assault after endless rocke bombardments? Looks like it to us. Confusing? Yes.
Will Hamas fall? The PA hopes so as they are a clear loser in this battle.
ongoing.
ref:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050405.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html
As the second day of what HAMAS has called the third Intifadah begins, what is the next step in the Arab world? The Arab league is meeting in an emergency session in Egypt, Hezbollah has stated that they will show restraint (restraint in the face of the worst aggression between the two sides in 60 years?!), and Iran has called for the "Arab street" to rise up. As of this post, nothing has happened ...
**** The U.N. Security Council ended a four-hour emergency meeting early Sunday with a call for an immediate halt of hostilities and a re-opening of border crossings to allow humanitarian supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza.
***The Palestinian envoy said if Israel does not cease attacks within 48 hours, Arab delegations will demand stronger action from the Security Council.
*** Day 2 Syria breaks off "indirect talks" with Israel. (UPDATE)
Confusing? Yes. Why such a tepid response? 48 hours? Sounds like Israel has been given an out ... Does the world believe that Israel is justified in their assault after endless rocke bombardments? Looks like it to us. Confusing? Yes.
Will Hamas fall? The PA hopes so as they are a clear loser in this battle.
ongoing.
ref:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050405.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Hamas jihadists launch salvos of rockets and morters at Israel
Ongoing:
It's hard to say with certainty who is responsible for the truce breaking down (started on June 19, 2008) but if daily rocket fire since October is any indication, Hamas never thought it would work. The quick disintigration of the truce shows that Hamas has made a tactical decision to escalate violence to bring Israel to the table. Olmert has not bowed during the truce time frame as had been supposed by Arab negotiators based on his indictment and continues to run the government with confidence (for better or worse).
The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades have stated "that they have fired in retaliation" for an assassination of their operatives. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/24/israel.rockets/index.html). This might be true but since the rocket fire has been going on for some time now, the question is "Is this just propaganda?” Almost 100 rockets have fallen on Israel. Seems like it.
At its start, Hamas had won international claim by brokering the truce and the PA (and Israel) had to acknowledge that a government existed in Gaza (sort of). But the fact is Hamas never reigned in other militant groups (Islamic Jihad & Al Aqsa Martyers Brigades) as it had to by preventing cross-border attacks on Israel. Do they have control? Did they try or just make an arangement with the small factions by saying and not doing? Now they claim (threaten) "thousands of Israelis" are within their rocket range. So it is clear they have been rearming and preparing their forces as had been stated by Israel.
We think the beginning of the end is at hand. The world awaits an Obama administration that promises to make Middle East peace a priority. But at what price is peace worth it? Who will take the side of peace? An Arab leader of stature needs to step forward with a bold proposal. A Hudna (temporary peace) proposed by Hamas (in the guise of a 10 year truce) is a farce. Nobody in Israel believes that they will not attack after it is over in 10 years. Yes, that is a possibility and a done deal to many.
What the Palestinians need is a leader that can rally the people behind a 2 state solution, Mahmoud Abbas is not that person nor is Ismail Haniyeh. War is looming and Israel appears to be at the end of their line. Should they attack / invade Gaza? We think not. But they probably will. Martyrs on Arab television across the world is exactly what Hamas wants.
Will the Lion be the new US President Barack Obama?
Ongoing.
ref:
http://www.speedsignal.com/news/gaza-rocket-fire-follows-shooting/?referer=sphere_related_content
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
It's hard to say with certainty who is responsible for the truce breaking down (started on June 19, 2008) but if daily rocket fire since October is any indication, Hamas never thought it would work. The quick disintigration of the truce shows that Hamas has made a tactical decision to escalate violence to bring Israel to the table. Olmert has not bowed during the truce time frame as had been supposed by Arab negotiators based on his indictment and continues to run the government with confidence (for better or worse).
The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades have stated "that they have fired in retaliation" for an assassination of their operatives. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/24/israel.rockets/index.html). This might be true but since the rocket fire has been going on for some time now, the question is "Is this just propaganda?” Almost 100 rockets have fallen on Israel. Seems like it.
At its start, Hamas had won international claim by brokering the truce and the PA (and Israel) had to acknowledge that a government existed in Gaza (sort of). But the fact is Hamas never reigned in other militant groups (Islamic Jihad & Al Aqsa Martyers Brigades) as it had to by preventing cross-border attacks on Israel. Do they have control? Did they try or just make an arangement with the small factions by saying and not doing? Now they claim (threaten) "thousands of Israelis" are within their rocket range. So it is clear they have been rearming and preparing their forces as had been stated by Israel.
We think the beginning of the end is at hand. The world awaits an Obama administration that promises to make Middle East peace a priority. But at what price is peace worth it? Who will take the side of peace? An Arab leader of stature needs to step forward with a bold proposal. A Hudna (temporary peace) proposed by Hamas (in the guise of a 10 year truce) is a farce. Nobody in Israel believes that they will not attack after it is over in 10 years. Yes, that is a possibility and a done deal to many.
What the Palestinians need is a leader that can rally the people behind a 2 state solution, Mahmoud Abbas is not that person nor is Ismail Haniyeh. War is looming and Israel appears to be at the end of their line. Should they attack / invade Gaza? We think not. But they probably will. Martyrs on Arab television across the world is exactly what Hamas wants.
Will the Lion be the new US President Barack Obama?
Ongoing.
ref:
http://www.speedsignal.com/news/gaza-rocket-fire-follows-shooting/?referer=sphere_related_content
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
War and Peace? What is a Hudna and why it is thought to be the beginning of the end?
***(This is an ongoing post. We have no illusion that we can speak to this term anymore than anybody else. We are discussing this possibility in context of what it means to the Arabs and what they plan to "actually" do in the event Israel agrees to such a truce.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the Arabs want peace? Have they switched from a people that want Islam as a global religion with tolerance as its central meaning or have they embraced such Nazi ideology as extermination (genocide)and only plan to regroup and strike with 10 years of resources and training?
Is the 2 state solution really being discussed in context of a Hudna (temporary truce)? Or wil this be the end of the line in (or beginning) preparing for final battle? Let's discuss history of such actions. Can you make peace with enemies that are sworn to your destruction or do you just hold a truce and wait for your destiny?
Denis MacEoin of the Middle East Quarterly puts it like this ...
"However, this acquired anti-Semitism creates numerous problems for Arab anti-Zionists. Western anti-Semitism is racist; not even a Jew who had abandoned his faith or converted to Christianity was spared by Hitler's racist doctrine of the Jew as üntermensch. Whereas a Jew under Islam had the options of conversion or life as a dhimmi, a Jew in German-occupied Europe had no choice at all. Once Israel was established, Arabs became anti-Semites and called not only for the extermination of Israel but also for the annihilation of all Jews living there. This has made the possibility of a truce even more remote since it has an all-or-nothing quality similar to Hitler's "Final Solution."
and this ...
" ... Should a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, or an ‘ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated.[14] ..."
[11] Rudolph Peters, in Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 371, s.v. "Jihad."
[12] Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 35.
[13] Ibid., p. 33.
[14] See Daniel Pipes, "British ‘Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends," The New York Sun, July 8, 2005.
Ref:
http://www.mefta.org/page1.htm
http://conflictblotter.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042960.html
ongoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the Arabs want peace? Have they switched from a people that want Islam as a global religion with tolerance as its central meaning or have they embraced such Nazi ideology as extermination (genocide)and only plan to regroup and strike with 10 years of resources and training?
Is the 2 state solution really being discussed in context of a Hudna (temporary truce)? Or wil this be the end of the line in (or beginning) preparing for final battle? Let's discuss history of such actions. Can you make peace with enemies that are sworn to your destruction or do you just hold a truce and wait for your destiny?
Denis MacEoin of the Middle East Quarterly puts it like this ...
"However, this acquired anti-Semitism creates numerous problems for Arab anti-Zionists. Western anti-Semitism is racist; not even a Jew who had abandoned his faith or converted to Christianity was spared by Hitler's racist doctrine of the Jew as üntermensch. Whereas a Jew under Islam had the options of conversion or life as a dhimmi, a Jew in German-occupied Europe had no choice at all. Once Israel was established, Arabs became anti-Semites and called not only for the extermination of Israel but also for the annihilation of all Jews living there. This has made the possibility of a truce even more remote since it has an all-or-nothing quality similar to Hitler's "Final Solution."
and this ...
" ... Should a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, or an ‘ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated.[14] ..."
[11] Rudolph Peters, in Esposito, ed., The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 2, p. 371, s.v. "Jihad."
[12] Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 35.
[13] Ibid., p. 33.
[14] See Daniel Pipes, "British ‘Covenant of Security' with Islamists Ends," The New York Sun, July 8, 2005.
Ref:
http://www.mefta.org/page1.htm
http://conflictblotter.com/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042960.html
ongoing.
Monday, December 1, 2008
What if the US wins the Iraq war?
Post:
This is a lingering question that recently was spoken about by US President George Bush. That the Iraq government has all but agreed on a tactical pullout of US and Coaliion forces by 2012(!) what does this say to all of the war naysayers? What does the expanded US / NATO efforts in Afghanistan say to Russia? Success? Failure? It's a known fact that nobody wanted us to be there in the first place, but what happens when the US pulls out and Iraq staves off the inevitable Iran hyper influence? Did the US win the war and would the Left agree as such?
As soon as the new front in Afghanistan is expanded, we might be seeing the end of one chaos packed war morph into another...with far worse consequences here and abroad.
ref:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDg4M2NlZjdkMWY0M2EyMzUwZDE3OTc1YmQwYTgxNjY=
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8996577
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1440646120080317?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
end
This is a lingering question that recently was spoken about by US President George Bush. That the Iraq government has all but agreed on a tactical pullout of US and Coaliion forces by 2012(!) what does this say to all of the war naysayers? What does the expanded US / NATO efforts in Afghanistan say to Russia? Success? Failure? It's a known fact that nobody wanted us to be there in the first place, but what happens when the US pulls out and Iraq staves off the inevitable Iran hyper influence? Did the US win the war and would the Left agree as such?
As soon as the new front in Afghanistan is expanded, we might be seeing the end of one chaos packed war morph into another...with far worse consequences here and abroad.
ref:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDg4M2NlZjdkMWY0M2EyMzUwZDE3OTc1YmQwYTgxNjY=
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8996577
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1440646120080317?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
end
Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y appointed Secretary of State
opinion...
Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a shrewed political move by President elect Obama. His transition team certainly vetted the scenerio that has Clinton being out of power and unable to coalition build with Democrats / Republicans / Business during the next 2- 4 years. She will also be barred as a cabinet member to try and pay off her camapign debt. That forces her to think twice about future campaigns if she were to leave her Sec. post.
The White House situation room should be interesting that's for sure.
reference:
To make it possible for his wife to become secretary of state, [Democrat] party officials said, former President Bill Clinton agreed to:
- Disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.
- Refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.
- Cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
- Volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.
- Submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.
- Submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983003/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2008/12/the-note-the-st.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jswUSG3lhoCouFWBk4Romw7jSv_g
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/29/hillary-gets-sec-of-state-nod-on-monday-bill-will-cough-up-secret-donor-names/
Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a shrewed political move by President elect Obama. His transition team certainly vetted the scenerio that has Clinton being out of power and unable to coalition build with Democrats / Republicans / Business during the next 2- 4 years. She will also be barred as a cabinet member to try and pay off her camapign debt. That forces her to think twice about future campaigns if she were to leave her Sec. post.
The White House situation room should be interesting that's for sure.
reference:
To make it possible for his wife to become secretary of state, [Democrat] party officials said, former President Bill Clinton agreed to:
- Disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.
- Refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.
- Cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
- Volunteer to step away from day-to-day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.
- Submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.
- Submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983003/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2008/12/the-note-the-st.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jswUSG3lhoCouFWBk4Romw7jSv_g
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/29/hillary-gets-sec-of-state-nod-on-monday-bill-will-cough-up-secret-donor-names/
Monday, November 24, 2008
Syria's options ...
What is on Syria's mind these days? What does team Obama think of the Sunni President Basher Assad? Will Syria be held accountable for the assassination of Rafik Hariri by the Obama administration or will former US President Jimmy Carter and colleagues (ZBIGNIEW BREZINSKI)"move on" and push for "peace"?
Will Syria actually move beyond their outwardly committed aggressive relationship with Iran? Iran is on the run, no matter what they say, as they had played Tiger with the belief that they could ride out sanctions with fiery rhetoric and shrewd nationalism. Oil prices are falling and the Laws of Supply and demand have trumped (for the moment) Nationalism. They must now lean more on their nationalist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Will president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fold or cease public rhetoric? Will the Ayatollahs remove him? Will students and reformers take over as Obama ascends to the US Presidency and shows that US diplomacy, through negotiations, may work?
ref:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1688
pending
Will Syria actually move beyond their outwardly committed aggressive relationship with Iran? Iran is on the run, no matter what they say, as they had played Tiger with the belief that they could ride out sanctions with fiery rhetoric and shrewd nationalism. Oil prices are falling and the Laws of Supply and demand have trumped (for the moment) Nationalism. They must now lean more on their nationalist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Will president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fold or cease public rhetoric? Will the Ayatollahs remove him? Will students and reformers take over as Obama ascends to the US Presidency and shows that US diplomacy, through negotiations, may work?
ref:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1688
pending
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Bush and Putin fire off last shots ...
Notes:
Russia tests long-range 'stealth' nuclear missile as Putin accuses U.S. of causing Georgia conflict Last updated at 11:57am on 29.08.08
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23547123-details/Russia+tests+long-range+'stealth'+nuclear+missile+as+Putin+accuses+U.S.+of+causing+Georgia+conflict/article.do
Paola Totaro in London | August 29, 2008 - 7:54Ahttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/putin-blames-us-for-georgian-war/2008/08/29/1219516698684.html
---
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/georgia-crisis-a-bush-conspiracy-says-putin/1257820.aspx
---
UPDATED:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14758
Simon Tisdall The Guardian, Tuesday July 11 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/11/world.foreignpolicy
Russia tests long-range 'stealth' nuclear missile as Putin accuses U.S. of causing Georgia conflict Last updated at 11:57am on 29.08.08
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23547123-details/Russia+tests+long-range+'stealth'+nuclear+missile+as+Putin+accuses+U.S.+of+causing+Georgia+conflict/article.do
Paola Totaro in London | August 29, 2008 - 7:54Ahttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/putin-blames-us-for-georgian-war/2008/08/29/1219516698684.html
---
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/georgia-crisis-a-bush-conspiracy-says-putin/1257820.aspx
---
UPDATED:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14758
Simon Tisdall The Guardian, Tuesday July 11 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/11/world.foreignpolicy
Thursday, August 14, 2008
War in Georgia grinding down. Let the real battle begin.
POST: notes-updated 082208
Now that it appears that Russia is pulling out from Georgia, it has stood firm on relinquishing it's hold on the new countries of Abkhazia and S.Ossessia. Maybe these people do want to leave from Georgia. Certainly recent history shows a lot of tension. So what happens?
Negotiations with Iran and the IAEA and a recent Military agreement with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It appears like the Russians are attempting to change the balance of power.
Does this look like an opening salvo to peace negotiations or possibly a foreshadowing of a new wider, deadlier, conflict with 2 super powers at the helm (again)? Has it already widened to far?
Where does (D) Barack Obama and (R) John McCain stand on this issue? Why are they not pursuing this as a major issue in their campaign? While the US wallows in economic brinksmanship, the Middle east heats up.
Russia has opened up a sustained and blanket all out propaganda campaign utilizing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitriy Medvedev, and Senior Russian military commanders. This is an orchestrated event. They are confident that nothing can come of this.
Russia has very publicly firmed up it's stance on where it wants to be perceived on the world military stage. Russia underlined its right to a “preventive” nuclear strike this week. They have signed on to the Bush Doctrine.
reference:
Russia: Choose us or choose Georgia.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html
Top Brass Defends Russia’s Right to Preemptive Strike
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3955
Anna Arutunyan
Moscow News
August 13. 2008
pending 082108 ...
Now that it appears that Russia is pulling out from Georgia, it has stood firm on relinquishing it's hold on the new countries of Abkhazia and S.Ossessia. Maybe these people do want to leave from Georgia. Certainly recent history shows a lot of tension. So what happens?
Negotiations with Iran and the IAEA and a recent Military agreement with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It appears like the Russians are attempting to change the balance of power.
Does this look like an opening salvo to peace negotiations or possibly a foreshadowing of a new wider, deadlier, conflict with 2 super powers at the helm (again)? Has it already widened to far?
Where does (D) Barack Obama and (R) John McCain stand on this issue? Why are they not pursuing this as a major issue in their campaign? While the US wallows in economic brinksmanship, the Middle east heats up.
Russia has opened up a sustained and blanket all out propaganda campaign utilizing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitriy Medvedev, and Senior Russian military commanders. This is an orchestrated event. They are confident that nothing can come of this.
Russia has very publicly firmed up it's stance on where it wants to be perceived on the world military stage. Russia underlined its right to a “preventive” nuclear strike this week. They have signed on to the Bush Doctrine.
reference:
Russia: Choose us or choose Georgia.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html
Top Brass Defends Russia’s Right to Preemptive Strike
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3955
Anna Arutunyan
Moscow News
August 13. 2008
pending 082108 ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)