There is little doubt that without finally solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we can probably forget about ending all kinds of jihads, anti-western and anti-American conflicts and movements and can comfortably continue to wage Bush’s “war on terror” for the foreseeable future.

Here is a fragment of one of Washington Post’s Tuesday editorials:” THE OBAMA administration appears near to a diplomatic achievement it expected long ago: the relaunch of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. It will be a modest start – not a big conference or a convocation to Camp David but “proximity talks,” in which envoy George J. Mitchell will shuttle between the two camps. This is, in one sense, a step backward for Israeli-Palestinian relations, since the two sides have been talking directly to each other, off and on, since 1991. But Mr. Mitchell says he hopes his brokering will quickly lead to direct talks, and the administration believes that even this stunted process will be better than none at all.”

At the same time, Vice President Biden strongly criticized Israel on Tuesday for approving construction of 1,600 new housing units in the eastern part of Jerusalem, a decision announced a day after Israeli leaders and the Palestinians agreed to U.S.-mediated, indirect peace negotiations.

This is not the first time Israel has been criticized for building and expanding Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land. Both the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly have passed well over 100 resolutions concerning Israel. Practically all of them went unheeded and any and all attempts to sanction Israel have been blocked by the United States. Those are facts and not commentary.

As a matter of fact, between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 U.N. Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest “ally” in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.

This is not to say that the Palestinian side is totally blameless in this quagmire, but according to international law, the occupying power must assure the safety and well being of the population living under its occupation. Through Resolution No. 237, the U.N. Security Council called upon Israel to “ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.” In subsequent resolutions, the Security Council deplored Israel for the delay in its implementation of Resolution 237. Yet, Israel continued to defy the world community, including the United States. The Security Council, in the face of Israel’s defiance, passed no less than five subsequent resolutions demanding that Israel comply but to this day the defiance continues.

This appears to be the crux of the matter. The whole issue does not seem to be just the fact of Israel existing as such, but the continuing occupation of the West Bank, the whole road, security and utility infrastructure built and maintained mostly to serve and secure the Jewish settlements. As of November 2009, approximately 400,000 Israelis lived in the 168 officially recognized settlements in the West Bank, and 280,000 Israelis lived in East Jerusalem. Every time we open a paper, still another settlement is about to be enlarged, or a new one built.

The latest problems and latest clashes have erupted in Hebron, after Israel’s decision to add Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to Israel’s list of national heritage sites.

The sites are holy to both Jews and Muslims.

To make a long story short: For the benefit of Israel, the Palestinians and indeed the entire world, time is running short on actually coming to the negotiating table in earnest, to be ready to compromise, if needed – and lots of that, in addition to an open mind and a lot more good will be necessary – and finally agree on a workable framework, which will lead to a long-overdue Israeli-Palestinian agreement. We can only hope that this day will actually come soon, because the simmering conflict has already spread its tentacles worldwide and nobody, but nobody in his right mind needs, or wants still another war.

Technorati Tags: Biden, israel, Jewish settlements, Mitchell, negotiations, occupation, palestinians, peace, talks

The present British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it was right to go to war, also saying that the United States dismissed warnings of chaos and violence once Saddam Hussein was toppled.  Brown testified for over four hours before a public inquiry panel about Britain’s role in the conflict and its aftermath.

Defending his role in the conflict, but at the same time cautious not to inflame tensions over the unpopular war ahead of a looming national election campaign, Brown said joining the 2003 U.S.-led invasion was a tough call.

“We have got to recognize that war may be necessary, but it is also tragic in the effect it has on people’s lives,” said Brown, who voted – like most British lawmakers – to approve Britain’s role in the war.

“These were difficult decisions. I believe they were the right decisions for the right reasons,” he said.

But he was critical of U.S. planning, saying American officials failed to heed warnings about the need for clarity on how to protect and govern Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.

Unlike Tony Blair, who defiantly stood by the invasion and argued Saddam was a threat to the entire world; Brown said he believed the war was justified because Baghdad had breached international rules in failing to abide by U.N. resolutions.

If you do some searching, you will find that a number of countries, including the main U.S. ally in the Middle East have also failed to abide by a whole slew of U.N. resolutions. Nevertheless, the “coalition” has not invaded those countries.

Brown insisted that Iraq had posed the first serious test to the post-Cold War world, claiming that any failure to depose the Iraqi leader would have emboldened other dictators and stirred global tensions.

Brown also sought to distance himself from President George W. Bush, suggesting their relations were “amicable” and criticizing the doctrine of some members of Bush’s administration.

“I never subscribed to what you might call the neo-conservative proposition that somehow, at the barrel of a gun, overnight, liberty or democracy could be conjured up,” Brown told the panel.

Hard to believe that either Brown, or Blair could actually believe in the crud they were spewing. It was without a doubt still another case of justifying their crimes and of covering their well-fed asses.

Technorati Tags: Britain, defend, Gordon Brown, Iraq invasion, Tony Blair

Bush’s top aide Karl Rove just wrote a memoir, entitled Courage and Consequence, in which he claims that Bush 43 did not mislead the nation about weapons of mass destruction as a way to “lie us” into a war.

Crap! Remember the memoirs by other neocons, such as Douglas Feith, who has denied any responsibility in the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal and really any responsibility for anything altogether?

While defending the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, Rove concedes that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction damaged the administration’s credibility. And he blames himself for failing to set the record straight.

Yes, Karl, please DO blame somebody for not finding stacks and warehouses full of WMDs. You might as well blame yourself too for a very different than expected – by people like you – Iraqi reception of our invading troops. After all, some neocons claimed that the Iraqi people would line the streets and welcome us with flowers and tears in their eyes.

“When the pattern of the Democratic attacks became apparent in July 2003, we should have countered in a forceful and overwhelming way,” wrote Rove. “We should have seen this for what it was: a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency.”

Rove also comes up with all kinds of lame excuses for the administration’s abject failure after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf coast.

We’ll keep this short and succint: Don’t waste your money buying another neocon memoir.

Technorati Tags: bush, Iraq War, justifying, Karl Rove, Katrina, memoir

From top left: Kue Bui for Newsweek; Andrew Hetherington / Redux; James Keyser / Time Life Pictures-Getty Images; Richard A. Bloom / Corbis; Ahmad Al-Rubaye / AFP-Gettty Images; Brendan Hoffman / Getty Images

Newsweek magazine has a very interesting and lengthy article, entitled “The Return of the Neocons” by David Margolick.

Here’s a short excerpt: “One prominent activist on the libertarian end of the party – who hates what he sees as their costly foreign – policy adventurism and the GOP electoral losses (i.e., the presidency and both houses of Congress) he attributes to them – calls them ‘parasites’: with little electoral power of their own, he claims, they have had to attach themselves to others, like George W. Bush. Comfortably ensconced behind a cloak of anonymity, he bristles, but also marvels, at their endurance and effectiveness, comparing them to ‘an infection that keeps coming back.’ “They’ve perfected this absolutely incredible thing: they announce who they are, how powerful they are, how influential they are, and get people to write articles about them,” he says. “But when their policies are perceived to have caused mass chaos, they don’t exist, they didn’t have anything to do with it, they weren’t there, and they get really snotty. And anyone who attacks them is anti-Semitic.”

Worth a read we think.

Technorati Tags: neocons, Newsweek, return

A day before President Obama’s State of the Union address, we pretty much already know that the Massachusetts Senate election results seemed to have greatly influenced what the president is going to actually address.

Under mounting pressure to curb government spending, the president is to propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security. That being clearly a concession to public concern about government spending and which could dramatically curtail Obama’s legislative ambitions.

The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama’s first term.

On the surface it sounds like a step ahead, doesn’t it? But do your math. $447 billion per year, as compared to the ever-rising national debt – as of today already surpassing $13 trillion…

At the same time, when “overseas contingency operations” expenses are added to the U.S. defense budget, it comes up to $663.8 billion for 2010 alone. As a matter of fact, the real figure is even higher, reaching between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.

All in all the 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined and is variously calculated as being some nine times larger than the military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s military spending – of which, the U.S. is responsible for the majority of the expenditures.

Understandably, this is a huge and seemingly never-ending source of income for our overbuilt defense industry. Seemingly the very appropriate warning of President Dwight Eisenhower went unheeded. Eisenhower three days before the end of his second term has warned among other things about the military/industrial complex, saying: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

If Eisenhower only knew how much the influence of the military/industrial complex has grown since his day…

At least it could seem to be a step in the right direction for President Obama to propose some saving measures in the State of the Union address. Unfortunately, the spending freeze will only address about 1/8 of our total budget and might actually cut into programs and operational budget of needed and necessary agencies, in many case to the detriment of us all.

Meanwhile, we still have well over 100,000 troops in Iraq, along with an even larger number of mercenaries, are beefing up our forces and spending for the most likely unwinnable war in Afghanistan and are maintaining the budgets of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the FBI, recently made famous by the discovery that it has been collaborating with telecom companies to routinely violate federal wiretapping laws for four years, as agents got access to reporters’ and citizens’ phone records using fake emergency declarations or simply asking for them.

Let’s not forget the case of the Spanish lawmaker Gaspar Llamazares, who learned that the FBI used an online photograph of him to create an image showing what Osama bin Laden might look like today.

The image using Llamazares’ photo appeared on a wanted poster updating the U.S. government’s 1998 photo of the al Qaeda leader.

FBI spokesman Ken Hoffman acknowledged that the agency used a picture of Llamazares taken from Google Images.

Let’s hope that we are not rewarding incompetence, with ever-larger budgets.

Meanwhile, we don’t really know where more than $3 trillion in bailout money has disappeared to and whether it has done anybody – besides the people and the corporations, who have caused the crisis – any measurable good.

As the popular saying goes: “easy come, easy go”.

Technorati Tags: bailout, defense budget, military/industrial complex, money, President Obama, spending freeze, State of the Union address