Dear Mr. Barack Hussein Obama,

We, members of the “Afghanistan’s Students Movement” congratulate you for your success in the Presidential elections of the United States of America, which we consider a sign for a better future. Your presence in the political arena of the world will rearrange many political equations and will create a different system that we hope can bring about the opportunity for global peace. We are optimistic that you, not only as an aware political organizer, but also as a charismatic and wise leader, will be the initiator of another generation of powerful leaders committed to human values that the world has been waiting for.

Let us admit this honestly: We have all lost hope. The flame of hope that had been lightened in our hearts after year 2001 in Afghanistan has been transformed to a blind knot of doubt and darkness due to the misleading policies and political disability in Afghanistan. The hope and will to live has decreased in last six years while terrorism and drug production has increased. The highest rates of mother and infant mortality are in Afghanistan, (MMR 6500 in Badakhshan). For every four kids, one dies before reaching age five. (Afghanistan Human Development report 2007 p.27).

Poverty, social disorder, kidnapping, violence against women and children and many of other problems have struck the heart of society in Afghanistan. We think that your attention and focus in Afghanistan should shift from the Taliban’s terrorism to Afghanistan’s society. Our society is in such a painful and deteriorating situation that it has inevitably become a cradle for terrorism and fundamentalism. We should not forget that Afghanistan has been a victim of the West’s struggle against communism, a struggle that continued for two decades with the resistance of people of Afghanistan and saved the countries in region and world, a resistance that left nothing for Afghanistan’s people but a malfunctioning social system, more than two million dead, five million emigrants, three illiterate generations, fundamentalism and wide poppy fields.

We have no doubt that the neglect by the international community and USA after the departure of Soviet forces, and the fall of the Communist state led to civil war and then emergence of Taliban in Afghanistan. This neglect provided an opportunity for development of the most dangerous and darkest fundamentalist regime on the globe in Afghanistan in less then seven years.

The attention of the international community and especially the United States should shift to Afghanistan’s society. A society that is sick and on the brink of death can only be saved by a well thought out and efficient method and a collaborative international effort. Fundraising and providing loans alone can not prevent a crisis; there is a need for coordinating the country’s political direction. We believe that if the future leader of the USA continues the mistakes of George W. Bush, and fights the world with the ideological simplification of good and evil, we will soon witness the fall of Afghanistan’s government which is a symbol of global governance and influence, and the sad result will be that an unforgivable and irreversible catastrophe will shadow the region
and the world.

You must know that although branches of terrorism are in Afghanistan, its roots are in the depths of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. The free tribal regions in Pakistan can be a safe shelter for development of fundamentalist power equipped with nuclear armament in near future. The future US administration should also know that the Taliban had reasonable opportunities in the last seven years that, intentionally or not, were provided for them by the West and the Government of Afghanistan. The Taliban that the USA will be fighting in 2009 are not the Taliban of 2001. The empowered Taliban now have modern armaments, know the tactics of organized war, and have a budget, financial power, and more support in the region. The Taliban are now more organized and have attracted many local militia groups. Experience shows that negotiation and power-sharing with the Taliban will not change the situation, but will help the injured snake of Taliban fundamentalism become a seven headed dragon.

We believe that the contradiction between the structure and essence of government has led to political failure in Afghanistan. The structure of Afghanistan’s government contradicts its nature. The government has a modern and democratic structure, but a tribal and traditional essence. This hypocritical incompatibility has caused increasing political and economic corruption and has led to destruction of society. The tribal structure of government has led to rechanneling the American reconstruction aid to the Taliban’s terrorism. This structure has allowed for the presence of heads of political parties, members of Taliban, Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic Party), and ex-communists in parliament, government and smaller branches of power. In fact, these people are the main decision makers in the political process of country.

Most of the members of the parliament do not have the least legal literacy and have come to power through a process that has a legitimate cover (elections), but is in nature undemocratic. Decision makers in provincial councils, parliament and cabinet are representatives of ethnic and linguistic divisions and interests of leaders of various factions. The procedure for election and functions of Senate (Upper House) are similar to that of an ethnic Jirga. The members of provincial councils, Parliament and cabinet have come to power depending on support of ethnic and linguistic fractions and are not committed to formation of a stable, sustainable and encompassing national value system.

The concept and position of political parties is ambiguous and vague in Afghanistan’s power structure, and the leaders of parties in the government use the opportunities and public resources for strengthening their parties. The leaders of parties like the Afghan Millat Party, the Republican Party, the Wahdat (Unity) Party, and a few other parties have seats in important government branches from the ministries to the presidential office and this has created a conflict of interests and inefficiency within the power structure. Decision making and effective action at a national level requires cooperation between different government organs, but with the current state of power imbalance, coordination and cooperation is almost impossible. Each party tries to please its own supporters and its loyal sub-groups and this has led to increasing corruption and has created obstacles for reconstruction. Without an efficient and implementable reconstruction program, poverty and the reach of fundamentalism will expand and increase.

In addition, the modern state with a free market economy, which was a direct suggestion of President George W. Bush for Afghanistan, has led to poverty and increasing class disparity. The current economic model in Afghanistan has created a breeding ground for economic mafia. All the governmental (public) sectors and national mines and resources of Afghanistan have been handed over to private companies that are managed by a network of corrupt politicians and politically influential business owners. We believe that the information that is given to you from the official sources of Afghanistan’s government and even their partners in power (The National United Front) is usually incorrect and misleading and is packaged to create a vague and unreal optimism. In fact, the international community has not been able to create the most primary form of stable and influential government in Afghanistan despite a huge expenditure of aid. Each election carries the risk of a coup.

Complicating matters, a misleading image of the situation in order to justify the Western “war against terrorism” and the expenditure of billions of dollars. The military budget of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, derived from the taxes of American citizens, and which was supposed to bring security, health and prosperity for Afghanistan’s women and children has instead provided the Taliban with modern armaments that kill dozens of innocent people everyday. We are certain that Afghanistan’s problems will not be solved only with militarism and sending more troops. With the current state of affairs, this plan is far more certain to worsen the situation.

Our suggestions:

1 - Change in political structure: Ratification of the presidential system in constitutional Loya Jirga in 2003 prevented formation of a strong central government with the natural participation of all ethnic groups. By suggesting another convention of Loya Jirga, you can create an atmosphere of trust and ensure the presence of all ethnic groups in the Afghan government and a shift from a presidential system to a parliamentarian system. That will allow all Afghanistan’s citizens to feel equal belonging and responsibility to the political system of the country for the first time. This will also create the opportunity for abolition of ethnic quota that only benefits the former Jihad leaders. It will allow people from all different ethnicities to participate freely and equally.

2 - The parliamentarian government and federal system has proved efficient in Iraq. Participation of all ethnic groups and parties in the federal system has ensured the rights of minority groups and their participation in formation of a stable system. You should also suggest the federal system for Afghanistan. Five zones of Afghanistan can be five independent states which will help formation of strong local economies, and the non-concentrated political system can be more coordinated and efficient. In Afghanistan, formation of a concentrated powerful government system is very difficult due to its geography and limited resource. The almost homogenous
ethnic, linguistic and religious population of each state (zone) can prevent conflicts.

3 - Strengthening civil society: We believe the situation could be improved dramatically by decreasing the military budget and investing more in the social sector. There is no doubt that this shift will have a more positive influence, be an easier strategy, and will result in quick and long lasting outcomes for ensuring peace and stable society in Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs social change and this is only possible by strengthening civil organizations, not by increasing the military force.

4 - Stabilizing the issues related to political geography of Afghanistan. The 2700 Kilometer southern border of Afghanistan with the free tribal regions of Pakistan has helped terrorism to have a continuous movement in the region.

5 - Be firm with the Taliban. The US and international community’s soft policies against Taliban has led to strengthening fundamentalism in the region, and especially in Pakistan, and will continue to do so. The possibility of terrorists’ access to nuclear armament does not seem far away anymore.

6 - The bureaucratic system in the country is still run in the communist style and is inflated. It needs to be reduced, and there needs to be a move towards more regulation and transparency.

7 - The economic system should shift from the uncontrolled free market economy. Formation of monitoring governmental bodies can prevent waste of national resources. A mixed economy system is the best option and economic model for a country that does not have anything. In the current situation, the government and ministries have given over their responsibility to private sector that has weakened public services’ ability to serve the poor.

8 - Any big aid package to Afghanistan’s government should be conditioned on lack of corruption. Corruption is one of the biggest reasons for discontent among Afghanistan’s population. Request transparency and just and equal distribution of aid. The unjust distribution of international aid has led to estrangement of different groups of Afghanistan’s population from government and the international community. This critical issue, if not remedied, could, in the long term, further encourage people of these regions to support armed opposition of government.

Mr. President, we have hope that you will not let humanity be disregarded in Afghanistan.

In Solidarity and Cooperation,
Afghanistan’s Students’ Movement - The overseas office

13.02.2009
Shaharzad Akbar
BA student (senior year)
Anthropology and Development
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusett
Email: shaharzadakbar[at]yahoo.com

Sayed Asef Hossaini
MA Student
Erfurt School of Public Policy
Germany
Email: s_asefhosaini[at]yahoo.com

February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

“Madame Clinton is a good friend of Afghanistan, a close friend of ours,” Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said. “But if somebody believes that our government, the government of President (Hamid) Karzai is involved as a government entity in the production of drugs, this is absolutely wrong.”

Clinton also descibed the Afghan government as highly “corrupt,” which did not charm her Afghan counterpart either.

The real problem, Spanta told the Associated Press, is that the Afghan government is not in control of Helmand province. This province is one of the most violent of the country. The Taliban are still strong in Helmand where they encourage farmers to produce opium. Part of the opium money is used by the Taliban to buy weapons and influence.

“The main production center of drugs is Helmand, and we are not in charge. Helmand (is) not under control of my government,” Spanta said. “If the international community is serious about fighting drug production and drug trafficking, they have to bring Helmand under our control.”

He added that Kabul only controls the province’s capital and some “islands” of territory around the rest of the region.

There are two sides to Clinton’s remarks; firstly, Afghanistan is a narco-state because the far majority of the world’s opium is produced in this war-torn country. Secondly, the other side of the story is that the Afghan government is no promoting opium production. It has in the past been willing to destroy opium farms but it simply lacks the strength and means to a sizeable part of the country’s opium farms.

Clinton and Spanta should both also keep in mind that opium is the only product farmers in Afghanistan can grow and make a profit. The country is nearly unfriendly to human life. Farmers are not growing poppy because they want to but because they have no alternative.

Rather than destroying these farms and taking their livelihood away from Afghan farmers, Kabul and Washington have to use Afghanistan’s opium for medical purposes. World opium and medicine organizations and businesses have long complained that they cannot get their hands on enough opium for medicinal purposes. Using Afghanistan’s opium for these purposes would help the world and Afghanistan itself.

Lastly, although Afghanistan is the world’s number one opium producing country, Clinton should express herself more carefully. She is no longer campaigning; she will be America’s secretary of state, which means that she will have to improve the country’s relationship with enemies and friends. Insulting them is not helpful.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

“Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. That executive order is expected during Obama’s first week on the job - and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers.”

Here was Olbermann’s take on this - and Obama’s ‘looking forward’ policy - last night, with great commentary from constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley:

There’s absolutely no good reason for Obama not to close Guantanamo immediately and simply try the detainees in our already-extant courts of law.  That’s how we’ve convicted all sorts of accused terrorists in the past.

Let’s take as assumed all of Greenwald’s key factual premises, add a few points that Greenwald omits, and note what Greenwald, in his ideological extremism, refuses to talk about:First, let’s highlight Greenwald’s factual premises and take them as assumed to be true:

1.  That treatment in violation of Geneva Conventions and certainly in violation of criminal procedure governing interrogations has occured.

2. That the alternative to Guantanemo Bay is trial in standard U.S. courts under standard criminal laws and procedures.

And now let’s add some important and relevant points that Greenwald consistently omits from his posts in spite of their length and purported thoroughness:

1. In addition to rules about treatment during interrogation, standard criminal trials have complex and detailed standards governing chain of evidence and territorial jurisdiction.  Since soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not trained or equipped to ensure proper chain of evidence, use of criminal trials would ensure that most detainees would be acquitted even in cases where torture is not an issue.

2. The response to acquittal in a criminal trial is outright release of the defendant.

3. Many of those already released from Guantanemo have returned to the field in the service of al-Qaeda with the explicit intention of killing people in large numbers.

What these points add up to is what Glenn Greenwald apparently doesn’t want to talk about.  Specifically, that his purist approach limiting the U.S. response to global terrorist networks to the use of criminal trials would result in the outright release of many, if not most of the defendants.  Many of those defendants would then dedicate themselves to killing as many Americans as possible, with nuclear or biological weapons, if possible.

Why does Greenwald refuse to discuss the implications of the plan of action that he angrily at at length insists is the only way forward that is even worth of discussion?

Let’s be clear: Torture is a travesty against American values that is wrong regardless of whether it is effective or not and regardless of whether our refusal to use torture is reciprocated when American servicemen are captured.  I am not endorsing torture.  But Obama’s recent moderation of his plan to close Gitmo seems to me a responsible acknowledgment that there are potentially dangerous implications to simply opening the doors and letting Gitmo prisoners to go free because the Bush administration grievously mishandled their interrogation.  Obama’s call for the creation of some alternative process that would balance the deeply conflicting interests that we have in the current situation is laudable.  Greenwald’s demagoguery and extremism is contemptible.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Shihab Rattansi of Al Jazeera tries to make some sense of the nonsense coming out of the mouth of Democratic Congressman from New York, Eliot Engel.

This week, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. Not to be outdone, the US Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution offering unconditional support to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

With the US Congress using the kind of thinking demonstrated by Rep. Engel in the Al Jazeera interview, we are well on our way to making all killing of civilians a justifiable action.

Some details the Times reports were not as widely known but could probably be assumed, i.e. that the U.S. was engaging in a covert program to disrupt Iran’s nuclear activity.

Though elements of this passage are also known, they do connect the dots nicely in ways they haven’t quite been connected till now:

Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.

“This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?

Admiral Mullen, traveling to Israel in early July on a previously scheduled trip, questioned Israeli officials about their intentions. His Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, argued that an aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by two or three years, according to officials familiar with the exchange. The American estimates at the time were far more conservative.

But the big question as far as I’m concerned is why publish this now?  In one sense, the publication is timed to a book Sanger has written which will come out on Tuesday.  But in another sense, the article seems designed to take pressure off the Bush Administration regarding its effort to end the Gaza crisis.  If Bush can be made to look like a good guy for stopping Israel from bombing Iran, then maybe Americans will give him a break for letting Israel carry out a relatively harmless war on its own border with Gaza.  I don’t think anyone should be letting George Bush and Condi Rice off the hook.  Their conduct during this war has been disgraceful but totally in keeping with past lassitude.

Though Sanger does mention that Robert Gates warned Bush that a U.S. attack might create a regional war with disastrous consequences for U.S. standing and policy in the Muslim world, he does not bring any such analysis to bear in discussing the Israeli plans.  He merely states what Israel hoped to do.  It’d seem to me that if the U.S. was afraid of starting a war if it bombed Iran that Israel doing so would guarantee the possibility.  That should be worth a word or two I’d think.  But according to the article, the major concern raised by U.S. officials regarding an Israeli attack was that the U.S. might have to shoot down Israeli planes if they violated Iraqi air space.

“President-elect Barack Obama said he was “deeply concerned” about civilian casualties in Gaza and Israel.”

Hmm. Well, it’s better than a statement of support for Israel, which is just about what every other American politician is spouting.

Well, 10 people weighed in, and many of them did a whole "the cultural, political and spirtual ties" argument to justify supporting the alliance, but the only real cold analysis of the alliance came, interestingly enough, from two voices who thought such an alliance is not worth its trouble. First there is Michael Sheuer:

Israel is not only an unnecessary and self-made liability for the United States, it is an untreated and spreading cancer on our domestic politics, foreign policy, and national security.  America has no genuine national security interests at stake in either Israel or Palestine; if they both disappeared tomorrow the welfare of Americans and the security of their country would not be impacted a lick. The Arab-Israeli religious war is a war that properly belongs solely to Israelis and Arabs; let them fight each other to the death with no interference in favor of either side from the United States. The continued, automatic, and idiotic identification of U.S. national interests as identical with Israel's made by our bipartisan political elite, the media, and those U.S. citizens who prefer Israeli to American security is only earning Americans deeper hatred and more wars with Muslims. There is no question that Israel has every right in the world to militarily defend itself to whatever extent it deems necessary, but neither Israel, the United States, nor any other nation has a "right" to exist. Nation-states survive if they can vanquish their enemies. The democratically elected Israeli govermment is right to try to vanquish Hamas; and the democratically elected Hamas regime has every right to try do the same to Israel. The point to keep squarely in view is that it does not matter to America's security who emerges the winner. 

And the other opinion comes from the previous principal officer in the US military intelligence relationship with Israel, and he had this to say:

It is not possible to "set aside the emotional and religious anchors of the US-Israel alliance." Those are the principal bases of the alliance. Israel’s welfare is a self assigned interest of the United States. That does not make that interest less real, but it renders the interest a "duty" of a spiritual and moral nature rather than the kind of thing that a British PM meant in the 19th century when he supposedly said that "countries do not have friends or enemies. They have interests." That kind of interest confers an advantage militarily, economically, geographically or in some other material way. The US interest in Israel’s welfare does none of those things and it costs a lot of money. The Israelis have been careful to separate "things" into neat groupings. They have operated on the basis that their things are their things and US things are their things. I was the principal officer in the US military intelligence relationship with Israel for many years. That was how the relationship worked. It was not a truly two-sided arrangement. The products of Israeli intelligence are sometimes valuable but often do not reach the standard of the legend concerning them. The reverse is not true. US military operations have not been benefited by the relationship with Israel. Israel does not want to be a military client of the United States. Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been based in or logistically supported from Israel. Israel has never functioned as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the United States and it does not wish to do so. Aside from providing useful liberty ports for the Sixth Fleet’s sailors and marines, and an occasional venue for small military maneuvers, it is hard to see what Israel does for the US in the military field that is worth the trouble that the relationship causes diplomatically with the surrounding states. Israel does not contribute to the well being of the US economy. In fact, in many high tech fields Israeli companies are competitors of American companies. I will not dwell excessively on the USS Liberty and Pollard incidents. Those events speak for themselves and most Americans have long ago forgiven the offenses and chosen to forget.

No, in the end, the US/Israel alliance is an affair of the heart. Such affairs are not to be analyzed too closely on the basis of mere material interests.

What do you think?

What is needed is a rational and concerted effort to broker a peace deal which maximizes justice, and which creates new realities on the ground that will help to sustain the peace once it is in place. And so, if you get a call, in the middle of the night, from President Obama, informing you that you have just been appointed U.S. Middle East Envoy; what would you do to bring peace to the Middle East? Here are a few suggestions. Perhaps you have something to add.

Gaza: Negotiate a ceasefire, and then a truce, between Israel and Hamas, on the basis of an Israeli pullout, accompanied by a cessation of missile and mortal fire by Hamas, to be monitored by U.N. observers. Suggest to Hamas to give up their military ambitions in exchange for: an easing of border restrictions, a lifting of an economic blockade, and an opportunity to partner with Fattah to provide a democratic government for the Palestinian people. If Hamas agrees, launch an international investment program for Gaza, with the purpose of: creating jobs, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and weakening the hold of extremist thinking. Along with the hope that comes from economic growth, launch a series of programs to sustain the hope: a more balanced and modern approach to education, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an empowerment of women, an expanded Peace Corps presence, a media campaign, international conferences, etc.

West Bank: Continue to train Palestinian soldiers, so as to enable the duly elected government to defend itself from outside threats, including the threats posed by Hamas and other extremist factions. Encourage Fattah to reach a workable agreement with Hamas so that the two could work together to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state, along the lines of the understandings that have been reached between President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livny, and reminiscent of the deal offered by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barack to President Arafat in the year 2000. Continue to develop the four industrial zones in the West Bank, and launch an international effort to invest in good paying jobs, jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize extremist thinking. Work to inspire Palestinians with a Vision of Hope, and support that economic effort with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to Palestinians with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Israel: Encourage Israel to embrace and enhance the possibility of peace, and to take positive action in that regard by: negotiating a truce with Hamas, allowing Hamas to partner with Fattah for the sake of democratic rule, helping Hamas to build infrastructure and to grow Gaza’s economy, and helping Fattah to do the same in the West Bank. Encourage Israel to negotiate a final status agreement, one that protects Israel’s security, but one that also allows Palestinians to achieve at least most of their political aspirations. To the extent possible, convince Israel to become actively involved in orchestrating the economic growth of the new fledgling state so that the ordinary Palestinian citizen is finally given a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

Syria: Encourage Syria to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, along with a U.N. monitored military free zone in that area. Structure a series of economic and diplomatic incentives to lure Syria away from Iranian control, and to cause Syria to stop its support of terrorist organizations, and to stop interfering with internal Lebanese affairs.

Lebanon: Continue to bolster Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Try to steer Hezbollah away from military confrontation, in favor of a political role as part of a duly elected government. Use a Vision of Hope to empower the Lebanese people to embrace the possibility of peace among themselves, and with Israel.

Egypt: Encourage the international community to continue to invest to grow Egypt’s economy and to create good paying jobs. Support Egypt’s efforts to mediate regional disputes. Empower the man on the street with the notion that his life could get better, and use that hope to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Push for warmer relations between Israel and Egypt on the basis of peace in Palestine, and on Israel’s efforts to help orchestrate an economic revitalization of the Middle East with her technological know-how and her economic drive.

Saudi Arabia: Give Saudi Arabia credit for proposing a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Encourage Saudi Arabia to continue mustering Arab support in this regard. Encourage Saudi Arabia, in light of lower oil prices, and worldwide green demand, to diversify its investment portfolio by investing in green technology in Palestine, and throughout the Middle East. Use oil profits to create green profits, and use these profits to create even more good paying green jobs, jobs which will grow the economies, jobs which will protect the environment, and jobs which will weaken the strangle hold of extremist thinking. Use a growing economy, and the prospects for Middle East peace, to shift the thinking on the street from an extremist ideology to an ideology of common sense. Use the momentum of change to gear the educational system to a more modern and balanced approach, and to gear religious practice to be more in keeping with the more peaceful aspects of Islam.

Iran: Try to convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions are not in keeping with Iran’s best interests long term. Make the point that a nuclear Iran will be in the crosshairs of many a potent foe, and that the least bit of miscalculation could spell a doomsday scenario. Use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. As such, Iran could begin to play a vital role in pushing a comprehensive peace process forward, based on mutually shared economic and political interests. Iran could also cooperate by having Hezbollah and Hamas play political, as opposed to military roles. Iran would also be able to quell dissatisfaction from within by delivering to its people the promise of a better day.

With this much on your plate, you may think twice about taking the job. But don’t you agree that a chess game of this sort is what is called for, given current realities on the ground? Don’t we have to table at least some of the emotions and passions, for there to be even the slightest chance for peace? And do we have any choice but to try, even against all odds?

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

U.S. bloggers were outraged apparently. Australian bloggers were just as vocal.

Open Democracy used their signature cartoon to comment. They also quoted online media service Crikey.

from Crikey …..

Our Johnny keeps the Obamas out

Richard Farmer writes:

It is always a bit embarrassing in Washington when there's a new President. The old one hangs around in the White House for two and a half months after the election while the new one prepares his team to take over.

The normal thing to make the home switching as painless as possible is for the incoming President to take up residence a couple of weeks before the official inauguration in Blair House, the President's guesthouse, managed by the Office of the Chief of Protocol at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue. This January things have been different and Washington insiders were puzzled as to why Barack Obama, his wife and two children were spending their time in a Washington Hotel.

Did this mark a new point in relations between incoming and outgoing, Democrat and Republican? Was George W Bush practicing some final form of revenge?

At last such unwholesome speculation has ended with the Washington Post revealing this morning “Blair House Mystery Solved: It's John Howard”. The veil is lifted, said the report. “We now know who is booked at Blair House, kicking President-elect Barack Obama and his family to the waiting list and across Lafayette Park to the Hay-Adams Hotel. The only overnight visitor at the presidential guest manse is none other than John Howard, a former Australian prime minister and leading member of President Bush's coalition of the willing in Iraq.”

Our Johnny will be in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from his retiring friend George Dubya on 13 January. Whereas fellow recipients of that honour, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, declined the presidential invitation to stay at Blair House and found private accommodation the Howard entourage accepted the invitation to bunk down at Blair House on the night of 12 January.

The Obama family are now scheduled to move in on 15 January.

the value of a self-important rattus …..

 Jeremy Sear used his usual sarcasm at An Onymous Lefty:

Our exiled former leader (only overseas can he escape the cruel derision of his former subjects) tries his hand at humility:

“This is very nice, but it is a compliment to the country”, says John Howard of the ironically-named “Medal of Freedom” he's about to accept from Bush.

I think I speak more on behalf of Australians than you do, John, when I say - please, feel free to keep that “compliment” from George W Bush all for yourself. No need to pass it on to the country that rejected you. No, really, we insist. Don't ascribe it to us - we don't want it, the man who's giving it, or the man who's receiving it.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I still represent you, even if you don't want me

Scott at GrodsCorp explains through a series of links why those on the left are laughing.

Former Prime Minister John Howard is set to receive the US Medal Of Freedom from outgoing President George W. Bush. Of course, the award has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Howard was one of only a few leaders who pledged his full support for the flailing President in the face of overwhelming opposition from most of the world.

The Medal Of Freedom is awarded to people who “work to improve the lives of their citizens and… promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad.”

I could only fit one link on each “achievement”, so what are some other examples of John Howard’s commitment to improving lives, promoting democracy, defending human rights, and fighting for peace?

UPDATE: Of John Howard, MK sez: “Humble as always.” The larfs!

Howard’s “achievements” recognised

The reference to MK is to a post on right wing blog Crusader Rabbit that defines its purpose in no uncertain terms as: “Radical islam has two allies here in the West - the Left and political correctness. The fight is with all three.” The post:

LiveNews - Former prime minister John Howard will receive the US Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony next week. The award is said to be the highest civilian honour bestowed by a United States president. Mr Howard is being honoured for his role in fighting terrorism and for standing by the US as an ally during his 11 years as prime minister.

“Yes, I am honoured by it, more because of the compliment it pays to our country Australia,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “It's an indication of the very close relationship between our two countries and I'm very pleased that during the time as prime minister I was able to contribute too.”

Humble as always.

Good on ya John Howard

Soon both Howard and Bush will both be men of the past. History can make its judgment on their political contributions. The man of the present may well remember Howard's remarks in early 2007:

“I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

“If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Obama blasts Howard on Iraq

With the president-elect just a few weeks from taking the throne in Washington DC, Barack Obama has been largely absent from the diplomatic maneuverings attempting to put a halt to Israel’s military excursion into the Gaza Strip. His absence, some argue, only makes the situation worse.

At least Jewish American blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes at Tikun Olam, thinks so:

Where is Barack Obama? I know he’s in Hawaii soaking up those rays of glorious sunshine. But that’s not what I mean? Where IS he? Gaza is in flames. Bush is doing worse than nothing. He’s actually making the situation worse with his nonsense about calling Hamas thugs and claiming the Palestinian movement caused the Israeli violence and can end it.

Obama’s response is becoming less and less satisfactory as the killing mounts.

…I can understand that the Gaza massacre is not nearly as important to the American people as the Wall Street collapse. But when the economy imploded you didn’t hear Obama’s people deferring to Bush. He consulted with Bush. They worked out a common strategy. They each tried to look energetic, diligent and thoughtful.

In a post called “Stupid Logic Mr. Obama” Ampal — American Palestinian had this to say on the future president’s policy towards Palestine:

Obama said : “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

RESPONSE: If someone was starving my family, bombing my sewage and electric power plants, traumatizing my children by daily sonic booms, preventing my sick children from seeing a physician, keeping my college aged students from receiving the scholarships they deserve, causing half of the child population to have anemia, then I would launch every thing including the toilet and sink at them. Come on, Mr. Obama lets show a little more understanding than the current administration.

The “anti-zionist blog” Jews Sans Frontieres thinks maybe Obama wants to project a different image of US power.

…Obama's refusal to comment on this latest batch of war crimes may be significant if only to suggest that Obama wants to project a more reasonable image than offering open vocal support to a regime for whom violence appears to be and end itself.

Now Israel has targeted a Palestinian university you might expect Engage to at least say something but no, not a word.

After linking to a comment from Obama spokesman David Axelrod who argued that Israel is merely responding to the shelling of its cities, VivirLatino came away less than impressed:

I am ashamed and disgusted, especially if this is the change that the United States electorate was and is supposed to believe in. I am haunted by the words and images of people, men, women, and children and how my tax dollars are being used to oppress and make invisible people who aren't even deemed worthy of by some to be people, to have land, a home.

Some commenters have acknowledged that Obama needs to be careful not to step on the shoes of outgoing President George Bush.

Alex Stein, who has resided in Israel and writes the blog False Dichotomies, defended the president-elect's actions:

The criticism of Obama’s silence over the hostilities is unfair. He is right to state that there is only one president at a time, and he is right to take a holiday before embarking on what is arguably the toughest job in the world. Getting over-involved would have little point; he can have little impact until he is President, and there is no sense in compromising his stature with either party by taking sides.

Many sites are obviously looking at this situation through the lens of how the Obama administration will change U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Fayyad writing in the (mostly) Arab-American blog KABOBfest argues this is a test for the look and feel of the Obama administration towards the Middle East.

Gauging [Obama’s] response to the action from outside the Whitehouse will set the tone for what Israel gets out of him. With his chief of staff being a former IDF volunteer, it’s hard to see how he will see things any different than the IDF perspective. And the American stance of asking the rape victim to quit scratching the rapist will continue to the Washington Modus Operandi.

Window into Palestine contends that Obama is basically nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the rights of Palestinians.

Obama no longer has to placate pro-Israel voters, including no shortage of Christian Zionists, so his lack of comment on the premeditated slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza should send us a message — an Obama administration will continue the long-standing U.S. policy of allowing Israel to wantonly kill Palestinians and pay the Israeli government handsomely to do so.

…Democrats who thought an Obama administration would bring some balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are probably saddened by Obama’s apparent lack of concern for the mass murder now taking place. But then what did they expect? Obama is nothing if not window dressing for the New World Order and obviously the NWO wants the carnage to continue in Palestine. Of course, the global elite have no special love for Israel, either, and its people will be sacrificed when the time is right.