The particular significance this election plays in so many peoples’ lives is the undeniably unstable and uncertain nature of the realities we are confronted with, both in America and across the rest of the world. Just a few examples of these issues may include: the collapsing economies, the continuously rising cost of living, increasing unemployment rates, loss of homes, the lack of availability of adequate healthcare and even food, the numerous humanitarian disasters both environmental and/or man-induced and of course the constant threat of war that people from many nations are warned about, regardless of how real or likely these threats are in actuality or not.

The outcome of this election is likely to determine to a great extent what path will be taken to tackle these issues and in what manner the US will interact with the international community, with particular concern on the Middle East, Iran and Russia. However, the outcome of the election is beyond the control of the international community who are anxiously awaiting a decision.

In light of this, I thought it would be appropriate to address the Dear American Voter discussions on what I, someone living in both Europe and the Middle East, is concerned about when it comes to the election of the next president of the USA. MideastYouth has previously posted on the Dear American Voter initiative, a project developed by Link TV that aims at getting the international communities voices heard within America.

Dear American Voter,

I recently returned to the UK from Syria, where I went to visit my parents who have now retired there. It is truly one of the most beautiful countries I have ever encountered, although undoubtedly it has its flaws and weaknesses. Apart from a number of cultural differences, what I realised most of all was the fundamentally universal nature of being human, the striving to simply live. Waking up every morning, earning money, consuming, loving your family, socialising with friends, trying everything in your power to make ends meet while at the same time attempting to enjoy and make the most of the short, temporary and precious life we each have been given.

It is difficult, amongst the welter of distracting images that obscure contexts and omit the real faces of people and places, to think of an ‘other’ as anything more than that. Instead Dear American Voter, I ask you to put a face on the victims of the US Government, because they are no different from you. We may pray differently, but we do not love differently and we do not suffer differently.

I ask you to question your government’s actions, to review the stories we have all been told, to uncover all the contradictions, identify the rhetoric and unearth the truth. It is clear to us and to you Dear American Voter that we have all lost and suffered enough at the hands of our governments. Your troops that have been able to return home, have unfortunately not been greeted by your government as heroes and patriots, instead they have been deprived of adequate medical care and have been refused financial assistance with their education. It would appear to me that the current US government perceives us all as faceless.

If we are to ever live in a truly globalised world, it is fundamental that each nation is able to remain independent and indigenous while at the same time being open to dialogue and negotiation. If this is our aim, to be able to work as a cosmopolitan world to tackle the issues we face such as environmental issues, poverty, etc. then we need the leader of the Worlds’ Super Power to lead us towards this instead of a possible war with Iran or maybe even Russia?!

America should be the greatest country in the world. Unfortunately it falls short. And both you and I, Dear American Voter, are the ones that bear the brunt of its shortcomings. You are suffering now, but instead it is the major corporations that are being bailed out with your tax money. In my opinion one of the biggest scams in history.

I suffer everyday wondering if Syria, my parents, my family, will be the next on America’s list. Unfortunately the decision for who will be the next president of America is out of my hands. However you have the power Dear American Voter, the power to allow for change to occur, the power to decide whether your country continues along the same terminal path or instead if your country is once again admired and looked to as a source of inspiration.

I await your decision in anticipation.

I urge anyone else who feels strongly about the direction our world is going in but who does not have the opportunity to vote in this upcoming election to express their thoughts and concerns to our Dear American Voters, while there is still ‘hope’ for ‘change’.

Let’s take the current US elections for example; the general public are willing to believe that cows fly if they were told that by someone they “trust”/like. This is the main problem: How can we trust the masses that display room temperature IQ to choose the leader of the American Empire? How could this be a wise decision when it comes from a majority of Idiots? The crowds have not spared an effort to display how gullible they are, and how easy it is to wash their minds; assuming they have them in the first place. It is very often that they take their facts from media sources that are as shameless as the communist propaganda machines.

“But what is the answer?” You say. Well, the answer is to have representatives [will be referred to as “the reps” from now on] of both nominees for the president pick the people who are eligible to vote, the same way that those lawyers you see on T.V. choose a jury for a trial. Here’s a possible set of rules for the Neo Democracy:

1. The reps have the right to ask the voters any questions, nothing is off limits.
2. Each and every rep has the right to VITO VETO person’s eligibility to vote [The phrase “right to vote” was not used on purpose].
3. To be eligible to vote reps of both parties should approve the person in question.
4. All voters should under go the afore mentioned assessment process.
5. At least 15% percent of the population that are old enough to vote should be deemed eligible, thus canceling the possibility of the reps denying eligibility of voters out of spite and ending up with no voters at all. Minimal agreement must be forced through.

A presumed selection process would go like this:
Q: Do you think Obama is a Muslim?
A: Ummm… Sure, he made oath on the Quran when he got office.
*BEEEP* a red light goes that has VITO VETO written in capitals all over it, a big security guard yells “neeeeeext”
Q: Wouldn’t it be great to have McCain the war hero as president and that sexy fox Palin as his sidekick VP?
A: HELL YEAH!!
*Beep* (You get the drill)
Q: Do you know what are the religions of presidential candidates?
A: Sorry, but I don’t see how’s your question relevant.
(Now this last guy just might pass under the rule of 15% minimum)

Now wouldn’t we all be living in a better world if Neo Democracy were implemented? Isn’t it the best model to pursue? Then again, why should we even care? Can we even guarantee an honest tamper-proof cast of vote would take place in a best case scenario?

First here is the video , it is long somehow but it is worth to watch this republican circus.

Now here are my remarks about this speech :

• Again this woman has got more charisma than McCain , she is speaking as if she was chosen for President not for Vice President.
• She is a good speaker in her way.
• The Cameras in the RNC were concentrating mainly on ladies.
• Sarah’s description to her family as a typical one with Ups and Downs with an excellent way to handle all that buzz about her family.
• She is targeting a new segment in this election , the special needs kids families ,it is a niche segment with no power but it can bring more votes  outside the Republican Base.
• She is targeting the small towns and cities again and again, using the attack on her experience.
• She is attacking Obama in a very bold way since the beginning.
• She is so proud of her 19 years old son going to Iraq and so happy that he is going to fight for nothing ,I do not know what her feelings will be if her 19 years old son returns back home in his coffin and when after several years she sits down and rethinks whether it is worth or not !?
• The same old ill talk of terrorist countries “Dear Syria” and bad nuke Iran !!
• She spoke about the Victory in Iraq that is coming so near , what victory in Iraq this woman is speaking about !!??
• Energy Independence is a good slogan but does this mean that the American army will empty its army bases in the Persian Gulf for good and leave the Middle East for , because she is speaking as if the rich Arab oil gulf states were controlling America !!??
• She demonstrated that she understands in foreign policies ,of course according to the Republican standards.

I am waiting for the debates because for sure we will be there.

Look for sure her speech was a strong one and she revived somehow this old spirit of the Republicans with her energy , an energy she is wasting I am afraid. I am not surprised that the Republicans are so happy with that speech, she was their Obama ,she should take McCain’s place or may be they know that she will !!??

Look I do not have anything against her except that I do not like her policies towards our region, the middle East

“There are plenty of reasons to mistrust Assad, but there could be real benefits to hard-headed diplomacy. Syria is the common denominator of many problems - in Lebanon , the Palestinian territories, and to a lesser extent Iraq. They are Iran 's closest ally. But it is also a fundamentally weak and isolated regime. We should work to break up its marriage of convenience with Iran. If Syria could be encouraged to act less irresponsibly it could have a real impact in the region.” (August 8, 2007)

It is a mistake not to let Israel, if it wishes to, if it sees an opportunity to go out and explore possibilities with the Syrians. If I’m in Damascus, what’s in my best interest? My best interest is to be free of Iran’s yoke, on the good side of the equation with the oil-producing Sunni states, and able to deliver for my people what appears to be a victory by having a settlement on the Golan. Now, whether that can be accomplished remains to be seen, but it should be explored.” (March 20, 2007)
For more on what Biden thinks of various Middle East issues, see this helpful page at Jewish Virtual Library

Yoav Stern writes in Haaretz: Assad: Next round of Syria-Israel talks will be ‘decisive'

The next round of indirect negotiations between Damacus and Jerusalem will be “decisive,” Syrian President Bashar Assad told reporters over the weekend.

Responding to a query as to whether progress had been made during the talks, Assad told reporters: “As of now, we have not reached anything tangible.”

The Turkish-mediated negotiations, which were meant to resume this week in Istanbul, have been postponed till next week.

Assad told an Arabic-language television station based in Russia that Syria was not sure Israel was even interested in peace. “I can't say at all that we have confidence [in Israel].”……

In an article posted yesterday on the Asia Times Web site, Syrian political analyst Sami Moubayed, wrote that the concern in Jerusalem is “playing nicely into the hands of Syria, which is using it to strengthen its ties with an old and resurrected friend, send messages to a traditional foe [Israel], and pressure the United States into changing course over Damascus.”

U.S. Syria expert Joshua Landis wrote in his blog Syriacomment.com that “Syria's bad negotiating position is leading it to look for more weapons and to try to grow more teeth before returning to the table with Israel,” adding, “Both Assad and Hezbollah are hoping to get new weapons systems from Russia and greater diplomatic backing.” But despite the preoccupation with weapons, he asserts that all eyes are on the peace process.
Russia baulks at selling missiles to Syria
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow, August 22 2008, FT

U.S. Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia
By PETER BAKER
Published: August 21, 2008
The president of Syria spent two days this week in Russia with a shopping list of sophisticated weapons he wanted to buy. The visit may prove a worrisome preview of things to come. Although Russia has long supplied arms to Syria, it has held back until now on providing the next generation of surface-to-surface missiles. But the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, made clear that he was hoping to capitalize on rising tensions between Moscow and the West when he rushed to the resort city of Sochi to meet with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri A. Medvedev.

The list of ways a more hostile Russia could cause problems for the United States extends far beyond Syria and the mountains of Georgia…..

“If Russia’s feeling churlish, they can pretty much bring to a grinding halt any kind of coercive actions, like economic sanctions or anything else,” said Peter D. Feaver….
Syria becomes oil importer as production continues to decline
Saturday, August 23

LONDON — Syria's crude oil production, once the basis of its economy, is falling.

The London-based Oxford Business Group said Syrian oil production would fall by 7.9 percent in 2008. By 2009, OBG said, oil production in Syria would not exceed 350,000 barrels per day.

“Oil has been the mainstay of the Syrian economy for over four decades, but production passed its peak of 610,000 barrels per day in 1995 and is now falling even more rapidly than had been forecast,” OBG said in a report.

The report said Syria, in contrast to previous forecasts, has failed to meet domestic fuel demand. OBG said Syria must begin to import light crude oil for gasoline in 2009.
Addendum: Idaf writes:

With regards to the Oxford Business Group’s report on oil imports in Syria, the increasing investments in oil exploration in Syria during the past year may suggest a less dramatic change in Syria’s oil export/import status. Syria Report reported last week the following on oil output in two Syrian fields:
Tanganyika Announces Sharp Increase in Output Rates
Oil output at the Tishrine and Oudeh fields increased significantly in the first half of this year, according to Tanganyika Oil Company.

However, there’s a welcome sudden interest by the Syrian government in renewable energy sources during the last few months. Some of the interesting headlines include:

Alternergie to Build Syria’ First Solar Power Plant
Alternergie, a German firm active in renewable energies, has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Electricity to build the country’s first solar electricity plant at a cost of EUR 50 million.
The government recently assigned four sites to be used as wind farms, each with a capacity of 100mw and a cost of SYP 7.7bn (EUR 100m). The first wind station is also expected to be opened in Hassia on 555 hectares in an arid and year-round windy area. The government also recently introduced a program to subside the purchase of solar panel hot water heating systems. The greater uptake of solar water heaters is expected to help cut Syria’s household electricity consumption which totals around 50 percent of all consumption.
The ministry of electricity will distribute energy saving light bulbs for free. In addition new building codes and standards for heating and isolation and new legislations for wind energy production.

In addition, state run banks have recently started providing new loans with very low interest rates for businesses willing to install solar electricity systems.
In the business of peace: U.S. billionaire pursues his dream of Mideast peace
By Akiva Eldar
Haaretz

Between meeting in the Knesset with Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon and visiting his friend, President Shimon Peres, S. Daniel Abraham felt like pouring his heart out. The 84-year-old billionaire, who visited Israel earlier this month, says that for the last seven years, since meeting Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Saud - who has since been crowned king - he has not known peace. Abraham’s eyes become dewy as he talks about the meeting in Riyadh. That was when he heard the great news: 22 Arab countries had agreed to recognize Israel within the June 4, 1967 boundaries, and were offering it normal neighborly relations, as part of what became known as the Arab Initiative. Abraham recalls that he was moved to tears and told the prince that, being a Jew, he was at loss for words to describe how wonderful it was to hear such a declaration from an Arab leader of his standing…
The Role of Israel in the Georgian War
August 17, 2008
by Brian Harring

….Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago, following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became weapons hustlers.

They contacted Israeli defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets, mostly American grants, and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons.

The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation. “We are now in a fight against the great Russia,” he said, “and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own. …..

yaman's amateur ramblings, a Syrian student in the U.S., remarks on the Obama campaign's failure to reach out to Muslim and Arab-American voters:

After 8 years of the Bush administration, Muslim and Arab Americans, like others, have been counting on a breath of fresh air to come their way so that they might feel safe and welcome in their own homes once more. When Barack Obama announced that he was committed to change, many felt for the first time that it was possible to hope for something less bleak than the legacy that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had left behind. Unfortunately the Obama campaign has shown over and over again that it is more interested in playing along with an irresponsible media and its electoral antics, than it is in building solidarity between Americans from all communities and walks of life. If Obama wants to be the candidate of change, he has to exemplify that change throughout his campaign, not only through promises to be fulfilled after the elections.

The blogger concludes by giving his own suggestions on how Obama's campaign could better reach out to this demographic:

If Obama wants to reach out to the Muslim American community, he needs to do it by standing by them in the face of these and similar smear campaigns which are succeeding in making everything Muslim, and everything Arab, “untouchable” when it comes to politics and campaigning in the United States. He needs to take their concerns about immigration, Department of Homeland Security harassment, and foreign policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine seriously. If he does this, it will mean more to Muslim and Arab Americans than the invention of token campaign jobs which look good on paper but might not achieve much–after all, even George Bush appointed an advisor to the White House to represent the Muslim community during his term, but hardly anybody from the Muslim or Arab American communities would call that the kind of “change” they were looking for.

From Morocco, Myrtus asks tough questions:

Why is it that everything even remotely Muslim surrounding Obama always ends up in a controversy?
Is it simply because the Obama campaign is spineless or is the Right just too powerful?

Israel Matzav speculates on how Asbahi was hired in the first place:

But there are two other possibilities as to why this happened. One is that Barack Hussein Obama and his campaign see nothing wrong with employing people who are connected to terrorists. After all, as Ed points out, Obama himself spent a lot more time sitting on the same board with William Ayers than Asbahi did with Said.
The second possibility is that the type of Muslim who isn't a terrorist sympathizer - the Noni Darwish's, the Ayan Hirsi Ali's, the Wafa Sultan's - wouldn't work for the Obama campaign and wouldn't attract many Muslim voters.
Neither possibility bodes well for an Obama presidency or for the future of the United States.

KABOBfest's Will, remarking on a story about Gazans buying Obama t-shirts illegally, had this to say about Asbahi's resignation:

This came right when the campaign excised more Arab-Islamic controversy potential. Its volunteer Muslim Outreach Coordinator, Chicago attorney Mazen Asbahi, resigned after 9 days to avoid any unwanted attention to his past associations with groups and individuals some believe to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, it's probably all bull. But the standard is higher is when you're an Arab or Muslim. And it's even higher when 12% of Americans think the candidate is Muslim.

* This article also appears in Global Voices Online.

The Wall Street Journal, which was the first major media outlet to cover the story, quoted the “Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report” as its primary source for the information without even naming the so-called “scholars” or “Washington think-tank” behind it, or mentoning that the Report claims on its own website that it watches groups like the Muslim Student Association, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Islamic Society of North America. In other words, the Report keeps an eye on basically each and every major and mainstream Muslim American organization in existence, and then some. When it comes to campaign outreach, it seems that an affinity to any one of these groups should have been considered a qualification, not a demerit, for someone who is expected to work with Muslim American communities.

It would have been nice if the Wall Street Journal had bothered to look at the nature of these accusations rather than report them as if they were credible fact before it went to press. The accusation is that Obama’s campaign outreach coordinator has ties to “fundamentalist groups” because he served in the past on an advisory committee on which another man who had been accused but not convicted of ties to FBI-designated “terrorist groups” had also served. This is guilt by association, and a weak association at that: the anti-Muslim Global Report might as well have accused them of playing on the same Little League baseball team. The association is further weakened by the fact that there was nothing to be guilty of in the first place: the prosecution could not convince a jury to convict the man in question. True to their reputation, the Global Report and other groups watching Muslim Americans are simply kicking up dust in order to cry ’smoke!’ — and the Wall Street Journal fell for it, reporting on a non-existent fire.

After 8 years of the Bush administration, Muslim and Arab Americans, like others, have been counting on a breath of fresh air to come their way so that they might feel safe and welcome in their own homes once more. When Barack Obama announced that he was committed to change, many felt for the first time that it was possible to hope for something less bleak than the legacy that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had left behind. Unfortunately the Obama campaign has shown over and over again that it is more interested in playing along with an irresponsible media and its electoral antics, than it is in building solidarity between Americans from all communities and walks of life. If Obama wants to be the candidate of change, he has to exemplify that change throughout his campaign, not only through promises to be fulfilled after the elections.

If Obama wants to reach out to the Muslim American community, he needs to do it by standing by them in the face of these and similar smear campaigns which are succeeding in making everything Muslim, and everything Arab, “untouchable” when it comes to politics and campaigning in the United States. He needs to take their concerns about immigration, Department of Homeland Security harassment, and foreign policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine seriously. If he does this, it will mean more to Muslim and Arab Americans than the invention of token campaign jobs which look good on paper but might not achieve much–after all, even George Bush appointed an advisor to the White House to represent the Muslim community during his term, but hardly anybody from the Muslim or Arab American communities would call that the kind of “change” they were looking for.

No longer. In an attempt to get the votes counted and certified in Michigan’s and Florida’s Democratic primaries, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton compared her cause to the recent election (and post-election) travails in Zimbabwe. You may remember that each primary was invalidated by the Democratic Party because against policy, both states moved their primary dates forward. It is wrong, CBS’ Fernando Suarez quoted Clinton saying at a retirement center rally in Florida, when “people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe,” Clinton explained. “Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people.”

Leo Africanus, a South African who blogs at Africa is a Country and lives in the U.S., says you have to respect her chutzpah for making such a bold statement, but the comparison is more than a little superficial.

Given the Clintons’ race-baiting, I am wondering whether the aim is also to us “Mugabe” and “Obama” in the same sentence?

Well, what do Zimbabweans really go through? Here’s an account of what happens to people who vote against Mugabe.

Let’s stay with foreign affairs for a moment longer. Tony Karon, a South African journalist who lives in the United States, points out in his blog Rootless Cosmopolitan that while Barack Obama was correct to “slap down George W. Bush” over the president’s recent comments implying the Democratic contender is a present-day Neville Chamberlain-like Nazi appeaser who wants to negotiate with Hamas with no preconditions. However, Karon argues, Obama went about his defence wrongly.

Obama’s problem was that he denied he would ever speak with the Syrian and Iranian-backed Hamas. This not only paints him into a strategic corner, but those with knowledge of the region understand that not only is Hamas a powerful organization, but they are the true threat to Israel, unlike Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.

So, he may have come out swinging, but Obama picked the wrong punches. Instead of insisting he wouldn’t talk to Hamas, he’d have been better off ridiculing the notion that Hamas or Iran are the equivalent of Nazi Germany, and pointing out that Bush — by substituting teenage testosterone for serious policy — is essentially teeing up another war that will not be good for Israel or for the United States.

From Oga Tunji Lardner, a Nigerian journalist and self-confessed Latte Liberal, who is being reprinted in a fellow countryman’s blog called Omoluwabi Okebadan, finds some commonalities between Obama’s run today and Jesse Jackson’s candidacy for the White House more than 20 years ago.

I remember how the news of Jesse running for the presidency of the US in 1984 impacted on our global political consciousness in Nigeria, literally a generation ago. As a young idealistic journalist working for a fledgling weekly magazine, and like the rest of my equally young and idealistic colleagues, the very idea of a black man as the president of the United States was a notion we readily accepted as a possibility After all this was “the United States” —with its self evident truths about the equality of man: the democratic ideal that we all so dearly wished for Nigeria, which was then in the grip of yet another predatory and distinctively vicious military dictator by name Ibrahim Babangida.

Looking back, I marvel at our naiveté and sense of moral certitude about the world ultimately being a good and just place. I suppose we were subconsciously projecting our hope and sense of justice and optimism on that great whiteboard called America. To look too closely at our selves, our country, indeed our continent would have been too painful and depressing. So we cast our eyes far, far over the rainbow to that mythical place where someone like us was running to be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Even so, a little voice now and then whispered in our ears, the cold calculating facts of American electoral politics, there was no way any Jesse was going to beat the “Gipper,” an extremely popular incumbent Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless we persisted in our little game of self-deception, knowing fully well that given the tortured history of race in America, it was highly unlikely that a Blackman, indeed any black man would ever make to Pennsylvania Avenue in the foreseeable future.

However, times are different in 2008, where the grand narratives of African Americans, America and Africa are much changed.

Nelson Mandela once remarked about how African men (and by extension Black men) are tentative about fully embracing their potential greatness, but not this brother.
As I marvel at the sheer chutzpa of the man, trying hard not to “hate the player, but to hate the game”—almost like loving the sinner and hating the sin—that niggling little voice is back, again. It is saying, and I render this with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, and bearing in mind the properly contextualized, albeit widely misunderstood rhetoric of Reverend Wright, “Damn you Obama… Damn you! Damn you for blowing our collective alibis as black men… Damn you for kicking away our pathetic crutches, now we must stand tall, with no excuses, and grab and shape the destinies of our people!”

This time I am responding to the imperative rather than the fearfulness beneath the surface of this dubious little voice. It is a new day. And there is work to be done.

(Yes, you noticed correctly the word chutzpah has come up in this round up two different times.)

The Angry African, another member of the South African Diaspora residing in the U.S., proves that the process of writing is more than merely throwing words on the wall and praying they stick. He takes us through the development of writing a Dear John letter to Senator John McCain. We’ll skip right to the end result.

Dear John,

I don’t know quite how to tell you this, but you’re a schmuck. I think I first knew it when you shackled me. And I saw you render impotent the USA. I’m sure you’re masochistic enough to see how miserable I’ve been. I’m returning your Darth Vader poster. But I’m holding on to those oil stocks as a keepsake. I want you to know that I’ll be a lot better off without your new life as a clone.

Regards to your creepy (political) family,

Angry African

And things come full circle. Just because American candidates are a little fuzzy on African issues, that doesn’t mean African bloggers are clueless on the hopes and fears keeping most Americans up at night. Ivo, a South African who blogs at the Spike, argues the recent move by the U.S. Department of Interior makes a dangerous move by adding the polar bear to the list of endangered species because global warming threatens its habitat.

[I]t’s going to hit Americans — and anyone who buys American products or relies on American investment capital — in their pockets. Not only trade, but similar decisions made by other countries or by international bodies, will spread this damage worldwide.

Environmentalists failed to convince the US legislature to enact draconian new laws to enforce costly measures whose benefits are at best speculative. Having failed to make their case, they fall back on what appears to be an innocent and even noble regulatory decision. They know listing the polar bear as threatened opens the door for litigation to enforce their ideas about carbon dioxide emissions on others, on the basis that any such emissions contribute to the destruction of the polar bear’s habitat.

Orikinla Osinachi at the Nigerian Times reprints a letter calling on viewers to write CNN demanding an apology from Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos who was referring to Hillary Clinton on air when he said that some people are called bitches and sometime it is accurate.

Abesha Bunna Bet from Ethiopia joins the ranks of those who think commentator Bill O’Reilly of Fox News is bonkers. (His words, not mine.)

Just look at this report on the Qatari newspaper Al-Watan which explains that The U.S. is reviewing its plan and policies against Syria saying:

The U.S. policy of blockade, punishments and isolation of Syria brought negative results and were counterproductive, American policy advisors think that it is the time to negotiate with Syria…

I just read on an Arabic forum that Hezbollah is right now interested to find a solution for the Lebanses crisis than ever, to block the Saudi prince Bandar [head of the Saudi national security and Bush's close friend] attempts to wage a sectarian tension between Lebanese factions.

Egyptian No1 writer Fahmi Hawaidi wrote a good article today called “An attempt to understand what happened in Lebanon“, with an excellent start:

What happened in Lebanon is bad, but the worst is how the Arabs approached the crisis on the both fronts; politically and the media….with the pro-government teams suddenly brought the question of Hezbollah communication network that exists for 20 year..and suspicious Americans military movement at the Lebanese shores .. [These reasons] pushed Hezbollah to engage in a preemptive attack…

Also in his weekly program on Aljazeera [part-1, part-2], Mohamed Hassanein Heikal revealed few secrets about the assassinated Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri [in part-2] saying:

Hariri was a Saudi nationality and never had a Lebanese nationality because the Saudi law prevents the citizens from obtaining double nationality…. I met him in house in Paris and he told me that being the Lebanese prime Minister cost me 1 milliard dollar.

As for Azzaman report, quoting Syrian sources that Arab nationality arrested in Syria with connection to Mughniyah’s assassination, I said that before, he is a Saudi nationality.

The time, according to Hilal Khashan, was ten minutes past the ceasefire. That was another way of saying ten minutes after another Hezbollah victory, Khashan explained. I phoned Khashan — head of the political science department at Beirut’s American University — several days into Lebanon’s latest armed upheaval. He spoke in a strangely dispassionate tone I’ve heard before in Jerusalem and Ramallah, the voice of a man taking refuge from chaos in careful analysis.

So far, Khashan said on Sunday night, the crisis that erupted last week has yielded “a major achievement” for Hezbollah. Iran, Hezbollah’s patron, has extended its influence in Lebanon. The obvious loser is the pro-Western government of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. From Beirut, U.S. support appears to be a phantom; Bush unwilling or incapable of supporting its Lebanese allies.

From the slightly greater distance of Jerusalem, I’d add, there’s another implication of the fire burning anew in Lebanon: The Bush administration’s Middle East policy of confrontation, of trying to isolate opponents, is in tatters. In particular, the administration’s resistance to peace talks between Israel and Syria has only served to strengthen Iran. And time is working in Teheran’s favor. …

Read the rest here .
* Even for those practiced at believing six impossible things before breakfast , it can be hard to accept that Barack Obama is a Muslim, a follower of a controversial black pastor , and a Marxist too. Edward Luttwak proposed this neat solution : Obama is really an apostate Muslim, subject to the death penalty in Islam. So he will actually be more hated in the Muslim world, and in more danger, than the president who invaded Iraq for no purpose that has withstood historical scrutiny.Ali Ateraz provides a valuable guide to why this thesis contradicts Islamic law and Islamic social realities in a half-dozen different ways.But don’t expect the Obama-as-Muslim smear to vanish; it will merely change shape, as the phantasmagoric fears produced by bigotry always do. For precedents, see under Jewish communist-banker-Zionist-cosmopolitans.
* Trying to dispell the idea that he’s somehow anti-Israel, Obama gave this interview to Jeffrey Goldberg. I realize he has to do this, but my late mom, who introduced me to the line, “Senator, do you still beat your wife” would have warned that Obama is letting himself be baited in a similar way. He should, and could, have responded more forcefully: His opponents’ policies are dangerous to Israel. It’s true, and would put the burden of defense on those who need to defend outdated views.

Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezbollah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.

Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizbullah all those years with rockets, invasions of their homes and shutting down their media outlets. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing national consensus with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been building consensus with them. Because what we did back in 1982, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2006 – all that was plain betrayal and unnecessary antagonism, a product of a corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.

We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them.

Yes, this is change we believe in. Get me a time machine.

The collapse and humiliation of the U.S.-backed Lebanese government after it had foolishly threatened to curb Hizballah’s ability to fight Israel was simply the latest example of a failed U.S. policy of cajoling allies into confrontations with politically popular radical movements that the U.S. and its allies simply can’t win. And picking fights that you can’t win is not exactly adaptive behavior. Indeed, as I noted earlier this week, recovering alcoholics in America are taught the adage that repeating the same behavior and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity — but by measure of what we’ve seen in Gaza, Basra, Sadr City, that’s one lesson that appears to have eluded this particular administration. The Lebanese showdown was initiated by Washington’s closest allies threatening to close down Hizballah’s internal communication network, and it’s hard not to suspect that such a provocative move could only have been taken with Washington’s encouragement. And to put it unkindly, paper tigers should not play with matches.

The result was predictable, because in terms of popular support, organization, and arms in the field, the militias backing the U.S.-backed government are no match for Hizballah, which quickly seized control of Beirut, and also of other key locations. But Hizballah made abundantly clear that it had no intention of taking over the country, it was simply underlining its intention to maintain its capacity to fight Israel — and to resist any attempt to trim that capacity, regardless of whether such trimming is required by UN Security Council resolutions. That’s why it took control over key Druze-controlled towns in the Chouf — because they’re strategically valuable in any confrontation with the Israelis.

President Bush sounded like a man lost in his own fantasies when he vowed, in response, to “beef up” the Lebanese army to help it disarm Hizballah. The Lebanese Army, Bush appears not to have noticed, enjoys the trust of Hizballah, which is why the Shi’ite militia immediately handed over areas it captured to the Army. And the reason the Army enjoys Hizballah’s trust is its scrupulous neutrality in the civil conflict between the government and the Hizballah-led opposition (i.e. in the clash between the U.S.-Saudi backed bloc and the Syrian-Iranian backed bloc) — the Lebanese Army has no intention of disarming Hizballah. On the contrary, it appears willing to cooperate with the movement’s efforts to steel itself for a new battle with the Israelis.

Rami Khouri, the Daily Star editor at large whose analyses are essential reading, is optimistic over the potentials for a new Middle East political order revealed in the unfolding of events in Lebanon.

Herewith an excerpt of his analysis:

1. When the government decided to challenge Hezbollah last Tuesday, by announcing it was sacking the Shia army general in charge of airport security and dismantling Hezbollah’s underground security telecommunications network, Hezbollah saw this as the first serious attempt by the government to try and disarm it.

Hezbollah immediately challenged the government, warned it against these decisions, and made a show of force to protect its security and telecommunications system. When street clashes started in several parts of Beirut, the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah-led opposition alliance quickly and roundly asserted its dominance over the U.S.- and Saudi-backed government alliance. Put to the test, the new balance of power in Lebanon affirmed itself on the street for the first time in less than 24 hours.

2. All the Lebanese parties repeatedly indicated a preference for political compromise over communal war, but also showed they were prepared to fight if forced to. The persistent negotiations via the mass media included critical agreements on naming armed forces commander Michael Suleiman as the new president, resuming the national dialogue, forming a government of national unity, and revising the electoral law before holding parliamentary elections next year…

3. The newly vulnerable government effectively backed down Saturday and reversed its two decisions, as Hezbollah had demanded. The street balance of power was translated into a new political equation inside Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies had achieved on the street that which they had been asking for politically: the capacity to veto government decisions that were seen as threatening Hezbollah’s security and resistance activities.

4. By immediately handing over to the armed forces those few buildings and strategic locations that they had taken over in Beirut, Hezbollah and its allies sent the signal that they did not want to rule the entire country, and that they trusted the army as a neutral arbiter between the warring Lebanese factions.

Prime Minister Siniora sent the same message when he asked the armed forces and their commander Michele Suleiman to decide on the fate of the two contested government security decisions that had sparked Hezbollah’s move into West Beirut. The armed forces emerged as the powerful political arbiter and peace-keeper, effectively forming a fourth branch of government, and the only one that is credible and effective in the eyes of the entire population.

All factions have agreed to get armed gunmen off the streets and leave only the army and police as public security guardians. Now they are expected to follow up quickly by formally naming Suleiman as president (to which they have all agreed already), agreeing on a transitional national unity government of technocrats, and drawing up a new election law. The precise sequence of those events is one of the disputed points that must be agreed, but agreement may be easier now that the army has emerged as a pivotal arbiter and political actor.

The new domestic political balance of power in Lebanon will reflect millennia-old indigenous Middle Eastern traditions of different and often quarreling parties that live together peacefully after negotiating power relationships, rather than one party totally defeating and humiliating the other.

The idea that the Lebanese Army is now going to accept U.S. tutelage and “beefing up” is simply fanciful. Someone ought to tell the Bush White House the bad news: It lost Lebanon.

But as much as I respect Rami’s analysis, I’m not sure I share his optimism over the idea that the manner in which this round was settled could become a model for the Middle East. Here I would heed the warnings of another fine analyst and sometime Rootless Cosmopolitan contributor Alastair Crooke, writing specifically about the increasingly vacuous efforts by Western countries to “save” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “In the region — beyond the Ramallah hothouse — there is no ‘what if?’ The failure of the two-state solution is expected, and discounted, as thinking has evolved in a different direction: The cheer-leaders among Europeans desperate to ‘rescue’ it are stuck in denial from this perspective.”

The point holds for Pax Americana more generally in the Middle East. Crooke writes:

Israel has become so accustomed to Palestinian negotiators running to talks with Israel — irrespective of the deaths of Palestinians or new announcements of further illegal settlement construction — that Israel and the US Administration … believe that an Israeli ’signal of peace’, however cynical its motive, is enough to placate the region — and to allow Israel and the US the quiet with which to continue with their plans.

But if this is what they think, then it is little wonder that the West so regularly misreads the ground in the region: Not all Palestinians are ‘desperate’ for hope from Israel. Far from it, many are making ready against the possibility of conflict.

The feeling among Islamists, many secularists, Christians, and a number of states is of being at the cusp of fundamental change. Change is coming; and the region will not again be what it is today: This major current does not foresee the coming era to be the one that Europe or the US envisages; but something very different. Islamic movements and states such as Syria and Iran increasingly are concerned to judge the evolving strategic shifts accurately. This is more important to them than to make some tactical and short term political accommodation with western powers — no one wants to be caught on the wrong side of events.

Underlying this psychological mood-shift is the realisation that neither Israel nor the US seems able to come to terms with the key outcome from the two Gulf conflicts: the inevitable emergence of Iran as a pre-eminent regional power. Similarly, the consensus is that the US is incapable also of coming to terms with the prospect of Islamist empowerment; and therefore of adjusting its secular, free-market vision for the region. And there is no sense that Europe or Israel or the US understands the nature or the energies being released by the growing forces of ‘resistance’. … there is no real sense that Israel or its US and European friends possess the political resources to make a strategic change of direction; or even to come to terms with Iranian or Islamist empowerment.

Crooke sees in this inability by the Bush-led Western alliance to grasp the reality of the changes that have occurred in the Middle East a growing likelihood of war:

The dynamic of waning western power to shape events as the West would like, is that sooner or later, the risk of a clash between the polarised forces of the West with some part of the ‘axis-of-resistance’ becomes much greater. When Annapolis, Iraq and the current Israeli overtures to take Syria out from the ‘axis’ fail; when western options narrow; and when its ‘peace initiatives’ come-up empty, logic argues that a frustrated West is likely to resort to military means to weaken or break the ‘resistance’.

Syria and the Lebanese understand that they are in the frontline in this event — as much as Iran; and all are mentally stiffening themselves against this prospect. The region is not ‘desperate’ for peace: It would welcome it, of course; but much of it is also preparing and judiciously expecting the worst. It is the West’s lack of recognition of the strength and rigour of this new psychology of resilience towards prospective conflict, and of lack of understanding why western policies are seen as so dangerously inadequate and misconceived, that pushes many in the region to believe that a West, sunk in deep denial, carries with it the probability of conflict — whether inadvertent or deliberate. Unless it is understood that it is this strategic focus that preoccupies Iran, Syria, Hesballah and Hamas, their thinking cannot begin to be judged accurately — and grave mistakes may occur.

Crooke’s description of a hardening in preparation for war, to my mind, offer the best explanation for what drove Hizballah’s handling of the most recent crisis. If the choice facing the punch-drunk Bush Administration is between responding sensibly and creatively to the changed reality — as Rami Khouri suggests they ought to — and lashing out militarily in the hope of reversing the new balance of forces, as Alastair Crooke suggests they will, I’m afraid my money is on the Bush Administration maintaining its dismal record.