Israel is Wrong. Hamas is Wrong.

And now that we have a pair of children poking each other into armed conflict once again, the world will have to face that it must get involved to keep these people from killing each other and half the people in the region.

It's like a long car ride with kids in the back seat. They just can't keep their hands to themselves. They've got to throw things at each other, try to take most of the back seat, put their finger in the face of the other while claiming "I'm not touching you." The charge of immaturity was advanced by former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski on Morning Joe on MSNBC. I just added the imagery.

How to keep these immature people from goading each other? An international mechanism needs to be in place, which is what is being suggested now as a resolution to this conflict on more than a temporary basis.

Hamas needs to be prevented from arming and Israel needs to be prevented from overreacting. And the United States really needs to get involved soon.



Gaza, Gaza City, Hamas, Israel, Israel Airstrikes, Israel Gaza Airstrikes, Israel Gaza Operation, Israeli Airstrikes, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, World News, Hamas Rockets, terror, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon 2006

Peace in the Middle East - A Solution !!

What could inspire the leaders in the Middle East to put aside their anger and resentment to reach a lasting peace accord? Besides long-term self-interest, that is?

They would need to overcome their previous commitments to hatred and nasty rhetoric, push aside the screams for blood from their countrymen, be able to figure out solutions where none were visible before - what would do this? What would work?

Apparently, pictures of women in bikinis causes men to act impulsively.

"It wasn't that the men were simply distracted by their sexual arousal, which caused them to choose more impulsively. On the contrary, they exhibited improved cognition and creativity after exposure to sexy stimuli." (see linked article)

So it's even better - pictures of women in bikinis cause men to act impulsively and better.

So this is the plan: get a bunch of Middle-Eastern women in bikinis decorated in the flags of the region to frolic in an adjoining conference room while peace negotiations are going on.

Miss Israel could braid the hair of Miss Egypt. Miss Syria could give Miss Lebanon a pedicure. You get the idea. And it would work.

It already has. When the leader of Argentina visited the UK after the Falklands Island war with his daughter Zulema Menem, much of the jingoistic opposition to the visit died down. She was dressed very elegantly and wore a miniskirt to the memorial honoring the British war dead from the Falklands war and shed a tear. That was enough to turn public opinion.

And she wasn't even wearing a bikini.

As a newspaper at the time put it: There's nothing that British punters like more than to wrap themselves in the flag and sing jingoistic songs except the sight of a pretty girl in a miniskirt. The quote is not exact, it is from memory and I couldn't find it on the web. But you get the idea.

We all like to compliment ourselves about how deep and sophisticated we are, but we aren't that complicated really.

An antidote to this tactic is a sense of financial security. So making these guys feel broke first would be an important part of the plan. Hard to do for Arab millionaires. Feeding them stale bread would make us look poor. I'd say a solid gold car, but any of these guys could do that if they wanted.

Aha! We could tell them that we have discovered an alternative to oil-derived fuel. And on top of that, we have discovered a huge ocean of oil in the U.S. Which goes back to what people have been hinting at for a while: without oil, we don't care if they all kill each other or not. Except Israel. So they need Israel, because that's the only country that Americans care about over there.

Gaza Scholars

Thank you, Secretary Rice.

Thank you for having a common sense head on your shoulders and restoring the Fulbright scholarships to the Gaza winners. There will be a long-term ramification of being reasonable in this matter. I call it the "payoff of reasonableness." None of these future Palestinian leaders will forget your compassion for them. They are going to be around a long time and the benefit may not be immediately apparent, but it will be there.

Thank you again.

U.S. Talks With Iran: Is War Still in the Air?

Yes. Don't be fooled. The Bush Administration acknowledged that the country cannot be run like Texas when it agreed to have conversations with Iran. It only took them six years. As a national leader, you have to talk to people you hate. Freezing them out is ineffective.

But the Bush Administration is populated with people who don't change their minds and hate new ideas. So their thoughts from twenty years ago, namely, to invade Iraq and then Iran, are still driving their thinking and policy decisions.

It would be wise to watch the news reports and the rhetoric. Recently, an article appeared about Iranian problems with drug smugglers. It was a sympathetic article to Iran and likened their border issues with ours. The appearance of this article can be seen as a signal that the U.S. position towards Iran is open to cooperation. It would be a declaration of "common ground," if you will. The Bush Administration would be feeding the notion that Iran and the U.S. could unite in fighting narcotics trafficking.

How strong would that "common ground" be? Almost illusionary. Iran should not be baited into any conciliatory stance.

Don't be surprised if a sudden reversal of rhetoric occurs, painting Iran as an enemy of the U.S. One would be mistaken to think that any gains in understanding between the U.S. and Iran would preclude manic accusations from our President. That is not the case.

And when the President speaks, he is speaking to his political base. So the reassurance of "don't listen to what I say, watch what I do" would be hollow.

Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority

Is anyone surprised that Hamas and Fatah are killing each other? Not me. And that tenuous cease-fire they've got going on is not going to last. Hamas and Fatah are fighting for control of the Palestinian Authority. It is a natural outgrowth of Hamas winning electorally.

Because, again, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Hamas has expressed itself politically through violence for years. Now it has the chance to govern and it can't do it. Not without killing people. Its only political expression is violence and wild-eyed rhetoric. To be more balanced, Hamas also has many charities and feeds the poor, etc. But it is how you communicate and negotiate with your enemies that makes you a leader.

The worst possible denouement would be Israel's involvement in this fight. Let them kill each other or learn how to talk themselves. It is a struggle they are going to have to resolve.

The Pope Allies With Iran

Pope Benedict supports Iran's right to use nuclear energy. Not nuclear bombs, mind you, but nuclear energy. Pope Benedict met with Khatami, former leader of Iran. The Pope also mentioned the "freedom of religion" in Iran. Except if you are Jewish. He didn't think of that part, I guess.

"Meanwhile, Khatami said, 'Today, Muslims, Christians and followers of other religions should stress on their commonalities and strive to maintain unity in the face of insecurity and violence.' The former president regarded lack of kindness and justice as the root cause of main problems for mankind."

He's joking, right? Like calling for the destruction of Israel is kindness and justice?

I appreciate what the Pope is trying to do. He is trying to get a dialog going with Iran when the U.S. is failing to do this. The Pope is trying to get Iran talking and getting applause for nonviolent actions. That is a good thing. He is getting Iran engaged in positive constructive rhetoric which will be mentioned in the future, believe me.

Basically, Popes are forced to do things like this when the leader of the free world acts like a high school bully and snob all rolled into one. Bush senior was known for treating world leaders like they were all in some exclusive club. Bush junior acts the same, only he won't let everyone into the club and won't talk to those who don't belong. Not a mature way to handle foreign policy.

Peace in the Middle East: The Payoff for Peace

The Israeli paper, Haaretz, reported that the King of Jordan supported the idea of giving Palestinians a payment rather than a guarantee of a return to their old land. Hamas went bonkers and has returned to sending rockets into Israel.

Let's face it, all of the Palestinians are not going to return. Just give them the money and let's move on. Of course, Hamas will no longer have any reason to keep on killing people except that they are bloodthirsty jerks. They will probably invent another reason.

The Arab Plan for Peace

So what's with those Arabs wanting peace with Israel? True, if they stopped fighting each other a sudden burst of prosperity would hit the region. But that's not enough of a reason. Maybe these Arab leaders are tired of the criminal element that is exploiting radical Islam. Maybe they don't think Israel will go for it and that will be a good excuse for even more bad behavior in the future.

Maybe Iran's actions are really starting to freak them out. Maybe the annihilation of Israel is not something they want, at lease by nuclear means. After all, the fallout would be on them. Maybe Iran is too strong now, and that is a bigger problem for them.

Who knows? Either way, it is a welcome development
.

Putin, Russia and Iran

Remember the Munich Security Conference where Putin outlined his vision for multilateralism? And remember how Iran, for a brief moment, became cooperative about its nuclear program?

A prominent Russian reporter, Ivan Safronov, died on March 3 from falling out of a window in his apartment building. He was writing a story on the sale of weapons by Russia to Syria and Iran, some of which could reach Israel if fired.

So when Putin said at the Munich Security Conference that more could be accomplished by acting as a partner with Russia, there was weight behind what he said. After all, he is selling them important weapons. Of course they would listen to him.

The United States could take advantage of this situation, and not just complain about it, by working with Russia to keep Iran and Syria in check. But that would be a new idea, and Bush doesn't allow those.

US War with Iran - Pretext

One gets the feeling that the entire idea of attacking Iraq was a pretext to attack Iran. Econo-Girl would urge somebody to talk sense into the head of our President, but is afraid it would only get them arrested.

Bush will use al Sadr's presence in Iran as a pretext to start a war with them. Watch for a media build-up on the evils of al Sadr. Already Econo-Girl has seen him compared to Osama bin Laden.

The only chance to escape the impending debacle is for Iran to talk to Germany, and get Germany to talk to Israel and Britain about approaching Bush about not doing this.

People who are comparing the rhetoric about Iraq to what is being said by the President about Iran are correct. We live in dangerous times.

Compare the Two Stories

My God, Econo-Girl hasn't been this surprised since Pravda called U.S. intervention in Kosovo "unwarranted."

In doing research on Putin's speech before the 43rd Munich Security Conference, Econo-Girl has found three great articles, all linked on Google News. The nature of what happened at that conference is important enough to warrant several posts.

From Xinhua's China View, (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/10/content_5724866.htm), a direct reporting of Putin's remarks on the effects of unbridled U.S. military aggression on the insecurity level of the world.

Excerpt: "We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations ... the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way," said Putin at a high-profile security conference in southern German city of Munich.

"The legitimate use of force can only be done by the United Nations, which cannot be replaced by EU or NATO," he said."

Putin went on to say the insecurity caused by U.S. use of force leads other nations to want nuclear weapons. The content of Putin's speech will be addressed in other posts.

Now look at another article on the same conference: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10161072.htm. You will notice that Putin is not mentioned at all. The stated purpose of this newswire is to "alert humanitarians to emergencies." The writer talks about how diplomats are whispering in hallways about offering incentives to Iran to behave itself. A few blunt threats did that just fine before the conference was over.

If humanitarian emergencies is your focus, why would you ignore Putin's insight on global destabilization? Econo-Girl is no Putin fan, but he raises some very interesting points that are very much worth discussing.

The People's Daily Online (http://english.people.com.cn/200702/11/eng20070211_349165.html) quotes Putin as saying,

' "We should not corner Iran into a hostile environment," Putin said at a high-profile security conference held in the southern German city of Munich.

There is no evidence, after all, that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, he said.'

If you are writing an article about diplomats drafting incentives to get Iran to stop its nuclear program, wouldn't a mention of the above comment be fitting?

The comparison of news articles from various news outlets is an analysis all its own. Thank God for the Internet and ready access to the People's Daily.

Atomic Israel: Iran, Iraq and War

The question isn't "Is Iran Supporting the Iraq Insurgency?" It's the kind of crap they would do, and Econo-Girl has no information to say they aren't. The question is "Why is the U.S. advertising this?"

The U.S. could be setting the stage for a real confrontation with Iran to let them know their rhetoric against Israel needs to calm down a few notches. Reminding them of what a real problem could look like in the headlines of the world's leading newspapers is a great way to get it across.

Or maybe the Administration has been planning a war with Iran all along. All the intelligence agencies agree, and that's suspicious right off the bat. The logic expressed in the New York Times article is something like "We were wrong before and we admit that. So you got to believe us now." OK, so you finally admitted the obvious when it was impossible to do anything else. That doesn't give you credibility.

One thing is certain: a lot of this bandying of headlines could stop if we would just have some kind of dialog with Iran directly. Remember, you don't have to be able to look into someone's eyes and declare you can do business with this man, to do business with this man. You just need to get over yourself.

See "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says " today in the New York Times.

Atomic Israel: Olmert Speaks

Olmert is now assuring the world and the Israelis that nuclear measures will not be needed in checking Iran's nuclear ambitions. Essentially dismissing Ahmadinejad as a blowhard, he calls the Iranian leader's atomic claims dubious. Certainly there is a track record to back that up. Ahmadinejad tops Econo-Girl's list of obnoxious loudmouths.

Econo-Girl's opinion is that Olmert is signaling an out for Iran and trying to put a lid on the crazies in the U.S. who are pushing for a nuclear showdown. It's great the way people always want somebody else to be blown up.

Here's what their analysis lacks: in WWII, we were the ONLY ONES WITH A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Now, many nations have them. So the hothead deciding to use one will be destroyed themselves. That makes the North Korean nuclear threat far more serious than the Iranian one. The one thing the Iranians don't have is a suicidal cult of personality. Beneath the rhetoric, they can be negotiated with.

Click on the title to this post to see the article Econo-Girl is referring to.

Atomic Israel: Chirac Speaks

Jacques Chirac was chatting with reporters when commenting that Iran would be leveled if they used a nuclear weapon. So the world does not need to fear Iran's nuclear capability. They need to worry about Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Chirac chased reporters after the interview to tell them the comment was off-the-record. Econo-Girl is not entirely convinced that is so. Was it instead another balloon being floated in the international press warning of retaliation against Iran's nuclear moves? That's what Econo-Girl thought when she heard it. And she is not the only one, it seems.

The Crisis Action coalition in Great Britain now warns against the U.S. or Great Britain striking against Iran before trying diplomacy. Well, we all know how well diplomacy has worked with Iran in the past.

"The analysts said it would also create an al-Qaida backlash of terror attacks in the invading countries and retaliation by oil-producing countries." Click on the title to this post for the full story.

An al-Qaida backlash of terror attacks? Are we really going to alter our foreign policies based on such gangster threats? Are we going to cede loss of control of our own country such that we will be swayed by the mention of a terror attack? If we did, the September 11 bombers would have been successful. Let's make them fail instead.

Atomic Israel

So how is it different when Israel raises the atomic threat, than when Iran does it?

Well, let's see. Iran has a history of being taken over by political nutballs and using extreme rhetoric against its adversaries that usually don't lead to anything.

Israel has a history of attacking with little or no warning and engaging in extreme military responses.

So when Israel, or someone with credibility, hints that Israel will use nuclear force to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential, the globe shudders. Especially when delivered through a media vehicle like Britain's The Sunday Times.

Quickly Israel has moved to deny any such idea. Click on the title to this post to see an article in The Australian.

But remember, the world of diplomacy is primarily one of words. Just the suggestion that Israel would attack Iran in this manner will have an effect. Maybe it will temper the Big Mouth In Tehran into worrying more about his own political base.

If that's the case, then it wouldn't be such an unproductive balloon.