Wapo: Iran is playing with the US

An editorial from the Washington Post, challenging the president's strategy with Iran.

What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. --editorial

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Invitation to Appease Will the Obama administration talk to Iran while it persecutes Americans and libels Israel?

Editorial, Washington Post Wednesday, April 22, 2009

LAST WEEK, the Iranian regime brought American journalist Roxana Saberi before a closed court and in a one-hour trial convicted her of espionage -- a blatantly bogus charge. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was last seen inaugurating a new facility for Iran's nuclear program, appeared at the U.N. conference on racism in Geneva to deliver a speech seemingly calculated to cause maximum outrage in the United States and other Western countries. They had, he said, "resorted to military aggression" in order to create Israel "on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust."

Thus has Iran answered President Obama's offer of dialogue and the decision by his administration to join talks on Tehran's nuclear program. To the consternation of some European officials, Washington has insisted on dropping a long-standing demand that Iran obey U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment before negotiations begin. Iran could have responded to this concession by releasing Ms. Saberi, who holds U.S. and Iranian citizenship, and ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson, as the administration asked it to do in a State Department letter last month. Instead the charges against Ms. Saberi were ramped up, from practicing journalism without a credential and buying wine, to espionage; the regime does not even admit that it is holding Mr. Levinson.

Then came Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech, which repeated the numerous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic libels that have made the Iranian president a pariah in the West. Western delegates walked out on the address, which the State Department rightly called "vile and hateful." Yet Mr. Ahmadinejad had accomplished his aim: advancing Iran's claim to represent radical Arab and Islamic opinion, along with his own campaign for reelection in June.

Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi's prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad's unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi's defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip -- to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has always said that talks with Iran must be conducted under the right circumstances and in a way that advances U.S. interests. The administration won't meet that test if it allows negotiations to become a means of vindicating Mr. Ahmadinejad's radical agenda. It should postpone any contact until after the Iranian election in June -- and it should look for clear signs that Iran is acting in good faith before talks begin. The unconditional release of Ms. Saberi and Mr. Levinson would be one.

AJC Denounces Durban II Declaration that Singles Out Israel, Threatens Free Speech

April 21, 2009 – Geneva – AJC [American Jewish Committee] denounced today’s adoption by the Durban Review Conference of an outcome document that singles out Israel and endangers freedom of speech.

“Today, once again, the UN has chosen the unfair treatment of Israel over the real fight for equality and human rights,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris, who is attending the conference along with a group of 25 young AJC activists. “And this document also threatens democratic values with a vague effort to criminalize incitement. The United States, Israel and eight other democracies were absolutely right to stay away from this conference and not endorse the document.”

The document approved today “reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), as it was adopted” at Durban in 2001. The DDPA wrongly categorized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as racial, and described Palestinians as victims of Israeli “racism.” Israel was the only country specifically criticized in the entire document.

This year’s document also mandates that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This effort to criminalize certain types of speech is troubling in light of repeated efforts by Muslim countries to effectively wall off Islam from criticism by classifying any criticism as “incitement.”

AJC had encouraged nations of good will to withdraw from the conference once it became abundantly clear that it might well undermine democratic values and the struggle for racial equality – two causes to which AJC has been steadfastly committed for over a century.

AJC is online at www.ajc.org

Elie Wiesel Verbally Abused as "Zio-Nazi" by Ahmadinejad Entourage at Durban II This is evil.

Watch this video, which shows Durban II delegates leaving the hall as Ahmadinejad denigrates Israel.

http://hurl.no/go.nrk/Ci

Many diplomats at UN Racism conference walk out when Ahmadinejad condemns Israel as "racist"

DEBKAfile Special Report April 20, 2009, www.debka.com

Protesters constantly disrupted the speech as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Israel for "racism" at the Anti-Racism conference which opened in Geneva Monday, April 20. He went on to denounce the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as an arrogant drive to "expand its sphere of influence."

The boycott of the UN World Conference against Racism snowballed with Germany and New Zealand joining the US, Canada, Australia, Italy, Holland, Sweden and Israel. It is the follow-up to Durban I in 2001, from which the US and Israeli delegates walked out over its anti-Israel, anti-Semitic content. Yet the text prepared for second session reaffirms the language of the first. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also scheduled a press conference for Monday, the eve of Israel's annual Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Outside, an "alternative" anti-racism conference was staged in protest with the participation of refugees from political and human rights abuses in Iran, Libya and Sudan.

Jerusalem recalled its ambassador to Bern for consultations to protest the meeting Swiss president Hans Rudolf Merz held with the Iranian president despite Israel's request not to shake the hand of this "Holocaust denier, exporter of terrorism and anti-Semitism." The pope criticized the boycott after US president Barack Obama spoke of the antagonism to Israel at Durban I "in ways that were extremely hypocritical and counterproductive."

In regretfully announcing US absence from the Geneva event, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the US also has serious concerns about relatively new additions… regarding 'incitement' which run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."

Explaining its absence, Canada has said it is "interested in combating racism, not promoting it," and Italy condemned its "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements."

The European Union failed to reach a consensus on its position.

The UK sent a low-level delegation - like Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

In walking out of the original conference in 2001, the then secretary of state Colin Powell said: "… you do not combat racism by hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of Zionism equals racism, support the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust or suggest that apartheid exists in Israel or that single out only one country in the world – Israel – for censure and abuse."

Black U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Democrat) said the Black Caucus, which she heads, was “deeply dismayed” at the decision to boycott Durban II. She explained that this would make it more difficult for Washington to influence the UN Human Rights Council.

Washington has taken steps to join the controversial body which is dominated by states under fire for human rights violations.

A rally by pro-Israeli and pro-freedom of speech groups was to be led by US Rep. Scott Garret (R-N.J.). Garret, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R.-Fla.), and Rep. Dough Lamborn (R.-Colo.) have co-sponsored legislation to prohibit US funding for any follow-up events of Durban I.

Hamas-Fatah feud

Analysis: Real 2-state problem is the Hamas-Fatah feud
Apr. 17, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Obama administration, through its special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, has launched what seems to be an aggressive campaign aimed at pressuring the new Israeli government into accepting the two-state solution.

But even if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman do finally succumb to the American pressure, they, along with Mitchell, will find that the Palestinians themselves are still far from achieving their goal of building a viable and independent state.

In fact, the Palestinians already have two separate political entities, or mini-states - one in the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. These rival entities, controlled by Fatah and Hamas respectively, are acting and dealing with each other like two different countries.

Fatah representatives who participated in the last round of "reconciliation" talks with Hamas in Cairo said upon their return to the West Bank that they felt as if they were conducting negotiations with representatives of another country and not with Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

Repeated attempts by Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the past few months to persuade the two parties to end their differences and form a Palestinian unity government have failed, prompting Cairo and Riyadh to come up with the idea of establishing a confederation between the two "mini-states."

However, both Hamas and Fatah have categorically rejected the confederation idea out of fear that it would perpetuate and consolidate the split between the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinian Authority officials said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Mitchell during their upcoming meeting in Ramallah to put pressure on the Netanyahu government to accept the two-state solution as the basis for a "just, comprehensive and everlasting peace" in the Middle East.

Abbas, the officials said, would also make it clear during his meeting with the US envoy that there was no point in resuming the peace talks with Israel as long as the Israeli government remained opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, continued settlement activity in the West Bank and demolished illegally built houses in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

Abbas, they added, would also brief Mitchell on the failed attempts to persuade Hamas to form a unity government with Fatah.

Spokesmen from both Palestinian parties have said over the past few days that only a miracle could lead to an agreement between the two sides. The gap between them remained as wide as ever, they noted, adding that the Egyptians were now considering canceling plans to host another round of reconciliation talks scheduled to take place in Cairo at the end of April.

For now, it appears that the Palestinians (and the rest of the world) will have to live with the fact that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not a temporary or passing phenomenon.

If the Obama administration is serious about promoting the two-state solution, it must focus its efforts first and foremost on helping the Palestinians solve the dispute between the Fatah-run state in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled entity in the Gaza Strip.

The divisions among the Palestinians, as well as failure to establish proper and credible institutions, are the main obstacle to the realization of the two-state solution.

Less than half of the West Bank is controlled by the corruption-riddled Fatah faction, which seems to have lost much of its credibility among the Palestinians, largely because of its failure to reform itself in the aftermath of its defeat to Hamas in the January 2006 parliamentary election.

The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, is entirely controlled by the radical Islamic movement that has, through its extremist ideology, wreaked havoc on the majority of the Palestinians living there.

The Obama administration is mistaken if it thinks the power struggle between these two groups is a fight between good guys and bad guys. This is a confrontation between bad guys and bad guys, since they are not fighting over promoting democracy or boosting the economy, but over money and power.

Netanyahu and Lieberman need not worry about accepting the two-state solution, because Fatah and Hamas don't seem to be marching toward achieving the national aspirations of their people.

Breaking News: Ahmadinejad says no more talks about Nuclear Issue
April 16, 2009 by Barry Rubin

Meir Javedanfar, a reliable analyst who follows Iran closely and is fluent in Farsi, says that Iran's president is now saying Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. The tone of the statement is similar to his Der Spiegel interview which I reported here earlier.

The implication is that President Obama's approach and the weakness of other Western governments has emboldened Ahmadinejad, who is also showing off for his election supporters. Now he says he's going on the offensive, saying in effect: let's not talk about Iran's nuclear program, let's talk about how we are going to change the structure of international affairs to eliminate Western hegemony and redistribute power.

Meir writes:

"On the 15th of April, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the city Kerman stated that “the time for discussions over the nuclear program has come to an end, and the clock will not go back”.

He continued to say “today, we have to discuss and collectively think about other issues such as reform of international structures, reform of the UN Security Council, and execution of justice and real peace. Iran is ready in all such areas”.

Meir adds: "It is very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would make such a statement without the consent of the Supreme Leader. Therefore, judging by his statement, the nuclear program is unlikely to be part of the negotiations with Obama."

source: http://middleeastanalyst.com/2009/04/17/ahmadinejad-iran-wont-negotiate