Post Realism Five

Racing Against Time

as the

World Heads Towards Chaos

By:
Wael Nawara

First Published May 2009

An eventual rift between the new US administration and the right-wing Israeli government may be inevitable. The Obama administration wants to be seen as reclaiming back its right to set the US foreign policy in the White House and the State Department and not in the halls and corridors of AIPAC conventions. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an American lobbying group, has advocated for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive for more than five decades, often against, many would argue, American interests. Obama delayed his meeting with Netanyahu as not to coincide with AIPAC's gathering in a symbolic gesture that the American agenda is no longer at the mercy of the strong pro-Israel lobby. The lobby which had hi-jacked US foreign policy for decades is slowly being realized as a threat to US interests and indeed, although no one will dare to say that, to World Peace and Global Security at large. When Netanyahu meets Obama on the 18th May, he will have to present an Israeli vision towards peace, if indeed a serious one exists.

It is fair, yet unpopular, to say that the situation in Palestine and Israeli discourse for the past few decades fuels, if it is not directly responsible for, the chaotic situation in Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Egypt and the developing worldwide clash between the West and Muslims. The West is seen to have blindly supported Israel with no regard to the indigenous people of Palestine, its neighbors and the Arab and Muslim worlds as a whole. With the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the bad situation in Iraq & Iran, Obama's administration is racing against time as the world heads towards chaos.

Israel itself faces a very uncertain future if it does not quickly resolve the Palestinian issue. Israeli negotiators have been too smart for Israel’s own interests, as they stalled for decades always demanding more from the defenseless Palestinian side while successive Israeli governments strived to change realities on the ground by building more settlements, erecting apartheid walls, confiscating homes, lands and seizing water resources such that the window for a viable two-state solution now has almost disappeared. The table will turn around soon and Israel will have to give many concessions in land, water, labor arrangements and other resources to resuscitate the dead embryo of a Palestinian State back to vitality.

Also See:

If Pakistan Falls

Obama Administration Takes Stronger Line With Israel

Post-Realism Demystified

Post Realism 4

Post Realism 2

Post Realism 3

Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

Post-Realism 5

Racing Against Time

as the

World Heads Towards Chaos

By:
Wael Nawara

An eventual rift between the new US administration and the right-wing Israeli government may be inevitable. The Obama administration wants to be seen as reclaiming back its right to set the US foreign policy in the White House and the State Department and not in the halls and corridors of AIPAC conventions. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an American lobbying group, has advocated for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive for more than five decades, often against, many would argue, American interests. Obama delayed his meeting with Netanyahu as not to coincide with AIPAC's gathering in a symbolic gesture that the American agenda is no longer at the mercy of the strong pro-Israel lobby. The lobby which had hi-jacked US foreign policy for decades is slowly being realized as a threat to US interests and indeed, although no one will dare to say that, to World Peace and Global Security at large. When Netanyahu meets Obama on the 18th May, he will have to present an Israeli vision towards peace, if indeed a serious one exists.

It is fair, yet unpopular, to say that the situation in Palestine and Israeli discourse for the past few decades fuels, if it is not directly responsible for, the chaotic situation in Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Egypt and the developing worldwide clash between the West and Muslims. The West is seen to have blindly supported Israel with no regard to the indigenous people of Palestine, its neighbors and the Arab and Muslim worlds as a whole. With the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the bad situation in Iraq & Iran, Obama's administration is racing against time as the world heads towards chaos.

Israel itself faces a very uncertain future if it does not quickly resolve the Palestinian issue. Israeli negotiators have been too smart for Israel’s own interests, as they stalled for decades always demanding more from the defenseless Palestinian side while successive Israeli governments strived to change realities on the ground by building more settlements, erecting apartheid walls, confiscating homes, lands and seizing water resources such that the window for a viable two-state solution now has almost disappeared. The table will turn around soon and Israel will have to give many concessions in land, water, labor arrangements and other resources to resuscitate the dead embryo of a Palestinian State back to vitality.

Also See:

If Pakistan Falls

Obama Administration Takes Stronger Line With Israel

Post-Realism Demystified

Post Realism 4

Post Realism 2

Post Realism 3

Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

Obamanomics

Obamanomics,

How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics

Seven Stories Press

Obamanomics How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics

By John R. Talbott

John R. Talbott is the author of The Coming Crash in the Housing Market, which he wrote in 2003.

Obama Ahead by 14% - CBS/NYT Poll Suggests

Double Digit Advantage

Obama 53% vs. McCain 39%

Hours before the Final

U.S. Presidential Debate,

Obama is 14% ahead of McCain

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

CBS News/NY Times: Obama 53% - Mccain 39%
Joe Sudbay (DC) · 10/14/2008 07:19:00 PM ET

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is entering the third and final presidential debate Wednesday with a wide lead over Republican rival John McCain nationally, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.

The Obama-Biden ticket now leads the McCain-Palin ticket 53 percent to 39 percent among likely voters, a 14-point margin. One week ago, prior to the Town Hall debate that uncommitted voters saw as a win for Obama, that margin was just three points.

Among independents who are likely voters - a group that has swung back and forth between McCain and Obama over the course of the campaign - the Democratic ticket now leads by 18 points. McCain led among independents last week.

McCain's campaign strategy may be hurting hurt him: Twenty-one percent of voters say their opinion of the Republican has changed for the worse in the last few weeks. The top two reasons cited for the change of heart are McCain's attacks on Obama and his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate....

McCain's favorable rating has fallen four points from last week, to 36 percent, and is now lower than his 41 percent unfavorable rating. Obama, by contrast, is now viewed favorably by half of registered voters and unfavorably by just 32 percent....

But with more than four out of five of each candidate’s supporters now saying their minds are made up, the poll suggests that McCain faces serious challenges as he looks to close the gap on his Democratic rival in the final three weeks of the campaign.

Source:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/cbs-newny-times-obama-53-mccain-39.html

Before America Votes

Telegraph.co.uk

US presidential debate:

Early polls give

Barack Obama

slender victory

Barack Obama appears to have won a slender victory over John McCain in the first presidential debate, a vital test for both candidates in America's knife-edge election campaign.

By Philip Sherwell in Oxford, Mississippi Last Updated: 7:58AM BST 28 Sep 2008

Two instant television polls and a focus group showed Barack Obama ahead Photo: EPA

Two instant television polls and a focus group conducted by top consultant Frank Luntz gave the Democratic senator a lead over his Republican rival among the all-important undecided voters.
His apparent victory was not clear cut, however, with some pundits declaring Sen McCain the winner on points just five weeks before Americans cast their ballots.

Although the party nomination battles began 20 months ago and the election has already cost more than $1 billion, this was the first time that many Americans will have focused closely on the performance of the two candidates to replace President George W Bush.

With two more debates due before the Nov 4 voting, neither candidate landed a knock-out punch or committed the sort of disastrous gaffe that can determine an election.

Instead, they both tried to impress on viewers a negative image of the other candidate: Mr McCain kept insinuating that his younger rival lacked the experience for high office.

"There are some advantages to experience and knowledge and judgement," he said. He then taunted Mr Obama by quoting a remark used in the primaries by Joe Biden, who subsequently became the Democratic senator's running mater. "I don't need to do any on-the-job training," he said.

In turn, Mr Obama repeatedly linked the Arizona senator to the failed policies of the Bush administration, saying Mr McCain had agreed with the president "90 per cent of the time".
When pressed to answer the most important question in America today, however, neither candidate was willing to risk a clear response: they both dodged questions on the $700 billion plan to rescue Wall Street.

Mr McCain cited his battle against wasteful federal expenditure, the first of many references during the evening to his "record" - drawing an implicit contrast with his rival's inexperience on the national stage.

Mr Obama countered by seeking to tie Mr McCain to the economic policies of the Bush White House and its "orgy of spending" and argued that he was out of touch with the needs of American workers.

During the exchanges on economics, Mr McCain accused Mr Obama of having "the most liberal voting record in the Senate" and then added: "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."

Mr Obama responded: "John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly, that's just me opposing George Bush's wrongheaded policies since I've been in Congress."

In these televised debates, as much attention is paid to style as substance. Mr Obama still came across as cool and slightly detached at times - although not as aloof or professorial as during the primaries. And he came to life during the more lively clashes over foreign policy.

But Mr McCain also sometimes reinforced negative impressions of himself as a "cranky old man" as he repeatedly put his young foe down with the words "he doesn't understand" and refused to look him in the eye.

Just hours before the debate began it was unclear whether it would happen at all. Mr McCain had stunned Americans by announcing he would not take part in order to help push the financial bail-out through Congress.

But at the last minute he changed his mind and flew to the small college town of Oxford where the debate was being held on the campus of the University of Mississippi.

While the financial crisis dominated headlines, it was foreign affairs that provoked the sharpest exchanges in Friday night's showdown.

On Iraq, Mr McCain assailed Mr Obama for opposing the recent troop "surge", refusing to acknowledge its success, insisting on a timetable for withdrawal and not visiting the country for more than 900 days.

But Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain, reminding the audience that he had opposed the war from the start and then attacking his rival's judgment on a series of key issues.

"You said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between the Shia and Sunni. You were wrong."

Mr McCain took the harshest digs at Mr Obama over his assertion during the primary battle with former First Lady Hillary Clinton that he would be willing to meet the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without setting conditions.

"Sen Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse', and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimise those comments," he said witheringly. "This is dangerous. It isn't just naive, it's dangerous."

Mr McCain also slammed Mr Obama for allegedly saying he would attack Pakistan. That brought a stinging riposte. "Coming from you, who in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know how credible that is," said Mr Obama.

The Democrat repeatedly said that Mr McCain had backed Mr Bush in making Iraq a priority when Osama bin Laden remained free somewhere on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Although the debate was originally scheduled to cover foreign affairs and national security, the first 40 of the 90 minutes were eventually allotted to the economic crisis.

Mr McCain's sometimes patronising attitude cost him support among a panel of 27 undecided voters assembled in the swing state of Nevada by Mr Luntz, a Republican polling guru.
Using hand-held dials, they indicated their reactions throughout the debate. Thirteen had supported Democrat John Kerry four years ago and 12 were for Mr Bush, with two voting for neither. By the end of Friday's debate, 17 said they felt more favourable about Mr Obama and 10 about Mr McCain.

"They felt that McCain was too negative and they didn't see the validity of some of his attacks," Mr Luntz told The Sunday Telegraph. "They felt he had the experience ut they wanted to hear him talk about the future not the past. And they felt he had been playing politics when he threatened not to turn up for the debate.

"Obama came across as more passionate and more eager. He seemed to have more life to him.

"It was an ok night for John McCain and a good one for Barack Obama. The trouble for McCain is that he's the one behind in the polls. He now only has two debates left to score."

In a so-called "insta-poll" of 524 uncommitted voters for CNN, Mr Obama won the debate by 51 per cent to 38 per cent. CBS conducted a similar survey with a victory for Mr Obama by a 39 to 24 per cent margin, with 36 per cent declaring it a draw.

Advisors to the two candidates sought to spin the debate result afterwards. "John McCain had Obama on the defensive throughout for his naïve statements and bad judgement," said Charlie Black, a senior aide to the Republican candidate.

Mr McCain's campaign senior strategist Steve Schmidt stuck to similar talking points, arguing:

"McCain showed his mastery of the issues tonight and Obama was on the back foot. Sen Obama is a gifted speaker but he doesn't have a record of bringing about change."

David Axelrod, Mr Obama's top strategist, responded:

"Only one candidate was presenting a vigorous case for change and standing up for real America. That was Barack Obama. McCain is mistaking his long resume for evidence of wisdom and judgement."

Post Realism 4

Renewing American Leadership

Article By: Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Summary:

After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the U.S. Presidential Elections 2008.

COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism. Truman championed a bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world. As colonialism crumbled and the Soviet Union achieved effective nuclear parity, Kennedy modernized our military doctrine, strengthened our conventional forces, and created the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress. They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.

Continue to Read This Article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Post Realism 3

Bush Calls for Reforming the United Nations!

Wael Nawara

Yes. It is true. This is not a joke or a make-blieve post or a wishful-thinking sort of article. Bush on Tuesday (23 Sep 2008), called for the reform of the United Nations!

Jay Allbritton: Sep 24th 2008 12:49 AM

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/24/bush-calls-on-united-nations-to-reform/

During President Bush's farewell speech to the United Nations Tuesday, he called on the UN to reform. Despite running what many critics refer to as the most secretive administration in American history, Bush called on the UN to "open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose."

The UN didn't exactly extend Bush a rousing ovation. According to the Associated Press, the President received "less than 10 seconds of polite applause at the end of [the] speech".

I think Bush will be remembered as the President who made a mockery of the United Nations. In 2003, ordered the invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it. President Bush also had his own sideshow act on global warming. Instead of working with the international community and signing the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 172 countries, he insisted on opposing international constraints aimed at curbing carbon emissions. In 2004, on the wake of the Tsunami disaster, Bush was accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief.

Under Clinton Administration, the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC" by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

Why does the U.S. Oppose Development of an "International Justice System"?

The United Nation's Security Council is already flawed. The five permenant members of the Security Council are: the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China. Britain and France are close allies of the United States, although France sometimes votes against the United States' wishes. These permenant members have "Veto Powers" which can stall any Security Council resolution which "any of them" does not like! The U.S., in this position, already has a disproportionate influence on the United Nations and on the Security Council decisions. An influence it has often used to prevent even symbolic gestures of "International Justice" to be made against Israel for instance.

On Sept. 10, 1972, for the second time in its UN history, the U.S. its veto, this time —to shield Israel. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html)

That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same
period.

The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three
more.

I believe that George Bush [Sr.] had realized the importance of having a balanced approach in the Middle East region, to be able to act in situations such as the first Gulf War with some Arab backing. Ironically, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, brough about a decade of positive progress in the Palestinian Front. Oslo accords were signed in 1993 and the few years that followed saw hope and optimism.

In my view, this hope and optimism was brought about by this slight change of policy on the U.S. part. Blind support of Israel undermined U.S. credibility as a "broker", but most importantly, it had given Israel the comfort that it can get away with murder with U.S. shielding it from International blame. This unconditional backing created a monster. And that "monsterous" approach, in my view, sabotaged Israel's ability to co-exist peacefully in the region. Israel became like a bully whose mum was the headmistress of the school. When bad behavior goes unchecked for years, it develops into bad attitude, which stays with one for life, a life marked by repeated offences and jail time. Eventually, when the mother is no longer there to protect the now-grown-up bully, the poor bully finds it hard to adjust to the real world which no longer forgives such misconduct.

I believe that the U.S. policy of undermining the United Nations and opposing development of International Justice institutions such as ICC, also works against U.S. best interests. Only when an effective International Justice System is developed, can the world be a more safe place. The United States needs to play a strong role in that process, which can never be successful if the U.S. refrains from supporting it, or worse, work to undermine it.

Senator Obama wrote an article last year which was published in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, where he said:

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

I have only one word to say in response to that:

Amen.

Secular America Votes

Too Secular to Win?

"I do not trust him (Obama) he is a Muslim ..."An average woman interviewed on the CNN declared.

Many million Americans will not vote for Obama for the same reason, which is riduculous since Obama is NOT a Muslim. But he seems like a Muslim, enough. He could be a Muslim. His father may have been a Muslim. How ridiculous is that?

Could anyone have said:

I do not trust him ... he is a Jew ... or he is a Catholic?

No. Not today. That would be suicidal.

25 years ago ... Ronald Reagan, while a president, was visiting a school in Oregon, Orlando ... at the end of his speech to students he said something like: "Go home and read you bible".

The media took him for a roller coaster ride.

America had been discovering and affirming its secular voice in the previous decades ...

So, what happened?

Why isn't America so secular anymore?

It is a different world today ... that's for sure ... America had grown more religious? Possibly. The world had grown a lot more religious. I am pretty sure that the Arab-Israeli conflict had something to do with it.

Israel is a Modern Theocracy. Secular Zionists decided to use the Religious sentiments to make their enterprise possible. That came with a price. The reaction to that was an Islamist resistance movement which decidedly used the same sentiment ... religion ... a different religion ... Is it really that different ...?

Jewish lobbies also used the right-wing Christian sentiments in the US. Resurrection of Jesus required building of the Jewish Temple ... and Israel was the pre-cursor for that. So they thought ... or rather, so they thought "The Book" said ...

It is the Armageddon with flying bloody colors ... a self-fulfilling prophecy ... which exists in Islamic, Jewish and Christian religious thought.

Satellite TV came ... and with it the Religious Industry in the US and elsewhere flourished. With Religious Celebreties ... movie-star-like Charisma ... they own their channels or programs ... and they own their private planes ... and raise millions of dollars in donations ... they play on fear and frustration ... and they spread hatred and suspicion.

We have those modern "Breachers" here too in Egypt and the region ... the Movie-Star, Talk-Show religious figures ...

Obama commented on that once ... and McCain used that slip of the tongue ...

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Obama today has to say ... "I pray to Jesus Christ, our Savior ... " to stand a winning chance surely with recommendations from his campaign advisors. Obama, has to put up a show of Christian faith before the voters, to stand a chance. When did people stop thinking that a person's religion is their own business?

Discrimpination has always existed. Only against different people.

What is the world coming to?

Where is Secular America?

Can Obama, if he ever wins, try to help change that? Help pick our world from these trends of rising religious-mania ... starting with the US?

But will he ever win?

My 13-year-old daughter thought that America was not ready for a Woman president (Hillary) or a Black president (Obama) ... although she is a democract at heart (genetic disorder she inheritted from me) ...

Do we have to catch the measles to get immunity?

Can't we just get the vaccination?

*************************

Photo Adapted from

http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com