In the Middle of Nowhere

There seems to be a common denominator between Greece and Palestine. Samuel P Huntington says in his book Clash of Civilizations from 1996 the following: “Greece is not part of Western civilization, but it was the home of the Classical Civilization which was an important source to the Western Civilization. In their opposition to the Turks, Greeks historically has considered themselves spear carriers of Christianity. Unlike Serbs, Romanians, or Bulgarians their history has been intimately entwined with that the West. Yet Greece is also an anomaly, the Orthodox outsider in Western organizations. It has never been an easy member of either the EU or NATO and has had difficulties to adapt itself to the mores of both.”

Huntington has Russia as the core state in the Orthodox civilization so he would advocate that Greece would be better off in the Russia group together with the Serbs. Palestine seems to be positioned between the West and the Muslims but supported mostly by the West economically and technocratically on a base of Islam. Both Greece and Palestine lies in the fault line of civilizations. Today it seems like Greece is on the way out and Palestine on the way in.

Palestine is trying to change the status quo by asking for international support different from the US and the EU. The US and Israel is against the solicitation of UN membership because it disturbs the peace process. So far I have not read anything that would indicate that an eventual UN membership would change anything on the ground, so what is it Abbas want to achieve? Is it really possible for the PA to be in the middle of nowhere, not with Hamas and the Arab street and not really with the US and Israel if they are to be living in peace side by side?

Huntington says one more thing. There is no solution for fault line conflicts which would indicate that efforts should be made to produce the most agreeable status quo possible. What is happening now then is not appropriate because it provokes one of the parties.

The Palestinians don't want any Jews in their state!

"THE PALESTINIANS have certainly never given either the Americans or the Europeans a good reason to support their cause. Just this week, the PLO representative in Washington told reporters that the future state of Palestine will ban Jews and homosexuals.

And yet, the Obama administration and the EU have made the establishment of a racist, homophobic Palestinian state the greatest aim of their policies in the Middle East.

Every single Palestinian leader from the supposedly moderate Fatah party has rejected Israel's right to exist and said that they will never set aside their demand that Israel accept millions of foreign-born Arabs - the so-called Palestinian "refugees" - as citizens. They say this with the full knowledge that this demand is nothing less than a demand for Israel's destruction.

And yet, both the US and the EU, which certainly do not support the destruction of Israel, insist that it is imperative to strengthen and support the supposedly moderate Fatah party which seeks the destruction of Israel."

Caroline Glick writes the above in her blog. The article is also on display in The Jerusalem Post where she is a regular columnist. She wonders a little why the West bothers. Glick points to the fact that it is the US and the EU that helps keeping the Palestinians going but does of course, like noone else, have solution for a peace process.

I have earlier heard about an South African kind of solution for Israel and Palestine but the two-state solution advocated by most states and the news that Jews can't live in a future Palestine rules this out. I'm looking, in my frustration over the situation, for a future solution that takes into account demographic realities in the area.

Keeping up a status quo situation has been an understandable way of looking at the issue but current affairs seem to indicate that the Turks and Arabs are not pleased with the status quo any longer, although they might be the ultimate winner of such an approach in the long run? Impatience is in the air!

There was an article on the wsj.com site today that desribed a soccer game between an Israeli team and a Turkish team in Istanbul this weekend. There were people shouting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans. It reminded me of a tennis game in Malmö a while ago that had to be played without an audience--for the security of the Israeli players. Will it be possible for Turks and Arabs to whip up international pressure on Israel that will necessitate that they give up on their security concerns. Security is not important here. A worst case scenario would be to have Israel lowering their guard for a strike while the West is busy with their economic problems.

The question is why the Arab Spring is taking place and why there is impatience in the Palestine-Israel question all of a sudden? Removal of all Western supported dictators? Humiliating the West in this fashion just to return to normal as the West has lost themselves on the rebels--on the right side of history, as if democracy already was installed.

Is it because the US was cautious in Libya and that no European power would assist Israel in an emergency. Pure power play, in other words. The reaction from the West on the Arab Spring has been positive until recently when it has been conditional for Turkey to lead the way, forgetting all about Israel, because it complicates the issue. I guess I have to settle for a hope that this looks worse than it is?

The Climate is Worsening Around Israel

The new type of martyrship that the Turkish activists that sacrificed their lives while attacking the Israeli commandoes in the Ship to Gaza incident were revealed in a report by the UN that vindicated Israel against these marauders. Egypt was also aggressive recently after a terrorist attack against Israelis close to Eilat. However, due to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the event has worsened the relationship between Turkey and Israel to the point of retracting their ambassadors, since Erdogan demand of an Israeli apology has not been met. 

Who is this Erdogan? Well, according to Ian Bremmer in his book The J curve, he was educated in religious schools as a devout Muslim. As a teenager, he was forced off a soccer team for refusing to shave his beard he considered it his religious duty to grow. Elected mayor of Istanbul in 1994, Erdogan declared himself the city’s “imam” and opened his first city council meeting by chanting from the Koran. After reading an Islamist poem at a 1998 rally, Erdogan was convicted of using religion to provoke disorder and sent to jail for four months. The poem read in part, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets/The minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers. The jail sentence apparently made him more Kemalistically secular but how much of a religious soldier is he still while being a very popular prime minister?

Erdogan’s life witnesses the tense relationship between the democratic government and the military which characterizes Turkey and which makes it less suitable to join the EU. Erdogan has, according to Der Spiegel held a rally in Germany to 15,000 Turkish immigrants where he suggested they should not integrate into the German society. Thus supporting Turkish enclaves in Germany, his Turkey is less suitable for EU membership. At least if the current ever closer union represents the future path of development.

The question is then what path Turkey is going to find for themself in the appearing Middle East and North Africa environment at the same time as they are alienating themselves from Israel? They are playing an important part in supporting the NTC of Libya and have issued warning to Syria for their human rights violations. Will they evolve as a democratic model for the rest or will they rather become like the rest to blend in? Turkey being the most democratic Muslim country is an important phenomenon with a rather unique history to match. It does not seem likely that we will find a leader of Kemal Atatürk’s type in the area with such a will to emulate the West.

The Peace Process between Israel and the Palestinians

Soon there will be a restart of direct talks between Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. The commentaries I have seen so far are skeptical at best. It would be a great thing with a peaceful solution, though.

President Obama came up with a smart idea. Smart in the sense that it would appeal to the vanity of Netanyahu and the Israelis. Obama said that the Israelis had to be prepared to take a risk for peace to materialize. This then amid the usual talk about the security of Israel being the problem and that Palestine could not become a state with their own military, for example.

However, the Israelis took a risk with leaving Gaza to the Palestinians and "democracy" then led to its population with the Israel enemy Hamas. So much, perhaps, for taking risks. Leaving the West Bank, called Judea and Samaria by the Israeli right, to the Palestinian National Authority would then make it possible for standard Gaza-type rocket attacks on key targets in Israel proper. It is very difficult to understand why this would actually happen. There has been some progress with American trained "secure" security forces of Palestinians on the West Bank but will they be able to keep the area rocket proof?

Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the Palestinian National Authority, has apparently done well with the BNP growth of the West Bank. Things are moving in the right direction and there has even been talk about forming a state without the OK from the Israelis. What is not moving in the right direction is that Hamas, the Sunni sect and the rather secular Fatah are apparently not really on speaking terms. Therefore a homogenous PNA that can serve as a partner for all Palestinians does not exist. Skepticism is really the only thing possible during such circumstances.

People don't even talk about what I just discussed lately because they get stuck on the settlement question. The Israeli right, on which Netanyahu's government rests, are adamantly against giving up such areas. President Obama's initial offering was even seen as an attempt to bring down Netanyahu's government for its replacement with a Kadima led one. Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, was actually the largest party in the last election. They were in charge when George W. Bush tried for peace in the Annapolis deal which was seen as having a greater chance of succeeding due to the relatively more area give-away prone Kadima.

If something could be done on the settlement question this might lead somewhere but it does not look promising. The way I have understood the situation, although I'm not an expert, is that there is no short term solution for viable peace. Experts are more positive though, so there is hope.

A Thought Experiment?

Israel and the Surrender of the West - WSJ.com: "This is something new in the world, this almost complete segregation of Israel in the community of nations. And if Helen Thomas's remarks were pathetic and ugly, didn't they also point to the end game of this isolation effort: the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation?"

Ulf Bjereld brings statistics to the fore on DN.se today in discussing the foreign policy of Sweden. I have seen comments in the Israeli press where they are not very interested in what the Swedes say about Israel. Sweden is far away and represents relatively few people. Justifying my own interest in the situation of Israel, I am interested in Judaism and in the pursuit of the state Israel, which is impressive. The above cited article on WSJ.com tries to discuss the reason for why Israel is scape goated today.

Concerning Helen Thomas' conclusion, I wonder if she did not have partly the same idea as I when I early on in the wake of Operation Cast Lead concluded that the best choice for Israel might have been an exodus if this indeed is the end game of Iran et al. I have since realized that Israel's security situation is not that precarious. Living in Sweden and reading the Swedish press I definitely get a feeling that anti-semitism is a growing problem though. Jews feel they have to leave the third largest town of Sweden, Malmö, for their security.

The notion of a "surrender of the West" as a phenomenon that morally scape goats Israel is of course an interesting thing, if true. The "third world" is gaining in clout and the West is suffering from second thoughts based on their past of racism, colonialism etc. I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion because the benefits to the world from the activity of the West is so great that it outweighs past injustice. I don't fear hatred from what was once called the third world.

The hard question is what fuels the hatred of Palestinians so that 50% harbor thoughts that suicide bombing is OK? Shelby Steele says "If the Palestinians got everything they want—a sovereign nation and even, let's say, a nuclear weapon—they would wake the next morning still hounded by a sense of inferiority. For better or for worse, modernity is now the measure of man".

Very much depends on which friends you choose. Israel exports 35% of their goods to the US, for example. It is politically correct in Sweden that one should treat Israel and a future Palestine equally but I must say that the actions over time makes me more impressed by Israel. However, the reason for the belligerency of the Palestinians is perhaps not inferiority? I have gotten a feeling that it is that wretched piece of land that everyone covets. For Hamas it represents a waqf. Furthermore they never accepted "The World's" idea to place the Jews there.

Steele's question is highly warranted though. Is world opinion changing on the legitimacy of Israel's small piece of land? Personally, I don't think the Jews are on occupied territory. They were attacked during the Six Day War and won, to the surprise of many. In such a situation it is highly justified to keep land for one's own protection. A moral punishment for the attackers.

Obama and the Middle East?

I think it was in the second of three televised presidential candidate debates where Barack Obama said he wanted to make the US independent of Middle East oil in ten years. The same kind of statement that JFK made about flying to the moon.

He would probably want that more today than then, up to his knees in Gulf of Mexico oil as he is. But what are his chances? Can he replace the oil he needs from other sources by then? Can he step out of Iraq without problems? If the oil spill is a reverse Harrisburg, building nuclear power plants takes a lot of time?

50,000 soldiers are leaving Iraq at the end of the summer and the political vacuum is, according to Stratfor via the Swedish radio program "Konflikt", supposed to be filled by Turkey. Turkey is popular right now but in an anti-Satan kind of way, although Obama is trying to be friendly with the Palestinians. This might mean that Iraq becomes more distanced from the US than today? Which is OK, perhaps, if the US is on the way out as Obama suggested.

There is, of course, a risk that Iran decides to take up that political vacuum instead. Will Israel strike their nuclear facilities then? They have gotten a green light to fly over Saudi Arabia according to timesonline.co.uk. Israel would face a retaliation from this kind of attack according to The Jerusalem Post. In other words, this could get complicated. No one that buys petroleum products from the Middle East would like that to happen, so I hope Israel stays put.

Complicated or not, it would be nice if the US could end their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and lower their need of oil during the upcoming 8 years. As usual, much depends on the intentions of Iran if the region will stay calm. Iran is of course not a role model for the area's peaceful development. Paradoxically to some, Israel would, but Turkey may suffice.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel strategy

Propaganda war latest: Tehran 3 Israel 0 Amir Taheri - Times Online: "This message is pumped out through Iranian satellite television stations, such as the Arab language al-Alam News Network. Tehran also publishes scores of magazines and books that are freely distributed throughout the Muslim world. Muslim opinion-formers are regularly invited to Iran for seminars on the pan-Islamic campaign to accelerate “the inevitable end of Israel”, a phrase repeatedly used by Iran’s official media. Mr Ahmadinejad has visited more than two dozen Muslim countries to propagate this new anti-Israel strategy."

If George Friedman at Stratfor sets Israel in a more peaceful environment, if not for Hamas, Iran's proxy, Amir Taheri brings to the fore the propaganda war of a more and more assertive Iran that seems indifferent to the sanctions just enacted by the UN.

Friedman made room for problems in the future for Israel, the state, Ahmadinejad is apparently not out to destroy the Jews. Only the Zionist state Israel. The good news is perhaps that it does not seem like he is going to do this with an atom bomb but rather by means of propaganda wise make it impossible for Israel to function in the area. Unless he is mad enough to think that he can enrage Muslims to the degree that he gets away with a bomb?

Lexington at The Economist gave a reference to what he called a "truly alarmist" article by Joshua Teitelbaum in The Guardian. He means that Turkey is actively plotting to shift to a jihad towards Israel in line with Iran's strategy. The EUobserver.com is today saying that Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, blames EU for not letting Turkey in and thus causing them to go Muslim. EU does not agree and Turkey is saying that they want a no trouble with anyone neighbor foreign policy.

I don't know what it is but I have problems understanding why an area destined to progress into the future is not keen on taking advantage of Israel's prowess. Obama made his first trip to a Muslim country to Turkey and thus showed that he valued their friendship. His administration is now trying to restore the relationship between Turkey and Israel to make their policy work. But Obama's pro-Muslim quest has other troubles. He has cancelled Indonesia for the second time and he arranged the sanction deal against Turkey friend Iran, Turkey and Brazil voting no, and Lebanon abstaining probably because of Hizbollah's wish. What Taheri says is perhaps that Iran has global aspirations, Israel is just the first step.

Like other foreign policy hawks in the US, Teitelbaum says that Obama's new policy is giving space for other actors like Erdogan and Ahmadinejad. The row after the flotilla raid was much larger than warranted and it is therefore easy to state that it is probably used as a propaganda stunt. The organizers managed to raise the temperature higher than after operation Cast Lead and the carrying theme was the same--excessive violence by Israel. As these things go, it might be a justification for what the Iranians officially claims "the inevitable end to Israel". An Iranian flotilla is apparently in the making!?

Israel's safety is unsustainable?

Obama is abandoning Israel--John Bolton - NYPOST.com: "the White House is plainly leaning heavily on Israel to weaken the blockade in potentially fatal ways. Indeed, on Friday, a White House press person said the 'current arrangements' were 'unsustainable,' a very poorly disguised threat to Israel."

Israel is sensing pressure right now for removing the blockade of Gaza for items that might create destructive power against Israel. Statements like "we have to save Israel from itself" are not uncommon. Nearly all people so far, even former Israel friends, have said that the violence displayed by Israel against the Turkish flotilla have been excessive. I don't agree! The IDF must have seemingly used as little power as they could while maintaining their own lives.

When people back hundreds of millions Muslims arrayed against 6m Jews, something must be wrong. Add to that 500m Europeans. I have earlier concluded that people in Europe draw conclusions about matters in Israel as if they lived in peace and harmony down there as they do in Europe. I wonder what would happen if the US also turned downright against Israel? This is what the PR war aims at.

It apparently boils down to the question of winning wars in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or keeping Israel as a friend. According to arguments being made it does not seem like you can have this cake and eat it? In that respect it might be wise to suggest that a bird in the hand is better than ten in the forest.

Last time I commented on the flotilla debacle I brought up Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rhetoric. A very well argumented and balanced article in The Christian Science Monitor brings up this question of language usage. The article begins with the words: "Even considering the shock and sorrow over the tragic deaths of 8 Turks and a Turkish-American aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish vessels, the rhetorical response from Turkish officials has been over the top". Especially noting that the Turks created the debacle by breaking a military blockade in a war zone where International Law does not really apply.

There was talk about Israel having painted themself into a corner but I believe that it is rather Turkey that has made this mistake. We need to see a Turkey that returns to normal ways and not a country that is fuelling lynch mobs with fierce rhetoric. A Turkey that can be friends with Europe, without being a member of the EU, and at the same time a friend to Israel and to the Arabs and Persians.

Miklagård is in vogue again?

I think Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, overdid it a little today when he tries to use an economical argument for biasing the Turkey/Israel balance of favors in his blog. I now understand why there was not, according to the Swedish government, a genocide in Armenia 1915--it is because Turkey is going to be the world's ten most affluent nation in a decade.

There seems to be preparations for another genocide unfortunately. The intifadas were not effective so when Ariel Sharon gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they responded by electing a terrorist organization as their leader, some called this a democratic election, Israel blockaded Gaza. Hamas responded with a new kind of irritant, sending rockets into Israel, as part of a new strategy--defamate Israel internationally.

Finally Israel had to retaliate in the only way they could and this led to an international outrage. Now phase two in this new type of warfare has been launched--a Turkish flotilla where lots of people have been fooled to participate in a "peaceful" demonstration by a Turkish terror linked group I.H.H. Some peace, when the Israelian commandos were brutally attacked on the Turkish lead ship Mavi Marmara. I agree with Niklas Wykman, the youth leader of the Moderate Party, when he stated that people had been fooled into a hate attack on Israel. I wonder, however, how innocent these people in actuality were.

Michael Oren, the Israelian Ambassador to the US, writes an informative article in The New York Times. He verifies that Israelian commandos suffered gun shot wounds. What is most worrying was the extreme anti-Israelian hate that became displayed in the media response. It is interesting to compare the attack with the recent attack on the Red Shirts in Bangkok which was received with a mere whisper in comparison although generating almost ten times the amount of casualties.

Michael Oren says that Israel also want a Gaza free of brutal Hamas rule and a situation where there are no threats to Israel as the international discussion has turned in the direction of removing the Gaza blockade. It is of course obvious to the Israelis, as for others, that Gaza has turned into a liability. However, it seems beyond reasonable doubts that Israel must avoid the build up of rocket capabilities like those of Hizbollah up north for the safety of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In the mean time no one is starving in Gaza even if life could be better. Hamas, from their part, still shoots rockets--as if they wanted to sacrifice another 1,000 Palestinians to create yet another international outrage against Israel.

The effect the international outcry has is to move the theater beyond the two state solution. Erdogan, the Turkish PM, has called Israel a "festering boil" in the Middle East. This is as close to Iran and Hamas speak you can get from this prospective EU member state. Partly this talk is a reaction to the Turks giving up on Europe, I guess, but it is not surprising. We do not, at least not yet, se Europeans stand and scream "Death to Israel" and "Death to America".

What was the motive?

Our World: Ending Israel's losing streak: "The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war, unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds."

If you don't have time to read Caroline Glick's article in full it might at least be useful to ponder, like Mankell would have suggested?, who had the motive for generating death for the media headlines? It was the difference between a completely meaningless flotilla attempt, that was planned during one and one half years, and crushing headlines. It seems highly likely that people are ready to die for such strategic profits.

Memorial Day

A day like this when suicide bomb types have caused a major and tragic debacle in the sea outside Gaza, it might sound excentric to celebrate Memorial Day. As I earlier discussed, however, I am grateful to the service men and women that have helped secure this thus rather peaceful corner of the Earth and I'm proud of the Swedish soldiers that help out in Afghanistan.

Showing empathy for the Israelis a day like this when we clearly see what a hostile environment they are immersed in, stresses how fortunate we are in Sweden and how grateful we should be. Sometimes I wonder if the hate displayed against Israel is not partly anti-Americanism in disguise?

Turkey seemingly is becoming a problem in the region. People there made a run on an Israeli consulate. Despite being a NATO member, the Turkish people do not look favorably on the US according to a recent Gallup poll. Their problem with Israel has also increased lately. I wondered a while ago which way power went between the friends Iran and Turkey. It seems unfortunately like Turkey is copying the proxy mode of fighting Israel that Iran has used via Hamas and Hizbollah.

State sponsored Ship-to-Gaza flotilla challenges Israel

Skepp fullastade med charlataner - Debatt - Expressen.se: "I likhet med sina medorganisatörer liknar Mankell Hamas terrorister vid antinazistiska motståndsrörelser och Israel vid det nazistiska Tyskland"

Caroline B. Glick, from the Jerusalem Post via Expressen gives an interesting background to the attempt to land 8 ships with aid in Gaza and thus break the blockade Israel is doing on Hamas' criminal ruling of Gaza that in all probability aims to attack Israel anew. Hamas is against the existence of Israel and instead of building a peaceful commune with foreign aid they three years ago started to turn Gaza into a rocket ramp.

This is probably an attempt to generate an international response against Israel like the one after Operation Cast Lead where Israel lost a lot of its political capital although they had the right to defend themselves. There is now, as there was then many Israelis that want the blockade to end. However, as long as the government stands I think they should determine what the best course of action to take on Israel's security is.

According to shiptogaza.se Carl Bildt, the foreign minister of Sweden, and Caroline Ashton, EU's High representative, have supported ending the blockade. Having an opinion is one thing but causing trouble for the Israeli government I guess is another. As Lady Ashton recently visited Gaza, two rockets were fired on Israel one of which killed an Israeli.

It is going to be interesting to see what the impact is of the new National Security Dotrine of the US. Because the US are going to deal with Europe country by country and think the EU can be good for aiding the Eastern European countries. It remains to be seen what influence the opinions of the high representative will have in the future. Peter Wolodarski writes today on DN.se about the importance of EU for the international voice of Sweden. I would not be surprised if the voice of Sweden alone is not more influential than that of Lady Ashton's.

Iran Sanctions' Status

Editorial - Iran, Sanctions and Mr. Gates’s Memo - NYTimes.com: "There, the news is not good. While Russian and Chinese leaders told Mr. Obama that they will work seriously on new sanctions, diplomats say their representatives are already seeking ways to dilute any resolution. Brazil and Turkey, which currently sit on the Security Council and have a lot of international sway, also are resisting."

If you look back a while, there is a picture emerging of an endless discussion of talks, sanctions and bombs when it comes to Iran. The point were Iran would have a nuclear weapon capability is pushed forward all the time--in absurdum. Apparently the distinction between a nuclear capable Iran and the one today cannot even be discussed in the open. However, the window of opportunity is slowly closing now when Brazil and Turkey are against sanctions as well. Many would agree that something has to be done and it seems evident that Europe has to make up its mind if it wants to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or if it still is in NATO? The problems in Afghanistan are linked to those in Israel/Palestine and Iraq. Iran is the key.

The waves in Europe have recently been geared at giving the view that the world has become a true multipolar entity. It seems to fit Europe to want to disappear from view among themselves and to express an intense urge to be left alone in peace. In the mean time, countries like Russia is meddling in the world as detailed in an article by Bronwen Maddox at the Times. Security arrangements with Russia ought to be out of question as suggested in an article by Ben Knight in Deutsche Welle.

I think I wrote something yesterday but I can't resist writing a little today about what I think is very important, that Europe realizes that the US is the only friend they have. The Russia friendliness as of late in Europe seems to disregard totally the mental power fight surrounding the Iran case between the two power blocks that were detailed by Robert Kagan in the presidential election debate of 2008. It is a serious breach of confidence with the US, who seem to want to work along the line of striking deals with Russia and China on security issues which are not possible if they are not of the token quality recently seen in removing nuclear missiles.

An article in Washington Post yesterday claimed it was time to pack up and leave Afghanistan, and to give up American influence in the World altogether, but that probably also means that you loose the other Middle Eastern fights to a resurgent Iran. Fareed Zakaria who wrote the book The Post-American World still think the fight in Afghanistan is worth its while and he also think people should go more easy on Hamid Karzai for its facilitation. He also suggested that this was in part for the sake of India which he hails from. Trans-Atlantic influence in the world remains very important.

Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a new Cold War. Between countries that don't know how to behave and those who do. Between countries that have decent governments with low corruption and those who don't. Between democracy and authoritarianism. Again, the key is Iran and we eagerly await the destabilization of its suppressive rule.

Israel a liability for the US! Tough talk or fact based on research?

'Israel saves, doesn’t endanger, US lives': "This argument first surfaced immediately after the Ramat Shlomo issue broke, with a furious Biden quoted by Yediot Aharonot as telling Netanyahu, “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace. Biden's staff later denied that he made that comment, but regardless, that argument had penetrated the US public discussion about Israel.

Then the Foreign Policy magazine web site ran a story a couple of days later saying that the Commander of the US Central Command, Major General David Petraeus, sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year "with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers."

Well, General Petraeus is not the kind of person that you want to argue against. He is the man that turned the tide on the Iraq war. He has a Ph.D. from Princeton that makes him eligible for interpreting intelligence data on top of this. However, Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israelian PM, does just that. I guess he lives in the Middle East and has tentacles everywhere. It still seems to me that his judgement that Israel is an asset rather than a liability is reasonable.

Tough talk then... to reach objectives for the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? Peace negotiations that the top players in Israel does not think have the possibility to materialize in the short run. My problem with this is that a peace deal between Palestine and Israel, as unlikely as it is, is not going to change Iran's belligerence via Hizbollah and Hamas. According to Petraeus Iran is helping al Qaida now in Afghanistan as well. Ariel Sharon gave Gaza to the Palestinians and they turned it into a war zone...with the help of Iran. This is therefore the likely outcome of further land concessions. Iran blocks effectively peace.

I can't resist making a comment comparing the fight about Afghanistan that apparently is worth NATO lives and that Israel's existence would not be subject to the same treatment. It seems to me that Israel as an asset far supersedes that of Afghanistan.

Turkey as a relay between the West and Iran?

The Region: Meanwhile, in the ME...: "The Americans, Ahmadinejad said, “not only have failed to gain any power, but also are forced to leave the region. They are leaving their reputation, image and power behind in order to escape... The [American] government has no influence [to stop]... the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties and Iran-Turkey ties – God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.”"

Barry Rubin at The Jerusalem Post uses this citation from Ahmadinejad of Iran to illustrate what he calls the real problem of the Middle East rather than the Israel-Palestine question in general and the Jerusalem development in particular. Israel is apparently split on the relative importance of Iran (right) or Palestine (left). For Sweden this means that if Ahmadinejad is the boss rather than Erdogan of Turkey, we can become party of the wrong side if a strong Turkey, Irak friendliness is cultivated.

However, Turkey is of course a more cultivated society than that of Iran at this point--democratic as it is. It could therefore be argued that, there would be more influence flowing from Turkey to Iran than vice versa. This could be positive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has however given signs of "revolutionary" tendencies by claiming that assimilation of Turks in Europe is a crime against humanity, thus fueling irritation and fear of a development of a Eurabia.

If the hawks in the US are correct, Iran's tendency to regime change is more likely that their giving up nuclear ambitions, such which can give them the impression that they are leading Turkey along. It seems unlikely that a NATO member such as Turkey would get too subservient with Iran though, unless they become less revolutionary, although people claim they have been distancing themselves from Europe recently. The two countries Iran and Turkey have about the same GDP being on rank 17 and 18, respectively in the world with about the same size populations, 66m and 76m, respectively, which makes Iran a little wealthier per capita.

According to General Petraeus, Iran is more and more intent on fighting the US in the area and it is therefore more and more difficult seeing them as possible to integrate in the international community which is the prerequisite for diplomacy to work. They might simply be too wild. As Rubin points out, this is a bad development. Israel has a GDP of $205bn whereas Iran and Turkey each have approximately $850bn.

Turkey thus seems to have become a relay station for a tug of war between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In all probability this is one of the reasons for Sweden and the US to hesitate in calling Turkish history for what it is. As I have said earlier, I think this is wrong. Not heeding what the US Congress and the Swedish Parliament is arguing concerning the recognition of the 1915 genocide is giving in to dark forces and thus helping those in Turkey that obscur history and prevent reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey in the long run.

The recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature (2006) and the German Booksellers Prize (2005), Orhan Pamuk spoke up for the recognition of the genocide. He was apparently saved from prison, after having being charged for non-Turkishness, by the upcoming discussion of EU enlargment. It matters to Turkey what Europeans think, apparently. At least as far back as 2006, when this happened.

The "risk to American lives in the region" argument?

For the first time there are voices questioning Israel’s strategic value - Times Online: "As America becomes more deeply involved in the Arab and Muslim worlds, with nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq, the Gulf and Afghanistan, it will challenge anything that may threaten US lives".

This is an interesting argument but it seems erroneous because it treats the presence of American soldiers as settlers in the region. These soldiers are rather in the area to stand up for democracy and human rights. The argument was apparently also used as support for not calling the massacres of Armenians and others in 1915 a genocide by the Bush administration and perhaps also by the Obama administration since they tried to prevent the Congressional Committee to vote for the recognition of a genocide recently.

It might mean that there has been a shift from the presence of troops in the region short time to a long time perspective even if the rhetoric says otherwise. Such a change of opinion of the US government and military would be a disaster for Israel who naturally is a constant irritant for Muslims in the area and elsewhere. Whatever they do represents a risk to American lives. In the present dispute on Jerusalem settlements the AIPAC Jewish lobbying group (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is for Nethanyahu and the alternative lobbying group J-Street against. The dispute is taken seriously not only for the embarrassment for Joe Biden but also for Obama who is due visiting the largest Muslim country in the world, his childhood home, Indonesia.

However, trying to understand Nethanyahu in this debacle it seems like he is operating from the point of view of his own reality. Obama currently, with his friendliness towards non-democratic, poor human right respecting Muslim countries, is regarded very poorly in Israel. Nethanyahu's reality in the US is AIPAC and others sympathetic with the quest and history of Israel. These are people that unlike the UN Security Council Resolution 478 from 1980 think winning against aggressors in the six-day war entitled Israel morally to keep certain areas for their future defence. Jimmy Carter's administration abstained from the vote in the resolution. Things have changed.

President Obama has only 4% of Israeli Jews behind him.

Column One: Biden’s lost cause: "Second, the Netanyahu Obama faces is not the Netanyahu Clinton faced in the 1990s. Today, the premier leads a far broader coalition than he did in his previous government. It is also more stable. Labor Party chief Defense Minister Ehud Barak knows he cannot unseat Netanyahu. Indeed, he knows he can’t even trust his party to continue supporting him if he leaves Netanyahu’s government. As for opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the latest polls show her trailing far behind Nethanyahu as the people's choice for prime minister. Her party's popularity rates are decreasing, Likud's are growing."

Apparently, Bill Clinton managed to unseat Nethanyahu last time he was prime minister but this time, argues Catherine Glick, despite many recent high level visits from the US, this will be difficult this time around. Vice President Joe Biden is currently visiting and he represents the most pro-Israeli member of the Obama administration.

Tzipi Livni said not long ago that there is no opposition to the position on Iran among Israelis. The trend Glick is describing in her article furthermore underlines the seriousness of this question. The US and Israel a gliding apart, rather than coming together. However, a last month Gallup poll tells that two thirds of Americans support Israel, 80% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats.

What is going to be important for this equation is the position on the Israel-Palestine conflict that EUs new EAS authority is going to have? The pre-Lisbon Treaty position negotiated by the Swedish chairmanship was strongly in favor of Palestine. Lady Ashton, the EAS chief, is apparently starting out with a visit to Gaza. In all probability the result of this positioning is further going to polarize the US on the issue. Probably the EAS is going to be governed principally by the joint foreign ministers of the member states or by the EU Commission. Politicians or Administrators. However, it is not inconceivable that it evolves into something of an NGO like the European Parliament. The US State Department has about 22,000 employees and this should be compared to the 6,000 or so in the EAS.

Eurabia?

Blond bombshell Geert Wilders returns to Britain, looking for a fight - Times Online: "On February 20 the Dutch centrist coalition Government collapsed, deeply divided over keeping troops in Afghanistan, paving the way for a general election in June in which the Freedom Party is expected to do extremely well. Polls suggest that the party will triple its tally of seats, becoming at least the second-biggest parliamentary party and quite possibly the overall winner. Mr Wilders is likely to be a key player in any coalition, with a profound impact on the political agenda."

Last time Wilders was not allowed to enter the UK. This time he is back and more popular at home. I must say I have problems with a person that wants to ban the holy book, the Quran, of a world religion. This is not serious. Furthermore he wants to slam head-scarf wearing Muslim women with a €1,000/year tax. "A head-rag tax". Not very serious either.

He is a person that equals Islamofascism with Nazism. That is not so far out, since the Israel prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu compares Ahmadinejad's Iran with the Nazi Germany of the area. Wilders is getting good press in The Jerusalem Post. However, what is such a person capable of executing and with what public support once he would be elected? There is definitely a whiff of future racist persecution over what I just wrote. On top of this we are one minaret ban vote in Switzerland and a call against Switzerland for Jihad from Muammar Gadhafi later at this point.

In other words this looks like a problem that is not going away by itself. What can be done about it? Personally I don't feel threatened by Islam and I am for freedom of religion but I intensely dislike the habit some of Islam's practitioners have to field these death threats. This is fascist methods. And it apparently works on people. There was a recent apology by the journal Politiken in Denmark for the Muhammad cartoons. Many disliked the apology though. I would not have apologized. Freedom of the press is one of the corner stones of our civilization.

Let the World percolate for a while?

EUobserver / Obama to skip EU-US summit in Madrid: "In a speech held in Paris last Friday, Ms Clinton however rejected the idea that 'the Obama administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities.'"

It looks like President Obama is not coming to the EU-US meeting in May that apparently is going to be held in Madrid due to the chairmanship of Spain. There has been some confusion as to it being placed in Brussels instead due to van Rompuy and Lady Ashton. Spain left it open, however, since dignitaries often show up at the last moment.

After reading the State of the Union speech I thought that since the treatment of the abroad was treated so summarily that we have now a US with an Interior Minister, Obama, and a Secretary of State, Clinton. The president is gone until the mid-term elections perhaps. Regular wisdom hold that when the President is gone there is not much clout in the Secretary of State.

What this might mean is that Europe might act more independently. Especially in the Middle East. After all, this more our neighborhood. I'm particularly thinking of Iran since Israel is a little more a US question due to the larger diaspora. After all Iran calls the US the "Great Satan" but does not have the same epithet for the EU. I would like to remind the audience of a report issued by ECFR or European Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank, called Towards a post-American Europe: A power audit of US-EU relations.

However, Siemens, the German world leading engineering company, has stated that they would stop signing new contracts in Iran coming mid-2010. This is a a reaction to the seizure of two German diplomats during the Ashura celebration for a tentative role in the uprisings. German exports to Iran had decreased 8% during January to November 2009 while the total German export went down 19% due to the financial crisis. It remains to be seen if Lady Ashton is going to have more luck in the diplomatic dealings with Iran than had Javier Solana.

Based on experience this would have to mean the discussion of something else than their nuclear program. However, it is possible that the P5+1 talks with Iran concerning this topic is being greased with the Taiwan arms sales by the US so as to make it easier for the Chinese to understand how the West feels about the risk involved with Iran? Hillary Clinton would need the Chinese vote in the UN Security Council for stronger sanctions.

What's worse?

Column One: Keeping Zionism's promise: "On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians – not Iran – is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, “The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future.”"

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post writes that there is different opinions about which is worse a bomb from Iran or the World's opinion against Israel due to the Palestinian issue. She also discusses the problems in Malmö of fleeing Jews.

The problem with trying to alleviate the risk of nuclear proliferation in Iran is that bombing Iran will make Barak's worries greater. Israel seems positioned between the rock and the hard place.

The question is then of Kagan's idea of a higher probability for a regime change in Iran than that they stop their nuclear program is to wonder whether a regime change will improve the Palestinian issue by weakening the support to Hamas and Hizbollah? However, a regime change is probably easier talked about than accomplished.

The Iranian issue is otherwise heating up as Tony Blair during his questioning yesterday said that he thinks the risk we face with Iran today is greater than that with Iraq in 2003. His take on this issue must be considered important as he has travelled the Middle East for some years now as a Peace Envoy.